長歌琴劍—遙祭賓雁

不見長城阻天關﹐ 唯有巨浪筑愁籓﹐

秋水已望穿﹐ 故人不得還。

無盡長天兮﹐ 低眉念﹔

神傷大地兮﹐ 舉頭看。

 

鄉愁未催琴心老﹐ 常笑遮天巨魔小﹐

劍膽流墨書似刀﹐ 軟紙成影泰山高。

白山長白兮﹐ 著素縞﹔

黑水悠悠兮﹐ 遙相悼﹗

 

——這首詩是在我的忘年好友劉賓雁去世時所賦。2005.12.06

民進黨沉淪莫此為甚

民進黨幾位立委爆料TVBS為港資﹐因為港資就是中資﹐所以﹐這是TVBS被中資掌控﹐TVBS與中國裡應外合﹐企圖顛覆顛覆台灣政府。

這一指控牽涉到政府與媒體的關係﹐我來自專制的中國大陸﹐因爭取包括新聞自由的民主價值被政府追緝﹐而流亡到了民主的台灣﹐對於專制與民主制度下﹐政府與媒體之間的關係有點淺顯的思考﹐想在此就教於以推動台灣民主的功臣自居的民進黨人。
 

•   民主制度下媒體批評監督政府。專制制度下媒體只能歌頌政府﹐為政府立場護航﹔
   


•   如果媒體批判政府﹐民主政府以媒體為第四權﹐無論多麼不情願﹐也必須給予尊重。專制政府會扣帽子指責其企圖顛覆﹔
  
  


•   民主政府對於媒體或任何民間公司只有依法行政管理的權力﹐哪怕該媒體或民間企業背後的投資主導者是政治立場敵對力量的侵入﹐也不能以此為超越政府與民間關係的籍口。專制政府會對令其頭痛的媒體或任何民間公司背後的投資進行政治審查﹐哪怕只是懷疑有所謂“敵人”力量的涉入﹐都會以“裡應外合”等名詞羅織罪名﹐直到這種令人頭痛的壓力消失為止﹔
  

對於TVBS指責是企圖顛覆政府﹐我也是因“陰謀顛覆政府罪”而被中國政府通緝﹐專制的中國政府拿出的罪證就是我曾經組織數十萬人遊行抗爭﹐雖然所有的抗爭均為和平方式﹐也從未提出對政府統治權的挑戰﹐然而﹐專制政府照樣以此為罪名通緝起訴。

我想在一個民主社會的執政黨國會議員指責任何人顛覆﹐那麼所依據的事實一定鐵證如山了吧﹖事實上﹐被指控的TVBS最近的所作所為﹐正是善盡媒體職責﹐監督批評政府﹐其職責內容也遵守媒體舉證義務﹐令上至總統的執政當局窮於應付﹐顛覆之議﹐只能凸顯指責者居心叵測或水準太差。

這些立委爆料的證據不足﹐指責的邏輯混沌﹐其它民進黨人應該也一目瞭然﹐如果這些國會議員水準太差﹐總是會有其它有水準的國會議員﹐政府官員﹐政黨發言人出面澄清吧﹖

然而﹐整個民進黨因道德勇氣不足或道德標準模糊而緘默不語。

不僅如此﹐新聞局更是配合默契﹐抽絲剝繭﹐找到了聯意公司未依法向新聞局申報董監事名單變動的證據﹐先依衛廣法三十八條﹐開出新台幣二十萬元罰單﹐並宣稱TVBS公司股權登記若以偽造文書申請﹐違反衛星廣播電視法﹐以不法手段取得許可﹐可撤銷執照。

姚局長可以以身為政務官必須嚴格執法為自己的行為解釋﹐若以同樣嚴格的標準審視﹐台灣的所有港資企業是否都應該噤若寒蟬了呢﹖把依法以台灣公司投資說成是港資﹐把港資說成是中資﹐姚局長這是瀆職以及濫權﹐至少算是不熟悉法律﹐不適任政務官職。

而對於TVBS未依法向新聞局申報董監事名單變動的技術過失﹐姚局長以撤照為恫嚇﹐這屬於缺乏基本民主修養。在一個以民主進步為宗旨為黨名的執政體系﹐缺乏基本民主修養本應令其長官震怒撤職﹐但似乎這已經屬於民進黨執政的常態﹐人民至今也只能搖頭嘆息。

人民因為對於民主價值的尊崇而給予衝撞國民黨專制體制的民進黨今天執政的機會﹐當TVBS這個媒體對於其執政的腐敗給予嚴厲批判的時候﹐就算TVBS的投資背景完全是中資﹐完全是中共這個專制體制﹐他們的聲音也必須給予尊重。然而﹐不去對於他們言論的內容給予嚴肅誠懇的回應和反省﹐反而從TVBS的投資背景開刀﹐民進黨的沉淪令人民扼腕悔嘆。

民主進步黨﹐還記得民主﹐進步嗎﹖人民還記得。

柴玲是個好樣的﹗

 

轉眼之間﹐我們已經在紀念“六四”十六週年的紀念日了﹐我們是不是還要在明年後年繼續感慨這轉眼之間呢﹖更加令我們深思的應該是這轉眼之間逝去這麼多年之後﹐丁子霖還不能從政府口中得到一個公道﹐當年的殺人者今天卻越來越熟練地週旋於國際社會﹐享受著中國經濟奇跡的光環﹐我們還在流亡﹐而且不得不面對我們已經成為越來越多的人的“不方便”這樣一個嚴酷現實。

 

去年的今天﹐我曾在華爾街日報發表一篇文章。在那篇文章裡﹐我作為天安門學運的領導者之一﹐向丁子霖道歉﹐痛苦但誠實面對我內心深處必將跟隨我一生的負罪感。同時提醒世人﹐丁子霖等待的道歉更應該來自開槍殺人的人﹐我以這樣的聲音呼喚世人的良知﹕天安門不僅僅是當年鼓舞世人﹐喚醒良知的一個逐漸淡去的畫面﹔天安門之後倒塌的柏林牆﹐走出監牢的曼德拉﹐獨立的東帝汶在告訴世人﹐這世界的確在我們的良知力量之下變得越來越美好﹔天安門也是提醒我們這個良知的事業是個未完成的事業﹗我們決不能遺忘﹗

 

事實上﹐我們不僅背負倖存者的罪惡感﹐還背負著倖存者責任感﹐這樣的責任感要求我們必須理性地反思﹐過去的十六年﹐我們常常聽到的一些說法﹕學生是不是太激進了？八九年的屠殺學生應不應負責？對於這樣的指責﹐我們從未停止表達我們的反省。

 

不久之前﹐我在台灣的一所大學演講時﹐這個問題再次浮現﹕八九年學運的失敗﹐學生堅持不肯撤退是否要承擔部份責任﹖我舉了這樣的一個例子來回答。

 

一個小村莊﹐有一個雜貨店﹐店老闆是一個很粗魯的人﹐一天到晚酗酒打孩子﹐結果有一天其中有幾個小孩子站出來反抗﹐反抗的小孩脫口而出一句頂撞﹐於是這父親惱羞成怒就把幾個小孩子打死了﹐全村決定譴責這個父親﹐可是過了這些日子﹐因為全村就只有這間雜貨店﹐買醬油還是得找他﹐買大米也得去找他﹐那怎麼辦呢？

 

這家雜貨店這幾年生意愈做愈好﹐先做成超市﹐而後繼快速續發展﹐而成為一個有規模的商業中心﹐很多人在這裡上班。那個老闆呢﹐慢慢改變過去的粗魯形像﹐現在也不穿拖鞋咬檳榔﹐偶而也穿個西裝打領帶﹐也比較有笑容﹐也學會用英文說歡迎光臨了。但任何人提起打死小孩這件事情他仍然堅持沒這回事﹐或者說這是當時不得不採取的措施﹐否則沒有紀律﹐就不可能有發展﹐就不可能有大家所依賴的全村經濟引擎﹐再或者說這是他的家務事﹐跟別人不相乾。過了一些日子﹐村子就有這樣的聲音出現了：“那小孩子也有不對之處﹐就算小孩反抗有道理﹐畢竟不能對大人那麼不禮貌嘛。”

 

今天的中國就是大家不得不去打交道的雜貨店嗎﹖世人就是無奈的村人嗎﹖我們是那群還在主張為死者討回公道的常常令人覺得“不方便”的反抗孩童嗎﹖然而﹐我們不該忘記誰才是真正的兇手﹐面對這個兇手﹐世人也許常常覺得無力﹐但即使無力我們也不能錯誤地指責受害人。在理解村人需要醬油大米和工作機會之餘﹐提醒世人這村莊還需要公平和正義﹐還需要不再打死無辜孩童的保證啊﹗一個會打死自己孩子而不受制裁的人很可能搶回醬油大米和工作﹐甚至還可能繼續向其他無辜的人的逞凶啊﹗

 

去年的今天﹐我在美國華盛頓市與王丹等十幾位當年的學生領袖一起﹐在中國大使館前繼續呼喊沒變的口號時﹐我望著台下站著的當年夥伴﹐十幾年前﹐我們投身於這場驚天動地的運動時﹐展現出了不起的勇敢與理性﹐在過去的十幾年間﹐我們這些當初被稱為天安門的孩子的一代人經歷了許多﹐已經不再是孩子了﹐但理想始終沒變﹐責任感始終沒有放棄。我望著他們十幾年之後更加堅定的眼神﹐大聲告白﹕“夥伴們﹐我們當初是好樣的﹐我以能和你們並肩為榮﹗”當時台下沒有柴玲﹐柴玲因為主張堅持下去﹐而受到很不公平的指責﹐我們沒能站出來保護她﹐深深覺得有愧。柴玲也是這樣一個好夥伴﹐也是我深感榮幸與之為伍的英雄。

 

推進中國的民主化﹐是我們這群“天安門的孩子”一生不會推卸的責任與使命﹐在十六年前我們走上北京街頭至今我們流亡海外﹐這一點認知不曾改變﹐而那時得到的世人的理解與支持﹐曾給我們極大的力量。今天我們堅持著理想﹐也仍然尋求世人的堅定支持﹐提醒世人十六年前被殺死的逐夢者﹐他們的夢想在我們不再堅持時就也死去了。

 

遺忘﹐偏頗與縱容都是可怕的﹐歷史的悲劇往往在它們侵入我們的意識之時重複。我繼去年向丁子霖道歉而大聲疾呼不該遺忘之後﹐今年應該盯著因為人們的無力感而衍生的偏頗縱容﹐大聲說出﹕柴玲是個好樣的﹗

 

——發表於《世界日報》2005.06.04

 

China Should Extend a Hand

 

As a former student leader who has been exiled for 16
years since the Tiananmen massacre of June 4, 1989, I see cause for cautious optimism in the
recent developments in cross-Strait relations. Taiwan is now my home, and the hostility
with which Beijing so often treats this young democracy never ceases to remind
me of the hostility that I and so many others--too many of them now dead--faced
in 1989.

 

That’s why I was so pleased to see the recent
reconciliation between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist
Party, symbolized by CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao’s historic handshake with
visiting Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan on April 29. I’m not suggesting that any
dramatic changes will come directly from this meeting--the way ahead will not be
easy simply because of a single handshake. Nonetheless the fact that Mr. Hu
greeted Mr. Lien in such a friendly manner marks a significant shift from the
usual strategy of threatening military action against Taiwan, which Beijing was still pursuing
only a month earlier with the passage of the anti-secession law.

 

The handshake took place against a very troubled
background on both sides of the Strait. Many Taiwanese--in particular
supporters of the island’s so-called “pan-blue” opposition parties--have long
been frustrated by confrontational domestic politics and the economic setbacks Taiwan has
experienced in recent years. But distrust among the island’s political forces
had made it almost impossible, until now, for them to reach agreement on how to
reach out to the mainland.

 

On the Chinese side, there is even less trust and
understanding. Modern Chinese have grown up indoctrinated in the belief that a
unified China
would be an even greater China.
The orthodoxy of this faith is reinforced by the fact that they live in a
politically monochromatic system that exiles diversity of opinion and dissent.
This in turn makes it difficult for both Chinese citizens and their leaders to
understand either the KMT or the democratic Taiwanese environment in which it
vies for power.

 

That gulf still separates China and Taiwan. But
reconciliation has to start somewhere, and that’s is why I found some hope in
the smile that creased Mr. Hu lips when he shook hands with Mr. Lien. I know that
smile conceals a greed for power which could one day cause China to attack
Taiwan,
and that the island will have to remain vigilant against this possibility.
Nonetheless a smile is far more likely to lead to a brighter future than a
scowl. Even though the way ahead is still difficult, and will require much hard
work and sacrifices from many people, the goodwill that was extended during Mr.
Lien’s visit makes for a good start.

 

It also makes me wonder whether it is possible to
start bridging another fissure in China’s modern political landscape.
In the run up to Saturday’s 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, I would
like to call upon Mr. Hu to stage a similar reconciliation with the student
protesters. The bloody confrontation between peaceful petitioners and the Beijing regime that took
place that day was a tragedy born of poor judgment and bad decisions by the
government. And the skirmishes that have persisted between Beijing and a generation of exiled dissidents
over the past 16 years are a result of the central government’s inability to
accept dissenting opinions. The outcome has been lives lost, wasted in
imprisonment or lived in exile far from home, while families have been torn
apart, not to mention the immense damage done to China’s image on the international
stage. For some, perhaps, memories of Tiananmen may have dimmed, but there are
still enough people who have not forgotten that, whenever China turns to
the world with a request or demand, inevitably the word “Tiananmen” comes up.

 

The truth is, China continues to politicize Tiananmen
by suppressing information about it and failing to face up to its
responsibility for the lives that has lost on June 4, 1989, just as it has
politicized the Falun Gong religious movement with extensive and ruthless
suppression. If China
truly wants to be accepted into the international community, sooner or later it
will have to settle these grievances by staging reconciliations with both its
political and religious opponents--and a good way to start would be with my
fellow exiles and I.

 

For my part, I would leap at the chance to be able to
return to my homeland, to see my family again and participate in the new China,
providing there were no conditions, such as a prison sentence, an apology for
my student activities or a demand that I not raise my voice with unwelcome
opinions.

 

The international applause for such a step would ring far
louder for Mr. Hu than when he shook hands with Mr. Lien. And it would be far
more than applause--a friendly gesture to a generation of peaceful protesters
would show that China
is taking its first step toward greater tolerance of diversity, out of which
springs the only real hope for a great nation.

 

If the leaders of two parties who fought a civil war
half a century ago can shake hands, it should not be too much for China’s leaders
also to extend a welcoming hand to the students of 1989. Like all other Chinese,
we dream of a greater motherland, and I say to Mr. Hu--let us come home. That
is our undeniable right as Chinese citizens--guaranteed by China’s
constitution--and it would show the world that China is sincere in its efforts to
become a truly modern state. Let us start with a handshake, and bring smiles to
the faces of all those who have suffered in exile over 16 long years.

——Published 2005.06.04, Asia Wall Street Journal

 

Europe's China Syndrome

 

In the standoff between the United States
and Europe over lifting the Tiananmen Massacre
arms embargo on China,
I find myself on the side of George W. Bush, even if my reasons for being there
differ from his. President Bush’s interests are, of course, those of the
world’s leading superpower. Mine are those of a Chinese student leader who,
after more than 15 years in exile, is still waiting to be allowed to go home.

 

The U.S. position is well summed up by
Peter Brookes, senior fellow for national security affairs and director of
Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, who wrote recently: “Lifting the
embargo would endanger U.S.
interests, accelerate China’s
military build-up, undermine stability in the Pacific and send the wrong signal
to repressive regimes everywhere.” These are legitimate concerns, and I see no
reason to contest them. China--currently
second only to the U.S.
in terms of arms spending--is clearly seeking to extend its influence in Southeast Asia and into the Pacific via the sea lanes
controlled by U.S.
allies Japan
and Taiwan.
And, yes, China
continues to be a repressive state, and to kowtow now would send the wrong
message to similarly repressive regimes.

 

But, as an exiled Chinese citizen who has lived in
Paris and the U.S.,
before settling in Taiwan,
I would add to Peter Brookes’ list the objection that lifting the embargo now
makes a mockery of the Europe’s decision to
put it in place to begin with.

 

Perhaps from the worldly, sophisticated perspective
of the Europeans, I am taking things too personally. But if Europe
does go ahead--as it says it will--and lifts the embargo shortly after the
British elections, expected around May 5, I do have to wonder just what China has done
to deserve the favor. To be sure, China is richer and more powerful
than it was when I was forced to leave in 1989. But have human rights improved?
Have there been substantive moves towards participatory politics? Is there
greater freedom of speech? Can I go home? The answer is “no” every time.

 

And then there is the question of Taiwan, which I
also happen to take a personal interest in because it is now my home. Europe’s decision takes place as China puts into
place a so-called anti-secession law. This in effect legitimizes the use of
force to take over a liberal democracy and the world’s 15th largest trading
economy. From where I stand, I cannot help but be reminded of Tiananmen
Square. In 1989, as a leader of a movement that is thought to have
brought up to 100 million people onto the streets China-wide, I saw the ugly
face of Chinese Communist Party rule. Here in Taiwan in 2005 I worry that before
long, I will see it again.

 

This is precisely what I mean when I say
that lifting the embargo now makes a mockery of the decision to put it in
place. When China
turned its troops and tanks on its citizens in Tiananmen
Square, the world recoiled in horror and imposed sanctions.
Sixteen years later, as China
embarks on a massive military build-up aimed at enforcing a disputed territorial
claim on Taiwan,
Europe decides that the best course of action
is to supply it with the high-tech weaponry to do so. I’m afraid the logic of
this defies me.

 

It could be argued, of course, that Chinese
leader Hu Jintao, who just succeeded Jiang Zemin as chairman of the State
Military Commission, gave a relatively measured--if not conciliatory--speech to
the National People’s Congress on the subject of Taiwan late last week. Proof, Europe might say, that China is doing everything it can to
resolve the Taiwan
problem peacefully. It would only use the weapons we are selling them, Europeans
might say, if Taiwan
did something rash like enshrining independence in a new constitution or,
heaven forbid, allowing the island’s 23 million people to cast a vote one way
or another, for or against: unification on some mutually tolerable grounds, or
independence.  

 

It is a disingenuous argument. Firstly, we
are asked to believe that the Chinese leadership can be counted on to be
reasonable, and I know for a fact that this is a naïve and dangerous assumption--I
have been guilty of making it myself once before, with disastrous consequences.
And secondly, we are asked to ignore the fact that China’s military arms purchases are
aimed as much at denying its own people and the Taiwanese the right to
self-determination as they are to national self-defense.

 

In short, whatever the strategic aims of
its China
policy, in terms of my personal engagement with the Chinese government, Europe’s position is morally flawed and intellectually
absurd. I may not have the advantage of a European education, but I say that
when the Europeans tell us that one plus one do not equal two, that the
advanced weapons it has for sale will never be turned on the Taiwanese people,
I say they are wrong. When the Europeans tell us it’s time to forget Tiananmen,
I say I am sorry but until I hear an apology I cannot even begin to forget. And
when the Europeans say, China
has improved, I say, does that mean I can return to my homeland and visit my
ageing parents without going to jail?

 

——Published 2005.03.16,  Wall Street Journal Europe.

 

告訴選民 國民黨未來在哪裡

 

在連戰已經多次表達世代交替的主張後，雖然還無法百分之百斷定，但馬英九與王金平參選國民黨主席的態勢已經日益明顯。

 

國民黨這個百年老黨，在經歷新黨、親民黨兩次出走，及兩次總統選舉失利後，尚有近百萬黨員，令人咋舌。目前在檯面上放話的國民黨籍政治人物宣稱與這些有資格投票的選舉人同樣關心國民黨的壯大與發展，而且團結、改革是幾乎所有相關人物的口號。

 

然而，一次總統敗選並沒有促成改革，導致二次敗選；竭力維持的團結，也抵擋不住個人權謀的精算。此時的新任黨主席能夠給這個風雨飄搖的百年老黨帶來什麼樣的新生命呢？

 

國民黨今天面臨兩大問題：首先，國民黨是曾經創立了亞洲第一個共和國的革命政黨，是曾經有那麼多可歌可泣的英雄先驅的神聖殿堂，長期執政使它已變得毫無理想性。沒有理想性，哪來向心力？過去一段時間，維繫著這個黨支持者的向心力來自於對手的令人不滿；維繫著附屬於這個黨的從政菁英們的向心力是選舉利益。這是國民黨最可悲的現狀，一個沒有理想的政黨在對手揮舞著激進的理想旗幟下，很難有什麼發展。

 

這是一個極為艱巨的問題，在主張「務實」已經到了變態程度的台灣，要求一個迂腐的團體在「黨的理想」這樣一個題目上「務虛」，似乎是緣木求魚。但筆者誠懇地向王馬進言：歷史上多少次治亂存亡之際的力挽狂瀾，無不以凝聚決心為第一步，沒有這一步，國民黨很難走出低谷。

 

國民黨第二個問題，是國民黨的陳疾宿弊過多，第一就是是黨產，第二是有如國營機構的龐大無效率黨機器，第三是盤踞在各方的改革阻力：他們有些是依附於國民黨陳腐的黨內文化而生存的守舊勢力，對於任何擁抱民意的改革都可能祭出「祖宗家法」；有些是國民黨執政時以行政資源交換地方派系選票而形成的既得利益階層，他們對於任何切斷政商臍帶的作法都會咬牙切齒；有些可能只是對於改革不習慣、不放心，生怕已經傷痕累累的國民黨再受任何可能的衝擊。這些還沒有包括出於嫉妒、仇恨等各種陰暗的個人因素而放出的冷箭。

 

更進一步向兩位建議，準備一份精彩的參選檄文吧，在這篇檄文中，告訴選民今天的國民黨問題在哪裡，未來在哪裡；告訴他們你們準備如何激起人們的滿腔熱血，如何讓國民黨的新生命力散發光彩，吸引大家；告訴他們你們將如何戮力改革，你們將如何把改革落實在哪些具體的問題之上？國民黨在你們的領導之下會變成什麼樣的充滿活力、充滿希望的政黨；別忘了再告訴他們，你們是準備如何粉身碎骨、在所不惜。只有這樣，才會讓你們的支持者以及像我這樣的懷疑者願意開始有所期待。是的，只是開始有所期待而已。


【2005/03/07 聯合報】

 

爸爸

 

爸爸你昨夜來到我的夢中

在夢中我看著你無語

後來我又把被子踢掉的時候
  

你笑著搖了搖頭

怎麼別人說我們一模一樣

而我卻覺得你我天壤之別

我想要像你的地方好像永遠彆彆扭扭

我想要背叛的特徵好像永遠無法逃避

我會和你一樣固執嗎？

我會和你一樣衝動嗎？

我會和你一樣高貴嗎？

我會和你一樣堅強嗎？

 

爸爸你頭上軟軟的白髮被風吹亂

每一根都在告訴我你的故事

在故事中有你的輝煌，也有你的屈辱

有你的理想，還有你的愛情

你的生命不像爺爺的硝煙迷漫

硝煙卻永久的變成你的味道

為甚麼你的眼神常常像落日的太陽

既有晚霞的美麗又有黑夜的憂鬱

可以和你一樣固執嗎？

可以和你一樣衝動嗎？

可以和你一樣高貴嗎？

可以和你一樣堅強嗎？

 

爸爸你的歌是家鄉河畔的兒歌嗎

還是青春嘹亮的詩

我們的搖滾我們的吶喊

你到底懂不懂

 

你的曾經堅挺的脊樑慢慢在佝僂

是歲月還是我們壓倒了你的驕傲

當我們面對自己的兒子時

還能不能給他們和你一樣的依靠

爸爸你昨夜來到我的夢中

還是我看到了我的自豪

 

你的笑容還是一樣的沉穩

你的背影還是一樣的寬厚

你的步伐不再矯健

你的眼神不再犀利

 

你的步伐不再矯健

你的眼神不再犀利

你的笑容還是一樣的沉穩

你的背影還是一樣的寬厚

怎麼別人說你我天壤之別

而我卻覺得我們一模一樣

 

——這首詩是陳昇要我寫的，我答應之後至少拖了三年，在與另一個共同的朋友一起陪他爸爸最後的那一段時間寫好，完成後陳昇為它譜了曲，并收錄在那年（2000？）出版的《一朝醒來是歌星》一書隨書附送的CD中。歌詞比原詩略短。楊騰佑老師的吉他背景音樂好聽極了。

 

不近人情與有情有義

國民黨面臨黨主席選舉，檯面上馬英九與王金平兩人及其支持者更是摩拳擦掌，動作頻頻。筆者在經過過去一年的觀察，原已經對國民黨徹底失望，國民黨黨主席選舉更是他們的家務事，本不應多言。然而，一個成熟的反對黨畢竟是民主社會發展的重要基礎，也是不分藍綠所有台灣人民的共同期待。況且國民黨黨主席與未來國家領導人選舉有密切關係，所以在此以善意第三者身分提出我的觀察，國民黨黨主席一職需要什麼樣的特質，供有投票權的國民黨黨員參考。

新任主席必備五力

國民黨黨主席一職，在現在的政治環境中必須承擔的責任不謂不重，人民期待國民黨成為一個稱職的反對黨。黨主席要重拾支持者蕩至谷底的信心，需要改革的決心，而不僅僅是口號。給這個百年老黨賦予新生命，需要的是前瞻的眼力；要在層層利益結構交織的狀態下戮力改革，需要的是魄力；並在這樣的前提之下，仍維持甚至加強與執政黨的抗衡，需要的是戰鬥力；牽動既得利益者的權益時被自己同志批判得體無完膚時，需要的是承受力；改革陣痛令黨員及支持者迷惘時，需要的是溝通論述能力。

馬英九要選黨主席，再度讓人深刻討論馬英九的人格特質，令我不解的是，對於馬英九最大的批評，是他「不近人情」，再把不近人情擴大解釋說他圓融度不夠。說黨主席因執掌選舉大權，所以必須具備調和鼎鼐的能力。

 

國民黨黨主席一職，在現在的政治環境中必須承擔的責任不謂不重，人民期待國民黨成為一個稱職的反對黨。黨主席要重拾支持者蕩至谷底的信心，需要改革的決心，而不僅僅是口號。給這個百年老黨賦予新生命，需要的是前瞻的眼力；要在層層利益結構交織的狀態下戮力改革，需要的是魄力；並在這樣的前提之下，仍維持甚至加強與執政黨的抗衡，需要的是戰鬥力；牽動既得利益者的權益時被自己同志批判得體無完膚時，需要的是承受力；改革陣痛令黨員及支持者迷惘時，需要的是溝通論述能力。

馬英九要選黨主席，再度讓人深刻討論馬英九的人格特質，令我不解的是，對於馬英九最大的批評，是他「不近人情」，再把不近人情擴大解釋說他圓融度不夠。說黨主席因執掌選舉大權，所以必須具備調和鼎鼐的能力。

調和鼎鼐才是阻力

調和鼎鼐？你們還想幹什麼？國民黨過去多年來的不知進步就在於調和鼎鼐有餘，洗心革面不足。既有的資源，無論是黨產還是以行政資源交換提名機會得到的地方派系選票，都是國民黨的包袱，這些包袱形成的既得利益集團根本就是改革的對象，眼前他們在國民黨內盤踞各方，是改革的直接障礙，使國民黨無法輕身向前。調和鼎鼐就是向不同的既得利益團體妥協，就是改革的牛步化。恕我直言，國民黨不需要調和鼎鼐者，既得利益集團才需要。

 

再來看馬英九的「不近人情」。馬英九是哪裡不近人情，我是不太知道，這幾天媒體報導所提及的一些內容其實都沒有什麼貶義，反而讓人看到混沌的政治現實及錯亂的倫理價值中一個異數。

 

但不近人情，缺乏圓融總是一個很明確的指控，政治人物多半是得罪了人才會被如是評論，檯面上哪個政治人物與馬英九有過節是個值得觀察的指標。對手陣營中打馬者比比皆是，唯政治立場不同加上馬英九是未來首號敵人，這種批判恐怕連自己人都不以為然甚至看不過去。反對陣營中，國民黨內對馬英九不滿的應該也是大有人在，卻鮮有浮上檯面的，甚至每次大小選舉到來，無不爭先恐後與馬英九合影握手，卻沒有任何公開的、成型的批判，這其中的奧妙，恐怕對馬不滿者也只有暗自檢討。

 

唯有宋楚瑜，作為反對陣營另一個大黨主席，同屬外省背景(兩人都是湖南人)，都是與所謂「大位」有機會者，雖礙於情面從未戳破一層窗戶紙，但明示暗示公開私下多次表達對馬英九的不屑。宋楚瑜回國，王金平與馬英九共同前往中正機場接機，宋楚瑜偏偏連正眼都不看一眼馬英九，場面著實難堪。而宋楚瑜最常放在口邊的一句「有情有義」與馬英九的「不近人情」更是形成鮮明對比。

 

宋楚瑜的「有情有義」一語是他在二○○○年總統選舉時，形容自己與當時因殺人罪嫌被起訴的顏清標時所說。後來二○○四年在電視攝影機鏡頭前向張榮味下跪時再度提起。這兩位有爭議的人物與宋楚瑜的情義建立在宋擔任台灣省長時，一個曾經是縣議長，一個後來任縣長。宋楚瑜在擔任省長的時候，號稱省府與省議會以及地方縣市關係最融洽，而那一屆，省議員以及縣市長向省長爭取地方建設也最容易。

堅持原則是致命傷 

馬英九的問題絕不是什麼「不近人情」，其實他在媒體中所呈現出來的是謙沖有禮，自己堅持分寸到了龜毛的程度也嚇跑了想找馬英九關說，和有其他非份念頭的黨內同志，但對於自己不以為然的同志馬英九也不曾讓任何人下不了台。曾有國民黨籍市議員私下表達：馬英九作市長，我們沒什麼便宜可佔。馬英九不近人情，誰覺得難受？宋楚瑜有情有義，誰覺得妥當？

 

馬英九的問題在其他方面，作市長可以獨善其身，作黨主席卻要兼善天下，在今天國民黨的環境之下，有時要展現出壯士斷腕的魄力，甚至要表現出刮骨療毒的勇氣，但民眾尚無明確感受他的危機處理能力是不是可力挽狂瀾？他的團隊是不是一個有能力治國團隊？更重要的一個指標：馬英九除了是一個清廉勤勉的學者型市長之外，是不是一個讓支持者感覺可以信賴走出絕地的領袖。

蘋果日報，2005.02.15

 

 

Zhao Ziyang Missed His Historic Opportunity

      The death of former Chinese Communist Party
Secretary-General Zhao Ziyang does
not mark the end of an era, but is rather a reminder of unfinished business.
That business is the democratic reforms and the end to official corruption we
students protested for in Tiananmen Square in
the summer of 1989. Nearly 16 years on, and from my exile in Taiwan, I
cannot but see Zhao’s lonely death as
further evidence that that the protests I helped lead won China neither
democratic reform nor an end to official corruption.

      The
obituaries for Zhao, whom I recall
as a humble, grey-haired scholarly man who spoke Mandarin with a folksy Henan burr, have made
much of his last public appearance. He had already been stripped of his
position by Deng Xiaoping when he came to us in Tiananmen
Square on May 19 with the words “I’m late, too late. Sorry.” Zhao’s arrival was unannounced and discrete, and like
most of the students in the square that day--less than three weeks before the
tanks and troops would clear us out--I wasn’t even aware that the man was
amongst us uttering those historic words. But, if I missed the opportunity to
be present when he spoke, I have often thought those words in the years since.

      Above all,
today it strikes me that the words, “I was too late,” might well serve as the
epitaph of a man who ended his life a tragic figure, who was offered a historic
opportunity to embrace reform but who did not come to the square and offer any
support until he had been stripped of his rank. Until the last of his days he
was a living symbol of much that is wrong in China today.

      In death
that symbol becomes all the more potent, which is why China this week
is in such a heightened state of alert, and why there will be no state funeral
service. It is also why former Zhao
aide, Bao Tong, who recently accused the state of trying to erase Zhao from history, was not allowed to pay his
respects, and Public Security Bureau thugs injured Mr. Bao’s 73-year-old wife while
pushing her into an elevator. That act of violence alone is a reminder that
while much has changed in China,
much also has not. Wracked by social unrest born of the world’s widest wealth
divide, China
is still a place where the response to dissent is sharp and brutal. It can be
no other way, because all dissent in China is a reminder that, despite
the economic changes that have swept the nation since Tiananmen, reform on all
other fronts is on hold.

      This, of
course, is the tragedy of modern China. The Chinese way is to
systematically banish all agents of reform. My generation of student leaders
lives in exile or in imprisonment, and Zhao
Ziyang passed his remaining days after being stripped of his job under police
supervision. I’ve often wondered where his thoughts led him when they turned to
the events of 1989. Many of us who survived the Tiananmen protests are haunted
by a sense of failure for not having accomplished what we set out to do, and by
feelings of guilt for the lives of those who perished in the effort. To my
mind, it’s hard not to imagine that Zhao
must have had similar feelings and have spent much of his “retirement”
wondering whether he could have done it differently.

      In my
thinking--and this has haunted me for close on 16 years--he could have. It’s
impossible for me to forget that spring and summer of 1989, when I was a
student barely into my twenties and I took the streets of Beijing. To be sure, I was idealistic, and
perhaps in some ways naïve, but like so many others in those heady days I only
took to the streets because I thought there was a real opportunity for change.
We would never have taken the chances we did if we hadn’t thought that what we
were demanding was possible. And we saw the possibility in reformist elements
in the government, chief among whom is the man China is quietly mourning this
week.

I say to history that at any time before he was
stripped of his position, particularly in the days after we started our hunger
strike on May 13, Zhao, as the
nation’s most powerful title holder, could have come to the square, or gone on
national TV, to at least acknowledge that we students had just cause for
complaint. It would have put him and other reformists in control of the
situation. Instead, he attended a meeting of the standing members of the
Politburo in Deng Xiaoping’s private residence in which he was stripped of his
rank. He did come to the square too late.

      To this
day, I cannot help but see Zhao as defined by that moment He missed his
historic opportunity, and in the end his most notable achievement was that he
did nothing. On this week of his death, my thoughts go out to his family and
all who loved him, and I say may he rest in peace. But at the same time I
cannot but wonder, as I have all these years, what if.

——Published  2005.01.20.  Asia Wall Street Journal

「太晚了，對不起」

「同學們，我們來晚了，來得太晚了，對不起！」十六年前的一個料峭春寒的夜晚，一九八九年五月十九日，在滿是靜坐絕食的大學生疲憊的身影的天安門廣場，一個花白頭髮的人，滿臉誠懇，拿著擴音器，面對著電視鏡頭，以濃重的河南口音說了這麼一番話。這個人，就是在被軟禁十五年多之後，昨天早晨七點鐘辭世的中國共產黨前總書記趙紫陽。他的死，為中共總書記從無善終的魔咒又加了一個新的註解。

代表領導人善意回應

我在那群學生之中，我是他們的組織者，我是學生組織的主席。

學運開始時，我是個大一學生，趙紫陽是中國共產黨總書記，是垂簾聽政的太上皇鄧小平一人之下萬人之上的中國最高領袖，我們是對頭。

學生主張民主，痛恨腐敗，嚴討「官倒」，提出的訴求，衝著政府，當然也就是衝著最高領導人；而訴求內容中「官倒」名列前茅的正是趙紫陽的靠特權成為億萬富翁的兒子！我們的關係是對立而緊張的。

五月四日，我與十萬學生走上街頭，向世界光榮宣稱，我們是七十年前走在這裡的前輩們的傳承者，我們將勇敢地繼續舉起前輩們「民主科學」旗幟，追求中國人民的自主權力；這一天，趙紫陽在公開場合提出，政府應該更開明，政府應該與學生對話。

我們的聲音趙紫陽聽到之後作了善意的回應，極大地鼓舞了學生，極大地鼓舞了中國的民主運動。畢竟，自發的群眾運動得到最高領導人的善意回應，在中國歷史，並不多見。這一天起，趙紫陽不再是對頭，我們的關係不再緊張，趙紫陽在遙遠的高處回答了我們。

留住尊嚴失去了自由

學生追求的民主就是把希望建立在中國共產黨內部能夠出現積極的建設的力量，承擔起他們的歷史責任，把中國帶向自由民主，這個積極的建設的力量出現了，它叫作改革派，它的領導人就是趙紫陽！趙紫陽就是我們的希望！

然而，改革派，趙紫陽，並沒有承擔他們的歷史責任。他們躲在各種借口──社會安定，黨內程序等等──的後面，窺伺著鄧小平的一舉一動，生怕天安門廣場驚天動地的怒吼，震掉了他們的烏紗帽。

等待沒有結果，希望變成失望，五月十九日，趙紫陽走到廣場，神情哀淒的說了那句為世界所矚目的「我們來晚了！」

我們絕食五天之後，趙紫陽出現，說「我們來晚了！」當然我們深有同感，然而從後來的文獻中我們得知，那天下午，在太上皇鄧小平的家裡，一個小型會議或者說小小宮廷政變中，趙紫陽失去了它的權力。「我們來晚了！」後面跟著的那句「太晚了！」才是那天要來表達的唯一本意啊！

不久之後，政變的得勢一方，出動軍隊，血腥鎮壓了我們，我們中有的家破人亡，有的背井離鄉。當時的改革派，被逐出權力核心。而趙紫陽在血寫的現實面前，勇敢了起來，拒不認錯，留住了尊嚴，失去了自由，從此軟禁十五年餘。

可比為蔣經國葉爾欽

在這段時間，趙紫陽在想什麼？在最後的日子裡，他在想什麼？我猜，他還在玩味自己的那句話，「我們來晚了，太晚了，對不起！」如果在歷史給了自己機會的時候抓住那機會，趙紫陽應該是蔣經國之後的蔣經國，葉爾欽之前的葉爾欽，趙紫陽應該是一個可以改寫一段極輝煌的歷史的人。

可是「太晚了，對不起！」  

——蘋果日報，2005年01月18日