雖然自二○○八年馬政府執政以來，台灣政府對民主與公義的侵蝕便不曾止息，但最近的的馬王政爭事件，嚴重破壞了民主政治中，權力分立及制約與平衡的基本原則。
我們對於馬總統以特偵組對付政敵、干涉司法程序以達政治意圖，及試圖使立法院長王金平喪失職務等手段，表達深切關注。
運用特偵組遂行政治意圖：於二○○七年設立，原意為調查政府官員貪污的特偵組，過去幾年來在檢察總長黃世銘的領導之下，逐漸成為執政國民黨掃蕩政敵的工具。而現在更進一步的運用了監聽作為其手段。
特偵組極盡所能的起訴了前總統陳水扁，以及約四打左右的前民進黨官員，許多被告最後都由法院宣判無罪。然而特偵組在面對執政黨官員時，僅在證據確鑿，難以忽視的情形下，方才起訴。例如前行政院秘書長林益世，以及國民黨籍台北市議員賴素如。
干涉司法程序：目前的危機起源於馬總統指控王金平院長，涉嫌為民進黨立院黨鞭柯建銘向司法部長曾勇夫及檢察長陳守煌等人進行關說，要求他們對最高法院的無罪判決不再進行上訴。
如果馬總統認為王院長的行為構成了關說，那他可能得回家照照鏡子。二○一○年十一月，當地方法院對前總統陳水扁遭指控的一項罪名做出無罪判決時，馬總統公開批評了此項判決，表示司法系統不應「與現實脫節」及「違背社會期待」。
同月九日，馬總統邀請了司法院長及檢察總長聚餐，並且再次表達了對該判決的不滿。而僅兩天後，於十一日，最高法院忽然宣布對陳前總統遭起訴另一案的最終「有罪」判決。如果這不是關說，那甚麼才是關說？
破 壞三權分立原則：馬總統試圖運用關說一案解除王金平身為立法院長的職務。總統運用他身為國民黨主席的身分使王金平遭開除黨籍，而王因身為不分區立委，此舉 將使他失去立委以及院長的身分。馬總統對自身所兼有的兩種身分之濫用，不禁令人想起戒嚴時期黑暗的過去，黨國不分，而法院則為前兩者服務。
如果王院長違反了任何行政規定，則應由立法院內的紀律委員會進行處理。而如果涉嫌違法，則應循正當法律程序進行，而非先行撤銷王院長的黨籍。馬總統的這些行為，已經嚴重違反了民主政治中制約與平衡的基本原則。
建言與結語：首先我們必須聲明，此一危機必須靠台灣的體制及人民自行解決。作為一群深切關心台灣未來的國際觀察者，我們認為下列的行動方針，是對現況最適切，並有所助益的：
一、廢除最高法院檢察署特別偵查組，以及所賦予的權力。將檢察權回歸所屬的常態體制。
二、進行司法改革以求完全除去政治干預，使司法體系能真正獨立運作，不受行政與立法部門掣肘，遂行三權分立。
三、進行立院改革，以期使立法程序能夠真正反映政治交涉中的互讓與妥協，而不同的政治觀點也均能得到應有的尊重，並透過理性論述，而非肢體衝突，達成最終決議。
簽署人：
1.Clive M. Ansley（加拿大人權律師，「加拿大律師人權觀察」董事、會員。加拿大溫哥華市）
2.Coen Blaauw 昆布勞（台灣人公共關係會執行主任。美國華盛頓特區）
3.Jean-Pierre Cabestan 高敬文（浸會大學政治及國際關係學系教授及系主任。香港）
4.Gordon Chang 章家敦（《核子攤牌：北韓跟全球作對》作者）
5.Wen-yen Chen 陳文彥（美國華府大學退休教授及北美洲台灣教授協會前會長）
6.William Cox MD（阿拉斯加州諾姆市）
7.Michael Danielsen（丹麥哥本哈根Taiwan Corner主席）
8.June Teufel Dreyer 金德芳（美國邁阿密大學政治學教授。佛羅里達州邁阿密市）
9.Stephen R. Halsey 郝帝文（美國邁阿密大學歷史系助理教授）
10.Michael Rand Hoare（倫敦大學亞非學院助理研究員）
11.Thomas G. Hughes（美國前參議員斐爾國會辦公室主任）
12.Bruce Jacobs 家博（澳洲蒙納許大學亞洲語言和研究教授。澳洲墨爾本市）
13.Richard Kagan 柯義耕（美國翰林大學歷史系退休教授；《台灣的政治家：李登輝與亞洲的民主》〔暫譯〕及《陳水扁市長》〔暫譯〕作者）
14.Mark Kao 高龍榮（台灣人公共事務會會長。美國華盛頓特區）
15.Jerome Keating 祈潤夫（已退休國立台北大學副教授；《湍流中的島嶼：台灣簡史》〔暫譯〕及《台灣：自我認同的追尋》〔暫譯〕 作者）
16.Hon. David Kilgour（加拿大前國會議員及前亞太國務卿。加拿大渥太華市）
17.Paul Kovenock 柯逸山（退休美國外交官。維吉尼亞州阿靈頓市）
18.Donald Rodgers （美國德州奧斯丁大學政治學系副教授。德州）
19.Christian Schafferer（僑光科技大學國際貿易系副教授，奧地利東亞研究協會主任，「當代東亞」主編）
20.David Schak 沙學漢（格里菲斯大學國際貿易與亞洲研究兼任副教授。澳洲布里斯本市）
21.Rev. Michael Stainton（加拿大台灣人權協會主席。加拿大多倫多市）
22.Ross Terrill（美國哈佛大學費正清東亞研究中心；《毛澤東與新中華帝國》〔暫譯〕作者）
23.Rev. Milo Thornberry 唐培禮（《撲火飛蛾》作者）
24.John Tkacik 譚慎格（前美國傳統基金會資深研究員及前美國國務院台灣事務協調處官員。維吉尼亞州亞歷山卓市）
25.Arthur Waldron 林霨（美國賓夕法尼亞大學國際關係學系教授）
26.Hon. Josef Weidenholzer（歐洲國會成員。奧地利約翰開普勒林茨大學社群與社會政策學院教授）
27.Gerrit van der Wees 韋傑理（台灣公報編輯。美國華盛頓特區）
28.Michael Yahuda 葉胡達（倫敦政經學院退休教授，喬治華盛頓大學訪問學者。美國華盛頓特區）
英文原版請見：原文連結
Human rights, democracy threatened
As international SCHOLARS and writers who applauded the transition to
democracy, that began in the late 1980s, we are deeply concerned about
the backsliding of freedom, democracy and human rights under the current
administration in Taiwan.
While an erosion of democracy and justice has been ongoing since this administration assumed office in 2008, recent events constitute a fundamental breach of the basic principles of separation of powers and checks and balances in a democracy.
We refer in particular to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) use of the Special Investigation Division (SID) of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, set up in 2007 to deal with major corruption cases involving government officials, against his political opponents, to his interference in the judicial system for political purposes and to his attempt to remove Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平).
POLITICAL USE OF SID
During the past years, the SID under Prosecutor-General Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘), has increasingly become a tool of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to rid itself of its political opponents. It now turns out that SID has made extensive use of wiretaps against its opponents.
The SID relentlessly pursued former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), as well as prosecuted about four dozen members of the democratic opposition and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials. Many of those were later declared not guilty by the courts. Only when the evidence could not be ignored, did the SID go after officials in the KMT, such as Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) and Taipei Legislator Lai Su-ju (賴素如).
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE
In the present crisis, Ma is accusing Wang of “influence peddling” saying that Wang allegedly called then-justice minister Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) and Chief Prosecutor Chen Shou-huang (陳守煌) to urge them not to appeal a not-guilty verdict by the High Court against DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘).
If Ma considers this “influence peddling,” then he needs to look in the mirror. In November 2010, when a court declared Chen not guilty on one of the charges against him, Ma publicly criticized the verdict in the strongest of terms, saying that the justice system should avoid “detaching itself from the outside world” and “departing from public expectations.”
A couple of days later, on Nov. 9, 2010, Ma invited the chief justice and the prosecutor-general for dinner and again fulminated against the not-guilty verdict. Two days later, on Nov. 11, 2010, the Supreme Court abruptly came down with a final “guilty” verdict in another case against the former president. If this was not influence peddling, then what is?
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Ma has attempted to use the “influence peddling” case against Wang to remove him from his position. The president then used his position as chairman of the KMT to have Wang’s membership in the party revoked. As Wang is an at-large member of the legislature, this would also mean that he would lose his position as speaker. Ma’s convoluted use of his two positions harks back to Taiwan’s dark days of Martial Law, in which the party, the state and the judiciary were synonymous.
If Wang had committed any minor transgressions, this could certainly have been dealt with by a disciplinary committee within the legislature. If he had committed a violation of any law, then a due process of law would have been appropriate, rather than an attempt to evict Wang from the KMT. Ma’s actions against the speaker certainly constitute a violation of the principle of checks and balances in a democracy.
While an erosion of democracy and justice has been ongoing since this administration assumed office in 2008, recent events constitute a fundamental breach of the basic principles of separation of powers and checks and balances in a democracy.
We refer in particular to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) use of the Special Investigation Division (SID) of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, set up in 2007 to deal with major corruption cases involving government officials, against his political opponents, to his interference in the judicial system for political purposes and to his attempt to remove Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平).
POLITICAL USE OF SID
During the past years, the SID under Prosecutor-General Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘), has increasingly become a tool of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to rid itself of its political opponents. It now turns out that SID has made extensive use of wiretaps against its opponents.
The SID relentlessly pursued former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), as well as prosecuted about four dozen members of the democratic opposition and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government officials. Many of those were later declared not guilty by the courts. Only when the evidence could not be ignored, did the SID go after officials in the KMT, such as Cabinet secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) and Taipei Legislator Lai Su-ju (賴素如).
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE
In the present crisis, Ma is accusing Wang of “influence peddling” saying that Wang allegedly called then-justice minister Tseng Yung-fu (曾勇夫) and Chief Prosecutor Chen Shou-huang (陳守煌) to urge them not to appeal a not-guilty verdict by the High Court against DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘).
If Ma considers this “influence peddling,” then he needs to look in the mirror. In November 2010, when a court declared Chen not guilty on one of the charges against him, Ma publicly criticized the verdict in the strongest of terms, saying that the justice system should avoid “detaching itself from the outside world” and “departing from public expectations.”
A couple of days later, on Nov. 9, 2010, Ma invited the chief justice and the prosecutor-general for dinner and again fulminated against the not-guilty verdict. Two days later, on Nov. 11, 2010, the Supreme Court abruptly came down with a final “guilty” verdict in another case against the former president. If this was not influence peddling, then what is?
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Ma has attempted to use the “influence peddling” case against Wang to remove him from his position. The president then used his position as chairman of the KMT to have Wang’s membership in the party revoked. As Wang is an at-large member of the legislature, this would also mean that he would lose his position as speaker. Ma’s convoluted use of his two positions harks back to Taiwan’s dark days of Martial Law, in which the party, the state and the judiciary were synonymous.
If Wang had committed any minor transgressions, this could certainly have been dealt with by a disciplinary committee within the legislature. If he had committed a violation of any law, then a due process of law would have been appropriate, rather than an attempt to evict Wang from the KMT. Ma’s actions against the speaker certainly constitute a violation of the principle of checks and balances in a democracy.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
First and foremost, it is up to the people and political system of Taiwan to resolve the crisis. In our, view as foreign observers who care deeply for Taiwan and its future, it is clear that actions along the following lines would be most helpful and appropriate:
‧ Abolition of the SID and an end to the powers that were vested in this office. A return to normalcy in the prosecutorial branch is long overdue.
‧ Judicial reform with the goal of removal of political influence in the judiciary, ensuring a complete
independence from both the executive and legislative branches of government, leading to a clear separation of powers.
‧ Legislative reform so that the legislative process becomes a true give-and-take of political negotiations, where all political opinions are respected and where decisions are made on the basis of rational discussion rather than physical threats and confrontation.
Clive M. Ansley, Canadian human rights lawyer and member, board of directors, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Vancouver, Canada
Coen Blaauw, executive director, Formosan Association for Public Relations, Washington
Jean-Pierre Cabestan, professor and head, Department of government and international studies, Baptist University, Hong Kong
Gordon Chang, author, “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China”
Wen-yen Chen, professor emeritus, University of the District of Columbia, and former president, North America Taiwanese Professors’ Association
William Cox, MD, Nome, Alaska
Michael Danielsen, chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen
June Teufel Dreyer, professor, Department of political science, University of Miami, Miami
Stephen R. Halsey, assistant professor, Department of history, University of Miami, Florida
William T. Hipwell, professor, Department of geography and environmental studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Michael Rand Hoare, research associate, School of Oriental and African studies, University of London
Thomas G. Hughes, former chief of staff to the late senator Claiborne Pell, Washington.
Bruce Jacobs, professor, Department of Asian languages and studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Richard Kagan, professor emeritus, Department of history, Hamline University, St Paul Minnesota and author, “Taiwan’s Statesman, Lee Teng-hui and Democracy in Asia” and “Mayor Chen Shui-bian: Taipei, Taiwan”
Mark Kao, president, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington.
Jerome Keating, associate professor, National Taipei University (retired), and author, “Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex History” and “Taiwan, the Search for Identity”
Hon David Kilgour, former member of the Canadian Parliament and former secretary of state for Asia-Pacific (2002-2003), Ottawa, Canada
Paul Kovenock, US Department of state (retired), Arlington, Virginia
Donald Rodgers, associate professor, Department of political science, Austin College, Texas
Christian Schafferer, associate professor, Department of international trade, Overseas Chinese University, Taiwan, editor, “Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia” president, Asian Political and International Studies Association
David Schak, adjunct associate professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Rev Michael Stainton, president, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada, Toronto, Canada
Ross Terrill, Fairbank Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, author, “The New Chinese Empire and Mao”
Rev Milo Thornberry, author, “Fireproof Moth, A Missionary in Taiwan’s White Terror”
John Tkacik, US foreign service (retired) and president, China Business Intelligence, Alexandria, Virginia
Arthur Waldron, Lauder professor of international relations, Department of history, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Hon Josef Weidenholzer, Member of European Parliament, professor, Institute of societal and social policy, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria
Gerrit van der Wees, editor, “Taiwan Communique”, Washington
Michael Yahuda, professor emeritus, the London School of Economics, visiting scholar, George Washington University, Washington
First and foremost, it is up to the people and political system of Taiwan to resolve the crisis. In our, view as foreign observers who care deeply for Taiwan and its future, it is clear that actions along the following lines would be most helpful and appropriate:
‧ Abolition of the SID and an end to the powers that were vested in this office. A return to normalcy in the prosecutorial branch is long overdue.
‧ Judicial reform with the goal of removal of political influence in the judiciary, ensuring a complete
independence from both the executive and legislative branches of government, leading to a clear separation of powers.
‧ Legislative reform so that the legislative process becomes a true give-and-take of political negotiations, where all political opinions are respected and where decisions are made on the basis of rational discussion rather than physical threats and confrontation.
Clive M. Ansley, Canadian human rights lawyer and member, board of directors, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, Vancouver, Canada
Coen Blaauw, executive director, Formosan Association for Public Relations, Washington
Jean-Pierre Cabestan, professor and head, Department of government and international studies, Baptist University, Hong Kong
Gordon Chang, author, “Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China”
Wen-yen Chen, professor emeritus, University of the District of Columbia, and former president, North America Taiwanese Professors’ Association
William Cox, MD, Nome, Alaska
Michael Danielsen, chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen
June Teufel Dreyer, professor, Department of political science, University of Miami, Miami
Stephen R. Halsey, assistant professor, Department of history, University of Miami, Florida
William T. Hipwell, professor, Department of geography and environmental studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Michael Rand Hoare, research associate, School of Oriental and African studies, University of London
Thomas G. Hughes, former chief of staff to the late senator Claiborne Pell, Washington.
Bruce Jacobs, professor, Department of Asian languages and studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Richard Kagan, professor emeritus, Department of history, Hamline University, St Paul Minnesota and author, “Taiwan’s Statesman, Lee Teng-hui and Democracy in Asia” and “Mayor Chen Shui-bian: Taipei, Taiwan”
Mark Kao, president, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington.
Jerome Keating, associate professor, National Taipei University (retired), and author, “Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex History” and “Taiwan, the Search for Identity”
Hon David Kilgour, former member of the Canadian Parliament and former secretary of state for Asia-Pacific (2002-2003), Ottawa, Canada
Paul Kovenock, US Department of state (retired), Arlington, Virginia
Donald Rodgers, associate professor, Department of political science, Austin College, Texas
Christian Schafferer, associate professor, Department of international trade, Overseas Chinese University, Taiwan, editor, “Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia” president, Asian Political and International Studies Association
David Schak, adjunct associate professor of international business and Asian studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Rev Michael Stainton, president, Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada, Toronto, Canada
Ross Terrill, Fairbank Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, author, “The New Chinese Empire and Mao”
Rev Milo Thornberry, author, “Fireproof Moth, A Missionary in Taiwan’s White Terror”
John Tkacik, US foreign service (retired) and president, China Business Intelligence, Alexandria, Virginia
Arthur Waldron, Lauder professor of international relations, Department of history, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Hon Josef Weidenholzer, Member of European Parliament, professor, Institute of societal and social policy, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria
Gerrit van der Wees, editor, “Taiwan Communique”, Washington
Michael Yahuda, professor emeritus, the London School of Economics, visiting scholar, George Washington University, Washington
沒有留言:
張貼留言