吾爾開希的流亡筆記

2009-03-20T20:02:00.000-07:00

再度搬家！此次將是終身位址，獨立博客。

www.wuerkaixi.com

歡迎舊雨新知，繼續光臨指導！

本博同時停止，擇日關閉。

博客搬家，歡迎光臨

2009-03-18T18:48:00.000-07:00

歡迎光臨！

真希望這個博客是在163或者新浪或者任何其他國內ISP網站上，也許很快就可以了吧。無論如何，很高興在這裡看到各位。

對於管制的習以為常以致視而不見是被管制者的無奈，也是被管制者面對這種痛苦時鎮痛的方法之一，但不該被合理化。偶爾有人提醒你身上本不該有的繩索時，可以嘆氣，可以痛苦，但不要否認，不要說：啊，比以前好多啦！更不要因為這種悲劇感而產生對這繩索的依戀！

以誌。

我們的自由開始溶解﹗

2009-03-16T14:07:00.000-07:00

本文四年前發表，今天郭冠英事件在臺灣吵得沸沸揚揚，臺灣也在民粹的政治正確之下出現言論自由的危機，令人擔憂。

言論自由是一種原則，與所有原則一樣，在不方便的時候堅持才尤其有意義！

許文龍先生發表的聲明令台灣各界譁然﹐對於許文龍先生這樣一個一百八十度變化﹐我跟絕大多數看到這條新聞的人一樣﹐感到震撼﹐但我更感到痛心。

分析這條新聞並不難﹐國內媒體專家以及各種不同立場的政治人物也都不太離譜﹐都看到了中國大陸的經濟強勢脅迫立場一向堅定臺獨的許文龍先生作出明顯違背自己初衷的表態。有人表示理解﹐有人批他晚節不保﹐有人說你看你看早就講過了大陸霸道必須認清﹐有人說你看你看早就講過了台灣經濟不能離開大陸。

我看這條新聞是極為難過的。許文龍先生過去的政治立場和我並不一致﹐甚至對於他的一些說法我也曾公開私下批判其非理性。然而﹐對於一個在台灣社會﹐靠自己努力﹐創造出傲人成勣﹐關注人文修養﹐同時關注文化建設﹐關注台灣未來發展的成功企業家﹐我想我和絕大多數台灣人一樣﹐總是維持相當的尊敬和基本的尊重。台灣本來就是這樣﹐意見不同﹐也許表面是臉紅脖子粗﹐但內心並沒有真的你死我活。

許文龍先生被脅迫表態﹐也許是出於其私人利益不得不然﹐然而﹐這的的確確是大陸開始剝奪台灣的自由的一次成功。我們不應忽略一個嚴峻的事實﹕我們之中的一個人﹐被專制的大陸政府脅迫成功了﹗

專制政府是這樣剝奪他人自由的﹕第一步﹐他會讓你覺得他的專橫沒那麼無理。本來一個商人的政治立場跟他的生意有什麼關係﹖﹗可是共產黨這麼幹似乎過了一段時間就被大家接受了﹐當中國大陸的高速經濟發展持續引誘著跟他的合作時﹐他的不合理之處慢慢被合理化﹐“老共就是這樣子的。”甚至很多人會說“大陸那麼大﹐不強硬一點怎麼管﹖”第二步﹐專制者會讓你覺得跟他利益同構。首先是政治處境日漸窘迫的反臺獨者最先感受到來自一個強有力者的同志愛﹐再來﹐不見得那麼明確反臺獨的人也開始尋找共同的立場基礎“台灣的發展必須要靠與大陸的結合。”於是“誰讓許文龍搞臺獨來著﹐活該﹗”或比較斯文者的“許文龍不要搞臺獨就好了嘛。”這些人對於專制者的專橫至此是接受了的。第三步﹐專制者會製造寒蟬效應恐嚇少數對手。“堅定臺獨如許文龍者尚不能不低頭﹐吾輩又當如何﹖”到了第四步﹐面對大眾﹐製造假相﹐讓每個人覺得這種專橫永遠不會到自己頭上。

希特勒以及納粹黨在三十年代的德國開始迫害猶太人時﹐便有人表示“其實還好。”有人覺得“有其必要。”有人覺得“反正不是我。” 等到迫害的程度令人髮指的時候﹐德國的知識分子驚覺﹐長期的鄉願﹐容忍與漠視已經使得納粹強大到來不及抵禦了。

香港在面臨九七時﹐人民尚不知言論自由﹑思想自由等現代文明的基礎面臨什麼樣的威脅。但慢慢的﹐開始合理化北京對於民主派的專橫﹐慢慢地﹐尋找與北京之間的共同利益基礎﹐更慢慢地﹐寒蟬效應發酵﹐香港的媒體開始自我設限﹐主動配合言論管制以求自保﹐而很多人則是漠然以對﹐直到有一天﹐驚覺香港已不是昔日的東方之珠﹐淪喪速度之快令人咋舌﹐人民的漠然正是對專制者最大的鼓勵﹐我確信連北京都出乎意料之外。於是五十萬人走上街頭﹐他們知道了捍衛自己的自由就意味著你必須也捍衛別人的自由。

許文龍先生的表態也許可以說與專制者為伍傷害了台灣﹐然而他畢竟是被脅迫的受害人。此時那些與他政治立場不同而彈冠相慶﹐認為其咎由自取的人具有嚴重道德瑕玼﹐屬於落井下石的齷齪小人之言。而大眾的麻木不仁更是令人極為擔憂﹐目睹劣行而使由之等於是幫凶﹐而且是很快就輪到自己受害的愚蠢幫凶。就仿彿我們看到一起強暴案發生在眼前﹐指責受害人衣著暴露是錯誤﹐而無動於衷等於在鼓勵這種惡棍在我們的周遭橫行﹐我們每一個人都或多或少地成為他的下次暴行的潛在受害人。

北京當局以各種手段脅迫許文龍所作的表態﹐表面看來是臺獨的挫敗﹐其實是自由的重傷﹗當主張臺獨的自由被剝奪時﹐反對臺獨的自由就不是真正的自由﹐我們主張或反對臺獨的自由同時被剝奪了﹗而當我們在臺獨這個選項的自由被剝奪時﹐我們還剩下什麼自由可以叫作真正的自由呢﹖我們的自由開始溶解﹗

——本文發表於臺灣蘋果日報，2005年3月30日。

將一段留言和回復發表于此

2009-03-15T15:34:00.000-07:00

2009/03/16 08:05，有人在我的文章《民進黨陷入民粹誤區》后留言：

是不是陈水扁倒台了，现在冥运的日子都不好过，free money不是随手拈来，所以你和王丹都纷纷开博客挣眼球了？

既然是公開留言，就是給大家看的，我怕我的回復沒能被留言者看到，就放到這里，也請大家一起看，以正視聽。

你用了“冥运”来称呼“民运”，因对你所知极有限只好用假设几种状况来回答。
一、你是习惯了在中国用谐音在网络上写东西，否则会被政府“和谐”掉，如此，你帮我说明了民运的必要性，谢谢；
二、你是认字不多，写错别字，我原谅你的无知；
三、你是故意表达恶意，我不以为意。粗鲁无礼是宣扬自己没有家教，等于诋毁自己父母，我劝你多存孝心；
四、我相信你是对现况不满，而生活在一个没有充分信息和不准独立思考的国家，政府的宣传对你产生影响，如此你就是一个专制的受害人，是一个中国需要民主的明证，我同情你。

你所说“陈水扁倒台了，民运日子不好过，free money 不是随手拈来，所以我和王丹都纷纷开博客挣眼球了？”这里面即没有可验证的事实，也没有站得住脚的逻辑，只有以讹传讹的造谣欺骗。

民运日子的确不好过，但她的崇高毋庸置疑。我们对民运的坚持不会因为有人幸灾乐祸而有些许的迟疑，无需闲杂人等在旁冷言冷语，但也无惧。只等民运成功，享受其成果倒是人人有份，也包括你。

北望

2009-03-13T17:34:00.000-07:00

誰道楊柳春風吹不寒

簌簌長襟斷

一手執轡一手撫冷劍

駿馬不眨眼

昨夜東方白月殘

無酒無歌無紅顏

北望故國歌舞處

景陽岡前無好漢

磨楚劍﹐嘗楚膽

髮已華﹐雁已還

迢迢歸路荊棘連天邊

去國十六年﹗

燕人高唱胡不歸

高堂白髮倚門站

懷夢英年無花祭

六尺難覆未閤眼

借來羿弓射黑日

未敢停鞭萬里還

黃花開遍長街時

定將慰柬化輕煙

——此詩於四年前初寫，之後每年改動那句“去國XX年”。

民進黨陷入嚴重的民粹誤區

2009-03-12T19:32:00.000-07:00

2000年之後，經歷了第一次政黨輪替的臺灣，民主發展進入了一個新時期。執政之後的民進黨快速沉淪，喪失了理想性，腐敗速度驚人。陳水扁、邱義仁之流把持政策方向，操弄民粹，使臺灣陷入嚴重對立。國家發展經歷八年的空耗，人民付出了慘重的代價。原本已經取得長足成就的臺灣民主出現嚴重倒退，選民的理性淪喪，思考淺薄，甚至連社會價值觀也出現了少見的快速墮落。

在民進黨執政時期，國民黨扮演在野黨的角色非常失敗，即沒有反思失去政權原因的能力，也沒有對於執政黨監督批評的魄力，那時很多人都說過國民黨真應該認真跟民進黨學學如何當個像樣的在野黨。2008年，痛定思痛的臺灣選民，用選票懲罰了民進黨，把它再度變成了在野黨。然而，今天的民進黨已經不再是那個2000年之前，堅持民主，不斷進步的在野黨了。

民進黨輸掉政權已經快一年時間，似乎仍然沒有走出慘敗的陰影。至今沒能充分檢討出來敗選的原因就是走極端，操弄民粹，制造對立。（同樣的原因已經讓臺灣的另一個政黨——新黨——泡沫化了）。陳水扁的貪腐案進入冗長的司法程序，而他令人反感的表演當然傷害著無法與他切割的民進黨。蔡英文說：陳水扁是民進黨歷史的一部分。沒錯，如果對這樣一個歷史的一部分的貪腐不提出嚴正的譴責與批判，選民只能仍然把他當作民進黨的一部分。

這個簡單的道理蔡英文不會不懂。但顯然有什麼苦衷無法做到。民進黨不能切割的不僅僅是陳水扁這個個人，更糟糕的是無法與陳水扁當年訂立的操弄民粹，走極端的政黨方針相切割。

民主一旦走入民粹的誤區，沒有摔到鼻青臉腫，恐怕很難脫身。真可怕，這個民主的副作用，這個民主的伴生瘤，尤其當民進黨內的菁英也喪失理想，被現實利益綁手綁腳時！

談到李敖

2009-03-09T19:46:00.000-07:00

這兩天，聯合報的博客（臺灣叫部落格）上看到有人又引用了劉曉波幾年前的一篇文章，嚴肅地批判臺灣聞人、文人李敖。跟貼的文章中提到我，就有朋友問起我對“李大師”的看法。我回答跟劉曉波沒有不同，如果用更平民的語言來評論李敖我可以多說兩句：一、這個一輩子追求新聞自由、言論自由，並以此為驕傲的人，怎麼到了北京就忘啦？公共知識分子前后言論行為不一是要作出解釋的！二、在臺灣怎麼罵臺獨我都沒意見，但在國內電視以及文字刊物上撰文批判臺獨，而臺獨又無法還嘴，算哪門子本事？

我也是臺灣人

2009-03-08T17:18:00.000-07:00

流亡者對我都有一分羨慕，那就是我可以住在臺灣，同文同種帶來生活的便利以致飲食購物的便利舒適自不在話下，但這還不是我被羨慕的原因。我的這些流亡伙伴大多都有堅定的性格，外在環境不是他們最在乎的東西，而且很多流亡者都能夠在語言文化各方面充分融入他們所在的不同文不同種社會，生活在異國並不致給他們帶來不便不適；他們對我的羨慕是另一個層面的：他們羨慕我在流亡的狀態之下又有了一個自己的國家。

我在臺灣有了家庭，成了“臺灣女婿”，但這並不必然給我帶來歸屬感。初來時，我享受著太太家人完全接納給我帶來的溫馨，彌補一些我對遠在新疆無法見面的家人的思念；沉浸在臺灣人的熱情中；享受著臺灣的現代文明；實踐著臺灣的自由；如饑似渴地學習臺灣在民主化轉型過程中的寶貴經驗；說實話，當然喜歡臺灣，但，是以外人的身份喜歡著，羨慕著臺灣。

因為喜歡，自然關心，而進一步就有了承擔。尤其我的兩個孩子在臺灣出生、成長，我不僅是“臺灣女婿”，也是“臺灣之子的爸爸”，從關心教育，關心治安，到進一步關心政治，都不再僅僅是以外人的身份。一九九八年，我開始在臺中全國廣播主持談話性節目，在call in 聽眾的鼓勵和帶動之下，那些過去以外人身份小聲謹慎表達的“觀察、想法”慢慢轉化成為在地的大聲疾呼的“意見、批判”。這節目被熱烈的接受了，我的臺灣人身份被平靜地接受了。

一九九九年七月，我取得了臺灣身份證，開始納稅、投票，對自己的臺灣人身份也已經能夠完全從容以對了，流亡者特有的一種焦慮還在，但另一種踩在自己家鄉土地上的篤定也在同時慢慢滋生。正是這種篤定，讓我在二〇〇二年之後的幾年，承擔起公共知識分子的責任，以關心自己國家的出發點，在報刊、廣播、電視毫不保留地表達我對政府、對政黨、對政治人物、對媒體甚至對臺灣選民的嚴肅批判，到了二〇〇四年，我更直接投身到中正紀念堂廣場的學生運動，在凱達格蘭大道跟臺灣人民一起，投身到公民運動中！

我自認我的初衷是正直的，我的立場是客觀的，但當然任何意見表達出來，聽到的人的感受都會見仁見智。對我所表達的意見，臺灣社會有相當的肯定，同時不以為然者也必定大有人在，也許是政治立場的不同，也許是看到了我自己看不到的盲點，我對於這些指教也都能虛心檢討，而最令我感動的是無論多麼對立，我“是不是一個臺灣人”從來不是問題。

我的流亡伙伴們羨慕的正是臺灣接受了我這個“半子”成為完整的臺灣社會一份子。而今，我從容、篤定、倍感光榮地接受這個身份，我深懷感激。

馬英九的特質

2009-03-02T14:47:00.000-08:00

我與馬英九第一次見面是1990年，當時他的職務是行政院大陸研考會報秘書。很怪的一個職務。後來出任陸委會副主委，才知道這個秘書是這種可以當副部長的秘書。從那以後，各種場合見面次數不下數十次，見到我，他都會趨前主動打招呼，并以“開希”稱呼我，任何認得他的人都會說，他是一個非常客氣，非常親切的人；但反而是我會躲著他，避免讓人覺得我趨炎附勢。但對於他每年六四都會留意此事，都會以他的方式紀念，以及在六四相關話題上有堅決的表態，我心中充滿感激，去年他當上總統，六四到了被媒體盯著，而去年臺北根本沒有六四紀念活動，他也還是在這一天以寫文章方式紀念，卻仍然被批評，其實是非常不公平。

我不是馬迷，更不是國民黨的支持者，連“泛藍”都不願意承認。2000年之前，我可能會更願意承認自己親民進黨。不錯，2004及2008兩次總統選舉，我的票是投給了國民黨，但絕不是因為支持國民黨，而是為了懲罰民進黨。——2000年之後繼續支持民進黨，不是糊塗，就是拿了吃了，或是想拿想吃人家的，手軟嘴軟。

這些年，馬英九擔任臺北市長，國民黨主席。說實話，當臺北市長作得應該算可以，這個職務，只要當政者不是心術不正，懶散怠惰，以其全國最優厚的資源，最優秀的團隊，最完備的條件，以及前任，也就是現在身陷囹圄的陳水扁，力行改革所創造的任事環境，要作好真的也不難。但大家也一直沒有以臺北市長這個職務來審視他，而是以國民黨的政治明星，政治領袖來觀察這個人，這也不能怪別人，一來政治工作本來如此，不想當政治明星，就別來擔任這種明星職務，二來馬英九自己也樂此不疲，馬英九喜歡作秀，是民進黨人對他的批評。每當電視攝像機鏡頭對準他，眼睛就開始放光，人就有精神，十足的喜歡當明星的感覺，無可厚非，民進黨的批評酸溜溜，不厚道。但外人以政治明星來要求他更無可厚非。在我這個外人看來，他在過去八年，當明星秀過頭，當領袖，沒本事。

馬英九的作秀更準確的詞應該叫“表演欲強”，因為作秀這個詞有一種欺騙的感覺，馬英九的“作秀”有很大的真實感，認真表演自我的成分特別多，而且是自視極高的那種自我感覺，比起一般臺面上的政治人物作秀非常不同。其實應該說，他是喜歡把他眼中的自己強力推銷出去。那個自我就是悲天憫人，清廉正直，恪守分際，學養豐富而且勤勞誠樸。相信這也是他對自己真誠的要求以及自我修養的方向。他過去的成功也與他的這些特質有密切關係，2008年，馬英九以極高的選票當選總統，與他成功推銷自己的這些特質、魅力有完全的因果關係。但每當大家從他與其他政客的比較中找到對他欣賞的理由時，他在電視鏡頭前扭腰擺臀，總是會倒倒一些人的胃口，給批評他作秀的人留下話柄。即使被智囊（單數）提醒，表現端莊了，但控制不了喜歡上電視的欲望，在畫面上看來多少有點像走臺步，是謂秀過頭。

明星不等於領袖，這似乎是個淺而易見到人人都懂的道理，但我猜人人都懂就不包括那個明星。當馬英九參選國民黨主席時，很多馬迷厲聲反對，反對的理由有幾個，一，在總統選舉時，黨主席要扮演推舉助選候選人的角色，馬迷擔心“球員兼裁判”不利自己的偶像，二，覺得王金平是實力派，搶這個職務怕偶像得罪不起他，三，還有人覺得國民黨這個大醬缸會讓偶像這個不沾鍋吃力不討好。這些說法都讓人感受到馬英九的明星魅力以及馬迷粉絲對他的寵愛。而當時我對於他參選這個職位則是抱著極大的興趣來觀察，甚至覺得自己過去對馬英九誤解太深：馬英九原來不是一個只懂得潔身自好，獨善其身的書生，而很可能是一個願意捲起袖子，承擔一個政治人物該承擔的責任的人。畢竟追求職務上的更上一層樓不過是一種輔助記分方式而已，真正自己該在乎的是如何善用這個職務帶來的權力而有所作為。就像打任何球，總是能夠利用對手的弱點或占據有利位置得分并不意味著好球，而打出好球才應該是追求的目標，球員忘記了這個目標就太可惜了。

而真的就那麼可惜，馬英九擔任國民黨主席期間，即沒有將國民黨的腐朽、僵化、反改革作出一番整頓，也沒有對失去政權進行痛定思痛的反省，甚至連一個熟練政客會運用黨主席權力作一些自私的實力規劃也沒有。馬英九參選國民黨主席的意義，似乎只是要讓自己的履歷更完備，以及空閒的兩年不致沒有版面，就像是一個沒人氣的歌手，拼命上節目鬧緋聞曝光以求賣多幾張唱片卻忘了創作出好作品才是正道。讓我看穿了一個事實，那就是，馬英九始終就是一個明星，不是政治家，更不是領袖。

要說馬英九的特質，無疑的，他真的是一個悲天憫人，清廉正直，恪守分際，學養豐富而且勤勞誠樸的好人，但他的成長環境限制了他的格局，而他誤以為出過國，留過洋，能夠流利的說英文就意味著他有世界性格局；成為被廣泛接受的政治明星讓他誤以為他自己是出色政治家，對自己優秀特質的迷戀使自己進入驕傲的誤區而無法自拔，使他格局受限，難以突破；而他的粉絲，即所謂的馬迷對他的寵溺以及他一次次順利的選戰又更加使他身陷自以為是，剛愎自用的惡性循環之中。我如果要對馬英九作出簡化的特質描述，那就是：善良、正直、規矩；僵化、不智、傲慢。是的，傲慢，別忘了一個非常謙恭有禮的人也可以是非常傲慢的。

這樣的明星作為臺灣總統在2008年是需要的，金融危機前可能也是足夠的。臺灣在經歷陳水扁民進黨八年的折騰之後，損失最重的是社會價值觀，羞恥感的流失，是非觀的模糊，擁有權力的人不知謙卑，追求利益的人不擇手段。2008年，臺灣在經歷民主化過程幾十年之後陷入民主最大的夢魘，民粹泛濫，人民在混帳政客、無恥文人、嗜血媒體、貪婪奸商的操弄下，呈現對立仇恨、膚淺非理性的狀態，哪怕在痛恨這種狀態的同時表現得還是一樣。那時的臺灣需要的是一個“好人”，需要的是溫和的撥亂反正，重建價值，需要的是休養生息，療傷止痛。馬英九的善良、正直、規矩使他成為幾乎絕無僅有的適合人選。

然而，2008年進入下半年，已當選就職總統的馬英九卻必須面對一個比參選時嚴峻得多的形勢。這個形勢就是席卷全球，影響深巨的金融海嘯。它給臺灣總統提出的課題不僅僅是每個國家都必須面對的經濟危機，還包括因為這個金融海嘯而大大提高的中國大陸的國際影響力，還包括至今沒能從敗選中走出來的民進黨借機繼續制造對立，還包括更加複雜困難的參與國際社會的需求。這一切都呼喚馬英九“好人”以外的特質，這卻無法令我樂觀。

今天的世界需要祝福，影響全球，影響臺灣甚巨的中國大陸也需要祝福，臺灣當然也需要祝福，就祝福馬英九的保守特質保佑臺灣不要出什麼紕漏；祝福他能夠聽得進去的那個把智囊，出於偏愛而給他出的主意，剛好都是好主意，而且都能讓他覺得可以出夠風頭，過足自戀的癮於是欣然接受。

祝福，祝福。

Amazing similarities

2009-03-01T15:52:00.000-08:00

Leaving in exile for nearly 20 years, I wonder all the time how much I can be the same with my fellow Chinese left behind, classmates, childhood buddies, or just average Lao zhang and Xiao Wang walking on the street of Beijing.

I know the difference must be enormous. 20 years living aboard have given me opportunities to learn so much more than I would ever have if I spent the last 20 years living in China.

Few days ago, I was surfing the internet, looking for some old time literature and music. I was searching for those that made some strong impacts to me twenty some years ago. Novel such as 北方的河, 海水下面是泥土 or an old song from a TV series. They are a little old now as they are not the most hit item on the net, digging them out can be a labor. The return from the search-engine on those entries often direct me to BBS where people talked about or, doing the same, searching for those. Messages left on those BBS have convinced me for one thing. The similarities of thought on those are quite amazing. Maybe we lived through a time period when accessible cultural materials are so limited, our focus were often directed to same items; maybe we lived through a time period when surrounding are so challenging, our outlooks were often shaped to same types; maybe we lived through a time period when the hope are so faint, the quest for it were often merged to same path.

I found amazing similarities in the ideas that was buried in very different choice of words between myself and those who left behind, classmates, childhood buddies, or just average Lao Zhang and Xiao Wang walking on the street of Beijing. I found these similarities soothing, to an anxious heart worries about exile may change too much.

在對立後面

2008-11-02T16:55:00.000-08:00

陳雲林來臺，維安規格高被媒體形容為“元首級禮遇”，是少見多怪，頭腦清醒的人大概都不會看不出這中間的差別。而且這番高規格跟兩個星期前張銘清來臺期間發生的暴力沖突當然有絕對的關係，又與臺灣過去幾年的非理性兩極對立又有極大關係。

可惜，臺灣一場一邊倒的總統選舉結果，還是沒能讓沉溺於因政治兩極對立而亢奮的小部分人清醒過來，急功近利而短視的政客還在繼續操弄對立；淺薄而嗜血的媒體把這小部分人放大為臺灣的全貌；朝野當權者，無論是因為愚蠢自大，或是所謂被綁架，都無法在這種氛圍中保持清醒；沮喪的大多數只好繼續沮喪，或者從《海角七號》中找到些許慰藉。

真希望陳雲林看到的是另外一個臺灣，一個更真實更能夠代表大多數臺灣人的臺灣：一個自由，多元的臺灣，而自由與多元的最深刻精神內涵就是對他人自由與與己不同的多元主張的尊重與包容。在臺灣，有人主張統一，有人主張臺灣獨立，確信陳雲林早就知道，這次也看見了。但是，無論那聲音是不是多數，所有的臺灣人都尊重這些主張，這，才應該是讓他感到震撼的那股力量。而這次陳雲林的臺灣之行，在層層的維安人員包圍之下，恐怕，不容易感受到。

對臺灣影響最大的外部因素，大概就是中國大陸，美國，再加一個夾在美國與中國之間的日本；其中，影響最大的是中國，這一點，任何政客都不應忽視。臺灣的內部經濟，臺灣的國際地位，臺灣的安全，無不與中國有極為密切的關係，能夠與中國有良好的關係幾乎是臺灣發展的必需。不承認這一點，如果不是居心叵測，至少也是缺乏視野。

要提醒執政當局，改善兩岸關係，雖然的的確確是推動經濟，提高國際地位，緩解臺灣面臨軍事威脅的不二法門，固然反對黨指責“賣臺”帽子太大，但人民也并沒有完全放心執政黨。沒錯，這麼大的一步棋，要讓人民完全放心不可能，但至少要讓我們看到當局在捍衛主權，面對中國強權有什麼樣的智慧，有什麼樣的堅持。主權與尊嚴的問題也許不是這次會談的內容，但卻是體現在每次與北京當局打交道的方方面面，也許不是在兩會交手的過程，而是在APEC，而是在中南美洲，而是在WHO。善意提醒執政者，絕不能有“等碰到主權問題時，再表達嚴守立場”的心態，更希望反對黨所指出在國民黨中的“親中勢力”不會影響兩岸政策的制定與執行。作為一個來自中國大陸的異議分子，我深知共產黨利用一些人出於對民進黨幾年來在臺灣惡搞的反感，以及失去權力的憤憤不平心態，用茅臺酒，釣魚臺國宴，警車開道給與溫暖，所努力建立的統一戰線。希望執政當局很清楚地明白，七百五十萬選票所選的絕不是這批人。

對於反對黨，我衷心希望能夠重新拾起人民的希望，在對於國民黨失望透頂的時代，給了民進黨機會的臺灣人民過去這八年再次失望，教訓過民進黨之後，仍然沒有看到她的反省自新，眼睜睜看著她走向新黨式微的一條老路，那就是擁抱極端，崇尚對立。善意提醒民進黨，臺灣的媒體是淺薄嗜血的，一些對立沖突的行為可以占據版面，但絕不代表大多數人民的好惡。一個簡單的計算方法：對立法則固然可以穩固一批支持者，但也確立了幾乎同樣數目的對立者，所有中間的選民在對立內容選擇之後，就是選擇要不要對立了；而當對立內容沒有說服力時，懲罰挑動對立也已經變成這些中間選民確定的選擇方向。當執政當局并沒有在大原則上犯錯時，對立的內容被褊狹自私政客所裹脅，只會讓民進黨在中間選民中繼續流失，哪怕國民黨永遠學不會反省自新，只要有像馬英九這樣的人看守住它不犯大錯，民進黨就永遠無法超越小黨的局限。陳雲林來臺灣時，除了衝撞維安而擠上版面，除了給執政黨扣幾頂“賣臺”的大帽子，對兩岸關係提出一些像樣的主張和對今天執政黨的具體批判才是應該作的。

而要告訴陳雲林的是，臺灣是一個民主社會，雖然民主有時會走入盲目與民粹的死胡同，但是每一次的選舉都會讓拿著選票，也就是掌握巨大權利的人民，有機會反省；無論媒體多麼淺薄，在資訊開放的社會，這種反省與思考就會揚棄舊思路，舊政客；激烈對立亢奮之後，不得不承擔沉重社會對立後果的人民就會修正自己曾經在激情之下的決定；那些用茅臺酒，釣魚臺國宴培養的“統一戰線”在臺灣就會變成“失意政客”，即使在國民黨這種腐朽僵化的政黨也會很快失去影響力。要跟一個民主社會對話，必須要深刻瞭解選民的思想。在兩岸關係這個議題上，無論表面多麼對立，臺灣人民對此的看法其實相當接近，那就是無論誰都無法接受在上千枚導彈威脅之下的和談，無論誰都對中國在國際社會絞殺打壓臺灣的作法極度反感；無論誰都無法接受北京自居於中央政府的不平等安排，無論誰都無法信任來自對自己的人民開槍的政府所作的承諾。

正在沉淀中的臺灣，要完全揚棄操弄民粹的政客，可能還要一段時間；中國要理解這些還有花更長的時間，兩岸關係也必將走上一段相當遠的路。理性，冷靜的選民是民主社會施政正確順利的重要保障。

陳水扁的理想

2008-08-13T17:57:00.000-07:00

看一個人，一定要全面，無論多么令人討厭的人，如果能有所成就，則一定有其過人之處。陳水扁就是這樣一個人，無論你多麼討厭他，也不得不承認這個人，從美麗島律師到臺北市議員，到立法委員，臺北市長，最終選上總統，在他手上完成了臺灣的第一次政黨輪替，他一定有其過人之處。

毅力，正是陳水扁的最大過人之處。如果沒有極為堅強的毅力，很難在艱苦的從政道路上，一路走來，始終充滿鬥志，充滿精力。

那麼，陳水扁的毅力來源又是什麼呢？這我只能猜測了。對於權力的渴望，多年的從政過程中品嘗到權力帶來的成就感，現實利益，以及因而產生的貪婪，這些都可能是他的毅力後面的動力來源。但我相信，在最初的時候，在這些足以讓人墮落腐化的誘因還不存在的時候，在需要承擔壓力、風險並付出巨大代價的時候，陳水扁的毅力的來源一定是理想。

美麗島的時候，陳水扁所需仰賴的毅力必定是更堅更強的，可能要比2004年競選連任時更超乎我們的想象。而那時的陳水扁熬了過來，靠的正是這過人的毅力，而這毅力靠的只能是崇高而堅定的理想。可以想見，這些理想是和當初推動臺灣走向民主的所有仁人志士是一樣的，和為這理想而犧牲奉獻的人是一樣的，和他所辯護的施明德是一樣的，和他所推崇的黃信介是一樣的；一樣的美好，一樣的壯麗，一樣的令人動容。

這理想在什么時候褪色淡去了呢？想必不是一朝一夕的事情，這里邊的故事寫成小說一定精彩，給任何一個對政治有熱心的人看都一定有非常重要的參考作用，然而此時令我思考的是另外一個問題：陳水扁是怎樣的心境？

我願意相信，他還是能夠想起自己當初為理想而奮鬥的風發意氣的，也一定能想起為這理想共同走過來的戰友們的，也許還能夠想起逝去的黃信介主席黨外時期跟他一起憧憬這理想的畫面吧。我很想知道，承認確有將幾億款項匯往國外的陳水扁還能夠想起他的那些理想嗎？

陳水扁有沒有對曾擁有理想的驕傲，有沒有回想追求理想過程的激動，有沒有對而今背叛理想的慚愧？反扁者會覺得他大概對那份理想只剩下冷漠甚至是不屑了，然而，我還是願意相信，相信陳水扁在某個靜思的時刻，多少會有一絲絲的感慨與不安吧。今天我希望看到的正是這一絲絲的不安能夠幫助他在這樣的一個權力已經放下，誘惑也在遠去，掌聲與群眾也不再包圍著自己，越來越多的時間需要面對自己的時刻作出正確的抉擇。雖然，我並不樂觀。

Ma Ying-Jeou’s Trigonometric Challenge

2008-03-05T15:58:00.000-08:00

If there is no surprise, Ma will become the
president of Taiwan
in little over a week, and resume his office in two months. With all the problems he is facing, Taiwan’s international
status will be a more and more important issue he must deal with.

Taiwanese people want a membership in the UN, in
what way, with what name maybe hard to agree, but hoping for the government to
do something about it is overwhelmingly coherent.

China, on the other hand, yelling anti succession, blocking
all access of Taiwan on its attempt to claim its name on any international
arena, not only on UN membership but also WHO and many others. Any time Taiwan
wants to use the name Taiwan
or ROC will be boycott by the Chinese government.

The West, worry they may piss off the government
that controls the largest economic engine of the world, took the easiest stand,
repeat one of the most out dated diplomatic statement of the time: “Status Quo!”

Taiwan
is an obsessed democracy. Even if Ma
wants to ignore this demand of people on having an appropriate international
status Taiwan
deserves, the opposition will make sure that voice will be heard. This will become a big pressure to Ma for
sure.

Is this a solvable trigonometric challenge?

If one pays enough attention, one would
understand the true interest of all three parties that hide behind the tumultuous
and hostile and tough voices and actions.

What Taiwan really wants is dignity,
safety, equality and participating opportunity. Do they really want to declare as an
independent country? Many politicians
argue that that is the only way to secure those wishes. China’s military threat make people hesitate
about taking any action toward that directions, but at the same time, it makes
people believe more and more in some day it maybe the only way. Military threat aside, the cultural tie and
economical interests are playing no small part in peoples mind. In sum, people in Taiwan are undecided about weather
they should claim independent or not.

That is actually the only thing China cares.

It should be understood that China don’t really want reunification with Taiwan, but they sure can not tolerate Taiwan
to become independent. This may sound
funny or even contradictory to many who don’t understand the totalitarian
thinking. To the Chinese regime, to
reunify with Taiwan would only be extra credit, and nobody will be blamed if
that is not done, because the separated status was passed down from the last
generation or even from Mao time. The
current regime does not have any responsibility of carrying out the
reunification that was not done by Mao or Deng.
However, it was also seen to the regime that neither Mao nor Deng lost Taiwan.
Whoever losses Taiwan while in the office will
face tremendous challenge. It was just a
status of temporarily non-unified. That
is the status quo China
wants.

The West’s true interest now is to have a stable
cross strait relation. At the beginning,
US and the West supported Taiwan
being an allied-force against communism.
Time goes by, for other interest, earlier geopolitics, now economy, the
West betray Taiwan. But after all, in the mean time this allied
force developed into a democracy. It
became an inconvenient fact that Taiwan
is democracy and China
is not, and they have to take sides from time to time.

Given these are the true interests; is there a
chance to find a solution that satisfies all parties? The answer is yes. It is not easy and will take quite some
creative thinking, but, yes.

The key relay on the fact China wants nothing more
than Taiwan forsake the possibility of Claiming independent; and in the myths
of “One China” to be respected that was created over the long time of
propaganda and self-hypnotism. If it is guaranteed
that Taiwan
will not claim independent and agree on some terminology of “One China”,
Chinese regime is willing to give up so much on the negotiation table.

Assume there is a negotiation table, whereas China has the economic, military and diplomatic upper-hand,
it may seems Taiwan
has little bargaining chips. But in
fact, giving China those
words of guarantee is the biggest chips Taiwan has.

If Taiwan
can get dignity, security, equality and opportunity to participate in the world
arena in exchange of those wording, in my humble opinion, this is a good
trade. The only issue left is, last but
not the least, the trust issue. Lack of
trust have brought China to use military threat against Taiwan, blockage in all
international arena against Taiwan; lack
of trust have made Taiwanese people not being able to sense with the Chinese
regime. And that is an issue can be
solved by international involvement. If
the deal is endorsed and guaranteed by the West, if Taiwanese people are
convinced that they can actually get what they truly want without worrying
Chinese may change their mind after they have entered and agreement, they will
take this deal.

Let us countentplay a little further, after a
dramatic hand shaking between Hu Jin-Tao and Ma Ying-Jeou in Washington DC or
Paris, the communiqué was announced, and it reads like this: “The two
governments on the two side of the Taiwan straits meet today and agrees that
there is only one China in the world.
The two governments are equal brotherly members of this one China; The two government declare that under this
condition, they will never use military force against each other; In the world, the two governments will support
each other in all areas according to the best interest to their people,
including United Nation; ” Following the
communiqué, PRC announce full military adjustment and remove of all missiles
against Taiwan, and form a cooperation mechanism with Taiwan defense force for military
coordination; Taiwan’s UN membership is
agreed by all nations with no obstacle; State-head
of Taiwan jointly take part in all international occasions side by side with
their Chinese counter part…

Of course, this is only a countemplay. But the logic is not. Ma Ying-Jeou has a chance, a genuine chance
to realize this. This maybe is the only
chance too. Even if the development of
history sets a different course, it is beneficial to understand this chance
truly does exist.

China Mocks the Spirit of the Olympics

2007-09-02T16:50:00.000-07:00

When the Summer Olympics take place in Beijing next year, I will
not be there. The obvious reason for this is because I was a student leader in
the protests of 1989 that resulted in what is now often referred to as the June
4 Tiananmen Massacre, and have been in exile ever since. But the less obvious
corollary of this is that I will not be there because China is not ready to embrace the
Olympic spirit.

I think it is safe to say that, if the
Chinese government were ready to embrace the Olympic spirit of unity,
inclusiveness and equality, all of us who are exiled from our homeland would
like nothing else than to be in Beijing next year. After all, it would be an
opportunity, not only to enjoy the Olympic festivities, but also to be reunited
with out families. The fact that this will not be the case makes a mockery of China’s
“One World One Dream” Olympics slogan, and its pretensions to being a mature
member of the global community.

Mine is simply one of countless stories of
exile from the world’s fastest growing economy, but I think, in view of Beijing’s triumphalism
about hosting the world’s premier sporting event, my exile and what it means
for me personally is worth mentioning. Not only will it not be possible for me
attend the Beijing Olympics, but the Beijing
government will continue to hold the family I have not seen in 18 years
hostage, and will no doubt continue to refuse to issue them passports so that
we can be reunited in a foreign country.

I am sure that many people who attend the
Olympics next year will be aware to some degree or other that, despite the
newly sanitized streets of Beijing (involving the eviction of 1.5 million
people, according to the Center on Housing Rights and Evictions), the
awe-inspiring sporting facilities, and the grand panoply of the ceremonies,
there is a dark side to the festivities. But, as the International Olympic
Committee did when it awarded the event to Beijing,
they will have decided that China
has still made great strides towards becoming a better place than it was in the
summer of 1989, and it deserves a chance.

I wish this were true. If it were, I would
be joining family and friends in Beijing
next year.

The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics are
regularly described as “China’s
coming out party”. Nineteen years after the world watched the student
occupation of Tiananmen Square, the subsequent decade-and-a-half of
record-breaking economic growth is poised to culminate in a spectacle
calculated to awe the world and marginalize the hecklers who point to China’s
poor human rights record, its petrodollar complicity in genocide in Darfur, its
occupation of Tibet and its aggressive stance on unification with Taiwan, as
evidence that China is not yet mature enough to host the world’s most coveted
sporting event.

Politics have been an issue at nearly every
Olympics since the 1936 Berlin
meet, when athletes were expected to shout “sieg
heil” as they marched past Adolf Hitler’s chancellor’s box. Germany and
Japan were not invited, and the USSR failed to show, at the 1948 London
Olympics; 11 Israeli athletes died as a result of an attack by Palestinian
terrorists at the 1972 Munich Olympics; and more than 60 nations boycotted the
1980 Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, it
seems likely that the Beijing Olympics, despite the hecklers, will go ahead
without any boycotts, and – if Beijing has its
way – without incident in Beijing
itself.

The reason for this, I believe, is related
to the complexities of the West’s perceptions of and relations with China.
A strong case can be made that the protests leading up to June 4 in 1989 were instrumental in opening
up China,
forcing the government to acquiesce to the demands of an educated emergent
middle class. But the suppression of the protests came at enormous cost to China
on the world stage, and the government has been paying for it ever since in
terms of western scrutiny of its human rights record.

At the same time, however, when Deng
Xiaoping toured southern China
in 1992 and called on Chinese to go into business “even more boldly” and “more
quickly” to create a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics, the
West put its post-Tiananmen qualms behind it and poured into China with a flood of foreign
investment. This is perfectly understandable. Since the Opium Wars, the West’s
relationship with China
has hinged on how to inveigle the world’s most populous nation into opening its
doors to the global economy.

Fifteen years on, China has become an important motor
of global economic growth. In this way there are two opposing western views of China:
the one-party state that denies basic human rights and imprisons or exiles
dissenters, and global powerhouse, home to 1.3 billion potential consumers.

When Beijing
hosts the Olympics next year, it is the latter view it is looking to capitalize
on. Despite the relentless trickle of negative press about China – the
disparities of wealth and poverty, environmental degradation, suppression of
human rights – over the past decade the world has beat a path to China’s door,
and the government in Beijing sees the Olympics as an opportunity to put on a
spectacle that will finally eclipse the world’s lingering images of bloodshed
in the capital.

It is very possible that government will be
successful in this endeavor, but as one of countless exiles from modern China
who will not be able to be there in person, the summer of 2008 promises to be a
major betrayal of the Olympic spirit.

For Pierre de
Coubertin, who was responsible for the revival of the Olympic Games in 1900,
one of the four principles of the games was to achieve a truce, “a four-yearly
festival of the springtime of mankind." I find this idea of a “truce”
interesting because the reality is that Beijing
has no plans for a truce of any kind. The intention is for Beijing
to parade itself to the rest of the world as the China everybody doing business with
it and the government that rules by slogans and an iron fist would like to
pretend it is: an open, harmonious and peaceful society that is taking its rightful
place as a global leader.

The idea behind this four-yearly festival
is that the world put its conflicts behind it and comes together in a spirit of
unity. In Beijing,
that will not happen because any Chinese national who has a grievance with the
country’s one-party government will have no part to play in the celebrations.
That list includes anyone who campaigns for greater autonomy in Tibet, my
homeland of Xinjiang, my adopted home of Taiwan, anyone who has struggled to
expand participatory politics in China or to have the right to worship as they
choose, or anyone who has dissented publicly from whatever the current Party
line happens to be.

There should be no mistake about this. China’s
“coming out party” is nothing of the sort. The party in Beijing will be the Chinese Communist Party’s
“coming out party”. This government has long seen participating in the Olympics
as a legitimizing maneuver, not only on the world stage, but also in terms of
winning glory for the Chinese nation, playing on nationalism and simultaneously
conflating China with the one-party state that rules it – as the famous saying
goes, without the Communist Party, there would be no modern China.

The state has devoted enormous resources
into transforming itself into an effective sporting nation. It was not until the Los
Angeles games in 1984, that the PRC managed to win its
first gold. But by the 2004 games in Athens, China was in third place behind the United States and Russia, sweeping up 32 golds.
Winning the right to host the Olympics, then, is the final act in this more
than two-decade crusade by the CCP to achieve legitimacy through sporting
prowess.

Of course, the Chinese government itself
knows that its motives have little resonance with the Olympic spirit, and as a
result it is cloaking the event in the familiar, fuzzy rhetoric of unity we see
in the official slogan, “One World, One Dream”, which the official website
helpfully explains, “conveys the lofty ideal of the
people in Beijing as well as in China to share the global community and
civilization and to create a bright future hand in hand with the people from
the rest of the world.” Similar sentiments can be seen in the website’s
explanation of the Beijing Olympics emblem – a calligraphic seal that features
a wriggly human being who appears to be dancing, and which symbolizes a China
that is “opening its arms to welcome the rest of the
world to join the Olympics, [in] a celebration of ‘peace, friendship and
progress of mankind’."

If this is the message
to world, at home the Chinese government is using the Olympics to repress
dissidents and activists, while at the same time using the games to more firmly
establish the legality and validity of its rule. The terrible pity of this is
that the Party is exploiting national pride, and denying the Chinese people of
the right to enjoy the true spirit of the Olympics. Meanwhile, the world’s
participation in the event is an act of collusion with a political party that
in recent years has presided over a remarkable period of economic growth, but
has nevertheless throughout the past six decades since 1949 been responsible
for far more setbacks than it has successes. It also continues to be as
oppressive as it was when I was forced into exile in 1989, despite the
foreign-invested veneer of westernization that can be seen in the major cities.

When China made its most recent Olympics
bid, it promised the IOC and the international community that it was prepared
to make substantial improvements in human rights. But, just four days after winning
the bid, then deputy prime minister, Li Lanqing, announced that China
should step up its efforts to counter the Falungong, a spiritual movement whose
members are routinely imprisoned – at least 100 are thought to have died in
detainment. The then vice-president, Hu Jintao, weighed in next, saying it was
essential for China
to counter separatist movements “orchestrated by the Dali Lama and the world’s
anti-China forces.”

This should come as no
surprise to anyone, least of all the OIC, which took the surprisingly naïve
position that holding the Olympics in Beijing
was likely to improve China’s
human rights. The opposite was always bound to be the case. For Beijing to pull off the
kind of Olympics it would like to, it is forced to repress anything of a
political nature that might mar its moment of glory.

Amnesty International,
for example, is calling for the immediate release of Ye Guozhu, who was
arrested in December 2004, and is serving a four-year prison sentence for
attempting to organize a demonstration against forced evictions in Beijing,
after two restaurants he owned were demolished in 2001 to make way for Olympics
sports facilities. His relatives say he has health problems after having been
tortured in prison, and it is claimed he was beaten with electro-shock battens
in Beijing’s
Chaobai Prison.

An equally high-profile
example is human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who was convicted of “subversion”
in December 2006, and is now under house arrest. While under formal arrest, he
claims to have been treated harshly by police. Meanwhile, in April this year,
four pro-Tibetan independence protesters were arrested, after they hung up a
Free Tibet banner at Mount Everest base camp,
protesting the government’s plans to relay the Olympic torch through the Tibetan
Himalayas.

According to the
Olympic Charter, sport must be “at the service of the harmonious development of
man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the
preservation of human dignity.” But groups protesting against, or calling for
boycotts of next year’s Olympics point to a host of CCP transgressions against
both a peaceful society and human dignity.

A commitment to reform
or abolish China’s
“re-education through labor” policy appears stalled, possibly so as to clean up
the streets of Beijing
of vagrants and drug-users ahead of the Olympics. Meanwhile, Amnesty reports
that the lead up to the Olympics has seen “moves to expand detention without
trial and ‘house arrest’ of activists, and … a tightening of controls over
domestic media and the Internet.”

For the most part, the
foreign community seems to have found it relatively easy to ignore these
domestic affronts to the spirit of the Olympics. The issue of Darfur
is proving somewhat more problematic. Names such Bob Geldof and Mia Farrow have
publicly criticized China
for supporting the atrocities in Darfur through massive subsidies to oil-rich Sudan.
In March this year, Farrow wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that popularized the term, “the Genocide
Olympics”. A Google search for the latter, five months later, produces close to
1.5 million hits.

For any Chinese – even
those of us in exile – this background to China’s successful bid for the
Olympics should be more a cause for self-examination than for celebration. Ideally,
the Olympics I would like to attend next year would be the ultimate culmination
of the kaifang – open – policy that
was ushered in by Deng Xiaoping in 1979.

Deng’s “open door”
policy was a revolutionary turning point in modern Chinese history, and for all
the problems facing China
at this juncture, it has been successful in raising the living standards for
millions of Chinese people. Unfortunately, China’s new-found economic openness
has never been matched by the openness that is needed to reform the country’s
oppressive one-party state. And this being the case the games that will take
place next year will belong to that state, not to the Chinese people, the vast
majority of whom will not be allowed anywhere near the Olympics festivities in
Beijing.

For my part, if I were permitted to return to China
for the Olympics, I admit I would seize the opportunity – it would be my chance
to see the ageing parents and the brother I have not seen in close on two
decades. But, the long-awaited family reunion aside, I think it unlikely I
would find much else in the way of cause for celebration.

——Published Far Eastern Economic Review, Cover date 2007.09.04.
This article has won the Hong Kong Human Rights Press Award, (Oped) 2007.

The Tiananmen Knot

2007-06-02T17:14:00.000-07:00

The recent comments by veteran Hong Kong
politician Ma Lik have reignited media interest in the events of June 4, 1989,
sometimes – though less frequently in these heady days of the China economic
miracle – referred to as the Tiananmen Massacre. Mr Ma’s comments may have been
inopportune and ill-considered, but the media interest in and subsequent public
debate on the issue have brought to light issues that laid buried in recent
years.

On May 15, Mr Ma, who is chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and
Progress of Hong Kong, stated at an informal press conference that the June 4
crackdown was not a massacre because troops in Beijing did not fire
“indiscriminately” at the protesting students. It has to be said – there is not
point pretending otherwise – that these were foolish words. Mr Ma has seized on
the word “massacre” and, in denying that it can be strictly apply to events
that transpired on June 4, attempted to whitewash a very problematic moment in
recent Chinese history. It is small surprise then that Mr Ma has suffered a
fierce backlash from many quarters, including exiled dissidents such as myself.

I do believe, however,
that clumsy comments such as those by Mr Ma need to be considered, not only at
face value, but also in terms of the implications for all of us who have any
kind of relationship with China.

The truth is that China
is no longer the same country that galvanized the world with scenes of tens of
thousands of students and workers taking to the streets to demand change. For a
huge number of Chinese today, particularly the elite who have access to the
university system, that change has already taken place. Despite the manifold
problems – a precipitous wealth-divide, rural unrest and intolerance of
political dissent, to name just a few – China today is far wealthier and more
cosmopolitan than the country I was forced to leave in 1989. It is governed by
a new generation of leaders – technocrats who speak in terms of words like
“governance” – and the old-generation Iron-Curtain generals are gone.

In short, with the rise
of China as a global economic force, and the 2008 Beijing Olympics just around
corner, it comes as no surprise that businesspeople and politicians of all
stripes should be considering how to put the political bottlenecks of the past
behind them. Sooner or later, after all, the past has to take its place in
history so that we can all collaborate in making a better a future. It goes
without saying that this is something that occupies the minds of dissidents
such as myself who cannot return to their homeland.

I am sure that Mr Ma
too is one of those people. Like us, he would like to be able to move on.
Unfortunately, his remarks were so outrageous that mostly all they served to do
was to open old wounds rather than stimulate debate about what the
preconditions for reconciliation might be. Even, I am sure, most dissidents
would welcome reconciliation – indeed it is a necessary development. But until
this day, 18 years on, reconciliation has not taken place, and for the most
part the world deals with June 4 by pretending it did not happen. Mr Ma’s
comments were a reminder that, whatever we call it, it did happen, and that
ghosts of June 4 can still arouse powerful emotions. Amid widespread public
calls of “shameless” in Hong Kong, the Apple
Daily ran a front-page headline calling Mr Ma “a scoundrel”, while the
Tiananmen Mother’s Group accused Mr Ma of “helping evil people do evil”.

For me, these reactions
underscore the fact that, no matter how vital China has become to world economy
and how much it has changed with the times, the Tiananmen knot cannot be
unraveled either by ignoring it or by denying it happened. The truth has to be
confronted before reconciliation can take place. The question of whether it is
time to forgive and move on is on many people’s minds, including my own. But
forgiveness, like reconciliation, has as its precondition the truth.

To this day, the
Chinese government calls the Tiananmen student movement, a
“counterrevolutionary riot”, all the while denying the scale of bloodshed. This
is a convenient line that I’m sure many would like to go along with, but as a
falsehood it leaves no room for dialog. It is a position that asks us to
forgive by forgetting.

Forgiveness will come
with reconciliation, but for that to happen the Chinese government, and its
defenders such as Mr Ma, will have to extend the same goodwill to the victims
of June 4, and to those bereaved, imprisoned and exiled, that they are willing
to extend to China. That means confronting the truth. Reconciliation under any
other terms is nothing more than appeasement.

As I have said before,
I think often about reconciliation. Like many of us in exile, I would like to
be part of the new China. Unfortunately, the day for that to happen has not
arrived. The conditions are not right. And until Beijing and its champions are
willing to engage in open dialog about the events of 1989 that day will not
arrive.

——Published 2007.06.04, Asia Wall Street Journal

“廢統”的淺薄政治涵義

2006-02-28T14:32:00.000-08:00

昨天陳水扁又一次依據他的習慣﹐在二二八紀念集會上嗆聲﹐幾次問台下觀眾﹐“我錯了嗎﹖”﹐恭喜他﹐又得到了他在“主場”睽違的掌聲。

其實要廢除或終止國統綱領這件事本身﹐沒什麼大錯。他在宣示的時候的文稿也不能說不漂亮﹐甚至反將一軍﹐問馬英九如果台獨真是人民選項﹐規定人民除統一以外並無選項的國統綱領怎可不廢除﹐也絕對在邏輯上站得住腳。邏輯再通順﹐還是沒有回答另外幾個相關問題。

第一﹐這算不算違背承諾﹖邏輯變得非常好的陳水扁恐怕沒辦法否認違背承諾的事實。

政治上的承諾﹐有時並不公平﹐也不見得就不能違背﹐但是﹐總統違背政治承諾總是必須面對幾個更基本的問題吧﹕當初作出這樣承諾的原因喪失了嗎﹖違背承諾的結果會怎樣評估過嗎﹖這個結果由誰承擔﹖如果要由人民承擔﹐有正當的原因嗎﹖當然了﹐陳水扁並不是以邏輯性強為特色的﹐而是以控制媒體焦點﹐政治議題為其強項﹐以詭辯﹐強辯為著稱。

第二﹐今天作出這樣的宣示有什麼國內國際環境因素﹖中國大陸的威脅有突然或顯著提昇嗎﹖如果有﹐我們台灣人民願意相挺﹐但是﹐有嗎﹖比起作出國家元首的承諾時候﹐有嗎﹖還是國際局勢突然或顯著友善起來了﹖

說台灣人記性差﹐恐怕也沒那麼差。我所看到唯一合理解釋陳水扁此番作為的國內因素就是去年底民進黨在縣市長選舉慘敗﹐人們要求陳水扁道歉﹐其實就是要求他認錯﹐他以反省為名﹐躲起來三個月之後第一次以明確議題現身。再次應驗民進黨篤信的真理﹕只要有對立﹐再爛的總統也還是有掌聲。

第三﹐宣示文中﹐口口聲聲“民主價值”“人民福祉”﹐陳水扁可否回答﹐在廢統這一議題上考慮過人民意願嗎﹖有時政治對立是為了尊嚴﹐有時政治和解是為了發展。今天台灣人民的意願是要對立還是和解﹐陳水扁果真那麼關心嗎﹖還是只會算計和解與對立﹐哪個可以帶來更多掌聲和選票﹖掌聲恐怕只剩下選的巧的場合主席台前一點了﹐而選票﹐去年底的結論雖然已經很清楚﹐但大概﹐沒有連任壓力的陳水扁根本就不在乎了。

沒有世人關注民運仍在堅持

2006-01-19T16:51:00.000-08:00

又有一位民運人士從金門跳船來到台灣尋求政治庇護。我意識到，這牽扯到台灣人民如何看待民運這樣一個問題。

世人過去這些年如何看待中國民運，我點滴在心頭，既有對我們理想的支持，也有對我們不成熟的失望﹔既有對中國政府的不滿而產生對我們努力的敬意，
也有對中國政府畏懼而對我們存在的排斥﹔既有對未來中國走向自由而終於不再威脅和平的期待，也有今天與中國大陸做生意而不得不避諱民主的顧忌。我常常被詢問到：「你們民運，嗯……還在繼續嗎？」問題中充滿關心，但也充滿狐疑與不信任，還有一些失望甚至不滿。

中國經濟埋沒民運

顏軍今年32歲，來自陝西，曾經因為公開著文呼籲為六四平反而被中國政府判刑入獄兩年，出獄後繼續被警察騷擾，不僅騷擾本人，連帶也騷擾其家人朋友。不准工作，卻又不准與家人聯絡得到他們的接濟。同樣的故事發生在中國過去16、17年來，中國各個地方，同樣的故事一再重複著。

不要誤會！我不是在控訴中國政府的殘酷！我不是在訴說我們的悲情！我們這些民運人士自始至終就瞭解所面對的邪惡力量有多麼強悍而無情，也都有「我不下地獄，誰下地獄」的堅定信念。我在講的所謂同樣的故事，是指在如此惡劣的迫害之下，一直就有顏軍這樣的民運人士以略顯微弱但絕對堅定的聲音堅持著良知，反抗那侵奪人民自由的龐大政府機器。

今天的民運，不再是1989年天安門廣場式的波瀾壯闊了，也不再是當初在美國在巴黎聚集全球支持者那樣的令人滿懷希望了。而且那希望被嚴峻的現實擊碎之後，對於民運，世人似乎感到失望，也更吝於支持。

但今天的中國當然仍然還有民主運動，雖然注重收視率的媒體不再報導，失落的支持者不再關注，但我們這些沒有放棄的人知道，中國的民運仍然在堅持，在發聲，在串聯，不僅處處暗潮洶湧，而且發展為波瀾壯闊並非遙不可及。

世人對中國民運的冷漠，首先要檢討的是我們這些海外的民運份子們表現的不成熟，沒能夠滿足大家的希望。另外一個原因恐怕就是，當中國日漸強大之時，我們這些民運份子似乎慢慢變成了一種「不方便」。當年的殺人者今天仍然在殘酷迫害，仍然在殺人，但也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。

想去中國賺錢的人們會注意到的是上海浦東日新月異的城市面貌，卻不太願意談論中國農村的貧窮；對於開發官員的效率嘖嘖稱奇，卻寧可把這效率和那些就像發生在汕尾的慘案一樣的所有不公不義分割開來；世人雖然沒有忘記天安門，但常常提及似乎又和今天如潮水般湧向中國市場的行為有點不搭調，說重一點，有點莫名的良心不安。誰也不願意面對良心的不安，雖然中國的不民主同樣威脅著世人的和平，也威脅著在中國賺到的那些錢，但是，很多人仍然會覺得，中國的民運並不是世人的責任。不難想像，這樣的心態令我們總有些許的遺憾。

民主是一生的使命

推進中國的民主化，是我們這群「民運份子」一生不會推卸的責任與使命，十幾年前我們走上北京街頭，那時得到世人的理解與支持，曾給我們極大的力量。今天我們仍然在堅持理想，堅持民運，也仍然尋求世人一如既往的支持。

遺忘，鄉愿與逃避都是可怕的，歷史的悲劇往往在它們侵入我們的意識之時重複。而作為生活在自由社會的人民，面對專制者，捍衛自由民主的權力，不僅有其價值觀上的正當性，也有現實生活中能夠最大程度保護自己的功能性。至少吧，將心比心，給予這些為堅持理想而受到迫害的人庇護，這是唯一正確的選擇。

蘋果日報，2006年01月21日

長歌琴劍—遙祭賓雁

2005-12-05T15:22:00.000-08:00

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

2005-10-19T15:55:00.000-07:00

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﹗

2005-06-03T15:38:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

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

2005-03-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-05T16:21:00.000-08:00

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

2005-03-02T14:59:00.000-08:00

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

2005-02-13T16:40:00.000-08:00

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。

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

2005-01-18T16:09:00.000-08:00

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」

2005-01-16T16:36:00.000-08:00

「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

開放陸客觀光那麼難嗎

2004-09-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

旅行公會全國聯合會及業界代表組團到大陸訪問，大陸國家旅遊局局長何光煒告訴訪問團，只要台灣方面宣布全面開放大陸人士觀光，他個人將考慮邀請交通部長林陵三到大陸訪問。

開放觀光或可刺激經濟

大陸方面的高分貝喊話，再度讓開放大陸人士觀光議題浮上檯面，筆者注意到，這又是一個未經社會各界、產官學以及朝野全面思考討論卻攸關人民福祉的重大問題。

政府高層為了營造兩岸祥和氣氛，可以主動宣示停止已經箭在弦上的漢光演習，大陸先行釋出善意，希望台灣開放觀光，推動兩岸交流，我們怎可放棄這麼寶貴的機會？

政府推動旅遊產業經年，每年進入台灣的外國人不過百萬人左右。相比較鄰近的香港，每個月入港人數僅大陸觀光客就已遠超過這個數字，成為在其他產業受到上海磁吸而受重創之後，香港今天的重要發展基礎。如果我們能夠吸引大陸觀光客來台，當然應該是今天疲弱的台灣經濟的大利多。民眾對於推動此項政策更是充滿期待，尤其旅遊及周邊業者，一直期盼這股春風早日東來，苦等不來，政府的宣傳似乎令人覺得這是對岸在重重設限。果真如此，趕緊抓住大陸官員這次講話的「失風」，讓他不能反悔！

開放反可提高安全係數

然而，我們政府對於這項消息，不僅完全沒有任何喜出望外，而是馬上表現得極為低調，並告誡國人，不可輕信。兩岸關係複雜多變，兩岸當局高手過招，有些事情也許不便講得太明白，有些決策也許不便告知國人，但是，決策的思路，中心思想總該讓我們知道吧，政府到底願不願意大陸觀光客來台灣呢？

我們終於看出來了，政府其實並不願意！

不願意？這樣一個於政治上可以推動兩岸交流，緩和緊張情勢，開啟隔海對話，重建相互信任，於經濟上可以活絡旅遊市場，繼而帶動周邊乃至整體經濟結構的好事，我們的政府不願意？為什麼呢？

不要再搬出國家安全這頂用爛了的舊帽子了。倘若大陸當局想以人員滲透的方式影響我們的國家安全，且不說目前依親以及其他經貿文化交流每年進入並居住在台灣的大陸人早已超過幾十萬，光說持外國護照進入台灣的大陸人就已多如牛毛，而且真有中共間諜也是防不勝防。以限制大陸觀光客來捍衛國家安全，會有什麼成效？值得付出犧牲這麼大的商業契機的代價？何況，更多大陸人來到台灣，更直接的交流，更充分的理解，只會提高台灣的國家安全係數！

利害相比益處多於弊端

還可能有什麼原因呢？大陸客跳機？的確，完全開放來台觀光，大量的大陸觀光客湧入，一定會產生新的問題，但產生新的問題就採取新的方法，同時也藉機向對岸提出一些要求。開放東南亞一些國家勞工進入台灣，產生了一些問題，同時也解決了很多其他的問題，人民對於政府本來就有權提出這樣的要求。而不是用閉關自守的方法拒絕可能的問題，畢竟與帶來的正面效益相比較，產生的問題可謂九牛一毛。

那麼還有什麼原因讓我們的政府會不願意開放大陸客來台觀光呢？說穿了，意識形態作祟吧！

不喜歡滿台灣都是大陸人？兩岸關係存在敵對，大陸對我心存不良都是事實，在這種情況下，是有力、有理、有禮、有節，還是關起大門，拒絕與大陸人民的接觸，回到清朝時代？執政黨及其綠色友黨的一些政治人物的諸多言行，令人擔心這種幼稚而愚蠢的思維存在也就算了，還成為政策的制定依據，也決非不可能。

擔心大陸客來台導致兩岸關係趨緩和？沒錯，執政黨並沒有意願讓兩岸關係和緩下來才是令人真正最為擔心的。

保持本位抓住選民情緒

雖然民進黨上台以來，兩岸關係的倒退所導致的戰爭危機，國際關係的丕變，以及經濟的困境，都使得人民充滿了對政府的強烈不滿，也是在野黨強烈抨擊的重點，然而，執政黨總能夠在緊張的兩岸關係中得到選舉的利益卻是不爭的事實。換言之，哪怕把台灣推向戰爭的邊緣，哪怕在國際上我們日益孤獨，哪怕我們的經濟日陷泥淖，只要執政黨抓住與大陸對立的選民情緒，就不會輸掉選舉，既然這麼好用，這種衝突與對立怎可輕言改善？

告訴人民，遲遲不願開放大陸客來台觀光的決策思考到底是什麼？否則我們只能作出這樣的質疑。旅行公會全國聯合會大陸參訪團與大陸一群涉台及旅遊的相關官員接觸，他們提出了台灣的「誠意」問題。一個專制國家的官員質疑一個民主政府的決策是否有誠意，實在令人覺得饒富興味，也著實難堪。

——蘋果日報，2004年09月10日

遛鳥俠事件

2004-07-04T17:23:00.000-07:00

新新聞論壇

吾爾開希觀點

大標：遛鳥俠給老教育者帶來的挑戰

引言：「遛鳥」新聞讓思考到，大學生能否得到公平的對待，這是社會成熟度的檢驗尺。我們還該進一步檢討台灣校園管理的思考方式。

主文：

長庚大學「遛鳥」事件成為全國媒體的焦點，不知是媒體的創意還是來自校園﹐連這件事情的名稱都令人莞爾。這個事件轟動不是因為裸奔本身，而是他所讀的被批為「具保守色彩」的長庚大學校長親自干預，給予該生為兩大過、兩小過、留校察看。

首先我們應該審視，學生的行為是否真的錯誤。一般大眾不進一步思考會覺得該生裸奔「總是不好」，這也是幾天來在媒體聽到的說法，包括他本人及家長，學校則是嚴厲指責他「有損校譽」，但我反而在該生身上看到今天台灣社會難得的一些優點：首先，該生充滿熱誠，願意打賭為喜愛的運動隊加油﹔其次，該生重誠信，願賭服輸；第三，該生勇敢，在明知眾人圍觀的情況下遛鳥是需要極大勇氣的；最後，該生謙遜有禮，事件之後表現出願意接受批評的態度。

我們應該審視的還有，校長的言行是否適宜？從媒體所披露的情況看，包家駒校長非常專斷專行，將個人意志強加於人，不僅強加於該生，還強加於學校主張輕度處分的其它教職員，其處理過程表現出嚴苛家長心態。而事後面對外界的批評又不肯面對、拒絕討論，反而指責外界的批評不公。

指責該生作為「有損校譽」完全與事實不符，除非包校長所指的校譽不是筆者認定的大眾、媒體及學生對於學校的公評，而是其它人士、上級長官或捐助人對此事的看法。誰會因為一個大學生裸奔而鄙視這所學校？這位學生的作為沒有造成任何社會傷害──台灣不會被他的裸奔「傷了風化」。

「遛鳥」新聞應該使我們思考，事件結果是否對此遛鳥俠公平，大學生能否在社會關注之下得到公平的對待是我們所處社會成熟度的檢驗尺。我們還該進一步思考，包家駒先生是否適任校長，專斷的校長所影響的不僅是這位捅了簍子的大俠而已，也不僅是在校的學生，而是他們所代表的台灣未來，我們更應該借助這樣一個不失輕鬆、也沒有情緒對立的時機，理性思考是否應檢討台灣校園管理的思考方式？

包校長通過他的秘書向外界宣稱這件事情已經有學校決定，且該生並無異議。換言之，大眾不要越俎代庖。到底對這個事件，大眾是否有權置喙？教育是公共事業，大眾當然有關心的權力與義務；就如同媒體、醫療﹐雖然開設私立醫院是為了營利，但醫院不能拒絕治療沒錢付帳的病人。開設學校雖然是營利事業，也必須符合隨社會而進步的教育倫理。

教育關心人的知識累積更應關心人格養成。今天的社會紛繁複雜高速發展，走出威權、走向現代文明，過去所要求的服從、乖順型人才已不符合未來競爭的需要。我們當然期待這個社會的教育為我們提供有獨立判斷力、有責任感、承受力，有知識、創意，有熱忱的正直人才。提醒包括包校長在內的每一位關心這新聞事件的人，也許對於屬於前一個時代的教育者來說，這種期待是一個挑戰。我的母校北京師範大學一位極負威望的教育家家曾對我們這些立志成為教育者的學子說過：「我能夠得到你們的尊敬是因為我不斷向你們學習，你們將來也會從你們的學生身上學到很多。」

如果台灣的大學沒有任何讓包校長這樣的教育者覺得「有損校譽」的另類現象，而呈現的全是類似軍校的校風，也許才應該真正擔憂吧。

（本文作者為旅台大陸民運人士﹐政治評論人）

媒體經營三標準江霞不及格

2004-06-27T17:28:00.000-07:00

在漫天的撻伐質疑聲浪中，江霞還是坐上了華視總經理的寶座，她要大家給她三個月的時間來證明能力。其實，這場「華視大戲」究竟是否酬庸並非重點，政治酬庸雖不是好事，但自古皆有沒什麼了不起，但唯獨不適用於需高度專業的領域，媒體是其一，尤其又是領受民脂的國家公器。

媒體人應捍衛言論自由

所謂媒體管理專業為何，筆者並非傳播專才，按照粗淺的媒體知識認知，最起碼應有三個要件：其一是須嫻熟媒體生態，相信這一點江霞應可適任。

再者，高度管理才能亦不可或缺。江霞究竟有無管理才能，過去沒有任何紀錄、歷程以資證明，高階管理人才的聘用從來都應該是以可證明的學歷資歷為基礎，如華視前任總經理徐璐，雖也被質疑其任命是政治酬庸，但她在台北之音擔任總經理的實務經驗，使人無法挑戰她的專業才能，今天江霞怎可要求納稅人以三個月時間瞭解她到底有沒有能力來搪塞外界質疑，這對專業無疑是最嚴重的踐踏。

最後，也是筆者認為最重要的條件：媒體倫理。

何謂媒體倫理？在筆者的定義中，媒體倫理的核心價值應是自由主義的底線，一個媒體經營者最基本的條件，除了必須嚴守分際不為政治宣傳所用外，更必須具備熱情擁抱自由主義的知識份子風範。

所謂的「知識份子性」當中包括：尊重知識、指責他人時應有真憑實據、有理性討論並接受批評的雅量、不淪為任何人政治傳聲筒，非但不能以集體力量（政黨、族群、國家）壓制、箝錮個人言論思想表達，更要盡其所能捍衛言論自由，這應是一個健康民主社會中媒體應有的倫理與自由主義精神。若此標準檢驗之，江霞在過去一段時間的言論，包括「外省人的歌仔戲」，「泛藍藝人不要進華視」等等，都離這種最低倫理標準差得太遠，表現令人扼腕。

以此三標準一一評斷江霞，可以說是媒體的專業不足、倫理不行，不曉得她究竟還剩下什麼？若江霞任命案真是一樁百分之百的政治酬庸，那麼可以說是極不恰當的酬庸；但若非酬庸就是政治任命，那我們不免要合理懷疑，難道陳水扁需要的正是江霞的政治作為─即是由其來強化族群撕裂嗎？

——蘋果日報，2004年06月29日

黨政軍退出媒體成口號

像這般將政治黑手赤裸裸伸入媒體的作為，對照過去民進黨喊得震天價響的黨政軍退出媒體的口號，不正是一齣最可笑、諷刺的歷史戲碼？

看看江霞這幾天的言論中，唯一一句讓筆者愛聽且頗感興味的話：她說，她對偷拍反感，因為「水準很差」─雖然並不意味這句話就使她適任華視總經理。《非常報導》光碟被認為是社會集體低俗化的產物，跟偷拍比較起來，在低俗評比上恐怕猶「低」一籌，倘若江總經理反對低俗的偷拍行為，我倒想問問她：妳反不反對「非常光碟」？

When Will Beijing Say Sorry?

2004-06-02T16:45:00.000-07:00

Not long after he was released from prison
in 1998, Wang Dan visited me in Taiwan. It was the first meeting of China’s two
most-wanted Tiananmen student leaders in nearly a decade, and we had a lot to
talk about. We were still talking the next day when the sun came up.

Wang Dan and I studied at different
universities, and we didn’t meet until the early days of the Tiananmen
protests. It had been 10 years since the killings in Beijing on June 4 1989 had
set our lives on different trajectories. He had spent his time as a political
prisoner; I had spent mine living the good life in France, the U.S. and finally
Taiwan. That didn’t mean we didn’t have a lot of things to talk about. We did. Above
all, we had to talk about whether we had done the right thing. Neither of us could
be completely sure we had.

It was a difficult night, and it was a
particularly difficult because, among the many things that came up, we talked
about Ding Zilin. On the night of June 3, 1989, when I had already begun a
flight to freedom that would take me to Hong Kong within a month, Ding Zilin’s
17-year-old son, Jiang Jielan, joined the protests on the streets of Beijing,
even though his mother had begged him to stay home. I was one of the leaders of
those protests, and so was Wang Dan. Three hours later Ding Zilin’s son was
shot dead.

So much of what happened that night and
early the next day is still a mystery. We don’t know, for example, how many
Beijing students and citizens were shot dead like Ding Zilin’s son—hundreds,
thousands; you choose. I don’t think we ever will. But Ding Zilin, at least, has
spent the last 15 years bravely reminding us that it happened. She does still, by
persuading other families to stand up and count the ones they lost. She gets
arrested on a regular basis, especially as June 4 approaches, but she continues
to remind us—as she put it five years after she lost her son—that the
“blood-splattered streets of Beijing have been paved over with a new
concrete—brand-named ‘economic progress.’” As the head of the Tiananmen Mothers
Campaign, which calls on the Beijing government to accept accountability for
the bloodshed, she has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, and in a braver,
more honest world she would get it.

When her name came up that night with Wang
Dan, I felt a lot of things, but mostly I felt guilty. I felt guilty about
having survived and having made it to France and the U.S. when so many others
died. I felt guilty that I had not stayed behind and gone to jail like Wang Dan.
I felt guilty that I had not done enough to remind the world that the China I
had failed to change had got no better since I left. I felt guilty that perhaps
I was in some way responsible for the death of Ding Zilin’s son.

I felt so guilty that I suggested to Wang
Dan that we make a telephone call that I had put off making for far too long.
Wang Dan—who had her number—made the call, and after a few words of greeting, he
said: “Wu’er Kaixi is with me, and he has something he wants to say to you.”

I took the phone and said to Ding Zilin the
only thing that could be said.

“Sorry,” I said to her. “I can’t even ask
you for forgiveness.”

“I’m just happy that you finally called,”
Ding Zilin said back.

All three of us began to cry, and I said:
“We can’t replace the son you lost, but Wang Dan and I want you to think of us as
your sons.”

That happened more than six years ago, and
the 15th anniversary of Tiananmen is upon us already—15 years in exile for me,
a decade in and out of prison followed by five years of exile for Wang Dan, and
15 years mourning a son for Ding Zilin. Some of my pain lifted when I spoke to
Ding Zilin that night, but not all of it—I will spend the rest of my life regretting
the lives that were lost in 1989. I am taking this occasion to say it publicly
to Ding Zilin and to everybody who lost someone they loved.

Wang Dan and I were young men who thought
we could change the world, and we inadvertently led a lot of people to their
deaths. That has caused a lot of pain to a lot of people, and an apology is a
first step towards healing that pain. However, it should not be forgotten that
the most important apology—the apology that would allow my exiled generation to
go home—is still to come. That apology belongs to the men who ordered the
shootings.

I have spent months thinking about how the
15th anniversary of Tiananmen should be marked. It has been difficult to decide.
The world has changed. These, in so many ways, are less idealistic times than
those giddy days before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and before freedom came to
the Eastern Bloc and Nelson Mandela emerged from jail—when anything briefly seemed
possible. But, if, for just one day, we could return to that idealism, in the
spirit of the students who took to the streets of Beijing in 1989, I would ask
the world to spend it looking hard at the China with which it has struck its
business deals, and remembering that the mothers of Beijing are still waiting
for their apology. Until it comes, China will remain a dark place where a
mourning mother who challenges the official monopoly on the truth faces summary
arrest, and where idealistic young students who seek democratic change are
forced into exile.

Without that apology, China’s progress of
the past 15 years is an illusion. The introduction of the economic freedoms
that has brought prosperity to urban China since Tiananmen is an
acknowledgement by the Chinese people that students of my generation had a
right to protest. But the lack of an apology is a reminder that China’s new
prosperity continues at the expense of freedom of expression and democratic participation.
An apology, in short, would signal the long-suppressed next stage of
Tiananmen’s unfinished revolution.

——This article is published at the Wall Street Journal, June 4th, 2004. 15th Anniversay of the Tiananmen Massacre.

我為何要參加這場學運

2004-04-07T17:26:00.000-07:00

在闊別十四載後，學運再次在台灣發生。

四月二日夜裡，我首次來到廣場接觸到一雙雙映著熱情灼燙、似曾相識的目光那一刻起，我就決定留下來，用精神也用實際行動支持他們。隨著日子一天天過去，各種標籤、批判、質疑像夜裡紛至沓來的大雨打在學生身上，自然我也難倖免，承受台灣非藍即綠二元論社會的亂箭穿心，我一點也不意外。

集體焦慮瀰漫不去

我知道外界對於這場學運的正當性始終存著高度質疑，有人認為是肇因於泛藍軍的選民無法接受這場選舉結果。但是，錯了。很多人可能忘了陳水扁一生中兩次重要的戰役──
一九九四年的台北市長選舉、二○○○年的總統大選，他都是在對手分裂的情況下，以低於百分之五十的得票率驚險當選成為少數市長、少數總統。

那一年，當陳水扁的對手趙少康在開票的當晚打電話向他祝賀，從此台北市進入「快樂．希望」的陳水扁時代；四年前，群眾在國民黨中央黨部前抗議，批判的對象是前總統李登輝，但沒人喊出一句質疑陳水扁當選正當性的口號，當時多數沒有投給陳水扁的人仍接受了選舉的結果。

事實上，台灣長期浸淫在民主洗禮中，民眾是可以接受少數當選的民主結果，一句「輸不起」對於長久以來陪伴民進黨一路走來的台灣民眾是相當不厚道，更不是今天台灣社會選後衝突迄今難以平歇最主要的根源。

真正懸而未解的問題是──從選前到選後，台灣社會始終瀰漫不去的「集體焦慮」：這股焦慮形成的原因很多，包括來自於對政黨政治倫理誠信的渙散、族群對立，還有過去向來被倚賴的體制──例如中選會的功能潰堤瓦解......
隨著一道道被視為最後正義的防線遭到沖垮擊碎，一點一滴的信任危機終於累積成為巨大的社會集體焦慮。

由於這股焦慮是日積月累且盤根錯節，大家都確切感受到焦慮的存在卻難以名狀，於是有人投射到疑雲重重的槍擊案、有人看到是外省族群遭到排擠、撕裂的危機感，加上在大選中目睹當政者為攫取權力無所不用其極不惜犧牲社會公義，最後還能成功遂其所願的現象更有深深的不安。

在朝濫權在野無能

身處在焦慮漩渦中且涉世未深的學生當然也感覺到了，而且恐怕更加強烈震撼。我不否認，這群學生是幼稚的，訴求也沒有想得足夠清晰，但是因為他們無法再繼續忽視、容忍這種焦慮的存在、發酵。尤其看到在野陣營，在三二○沒能掌握住群眾真正關注的焦點，甚至做出與民眾的訴求背道而馳的作法，在朝濫權、在野無能的情況下，讓學生更加認為必須責無旁貸地提出跨越藍綠的訴求，通過卑微又具高道德性的呼喚，希望大家冷靜與思考。
是的，就是「冷靜、思考」。當前台灣社會存在太多非理性只強調個人觀感的現狀，學生坐下來要求大家冷靜然後思考，可以說是這場學生運動中最核心、可貴的訴求，更是這場學運正當性之所在。
身為學運的一分子，學生這分以天下興亡為己任、面對焦慮跳出來捨我其誰義無反顧的情懷，我非常能充分理解；這同時也是過去這段時間，我身為政治評論者一貫強烈呼喊的聲音，這兩者加起來，讓我選擇站出來加入學生，否則我無法自圓其說，更無法面對自己長久以來的信仰。
這幾天我在廣場上，看到學生虛弱、堅持的身影，內心除了感動，還有說不出的沉重。若你問我為何要參加這場學運，那麼就請你到廣場上來，就可以找到答案。

——蘋果日報 2004.04.09

The Courage to Speak Out…

2004-03-10T16:00:00.000-08:00

By Wu’er Kaixi
& Shen Tong

When the retired military
doctor who blew the lid on China’s attempts to cover up the full extent of SARS infections in Beijing last year recently
spoke out again, I was moved by his courage.

In China, even today, few people have
the strength of conviction to send a letter to the National Assembly – as Jiang Yanyong did on February 24 – suggesting that the Chinese Communist Party’s assessment of a historical event demands reappraisal. They cannot be
blamed. That Jiang’s letter made international
headlines after appearing on a Hong Kong
website is a sign not of Chinese timidity but of Jiang’s boldness.

Jiang’s letter
concerns the Tiananmen crackdown of June 4, 1989, a democratic student movement that led to
the exile, imprisonment and death of many of my fellow students. The “1989 counter-revolutionary riots” have now come to be known as
the “1989 political disturbances,” he notes. He then asks: “If they were ‘political disturbances,’ did they really need to be suppressed
by mobilizing several hundred-thousand troops? How it was necessary to use guns
and tanks to brutally kill ordinary people?” His
response: “I suggest Tiananmen be renamed
the 1989 patriotic student movement.”

I applaud Dr. Jiang’s courage, and say to him, I agree such
an assessment is long overdue. We who participated in the protests against
official corruption, in favor of China opening up to the West and in
support of increased democratic
participation – those of us who are still
living – did so because we cared. We were young and we wanted to make China a better
place. And, while we failed in some ways, we did not fail entirely. China has
indeed become a better place. Students of today – students who
are the same age I was when I was driven into exile – have
prospects my generation could only dream of. And they have those prospects, at
least in part, because the student movement of 1989 compelled the Chinese
government to make sweeping reforms that allowed private entrepreneurship to
flourish.

But let us not forget that
Jiang’s letter is also a reminder of just how the student movement failed, of
how China
has not changed, of how little freedom Chinese have to speak out. And, let us
not forget that the publication of Jiang’s letter on
the Internet – it has reportedly circulated
widely in China
– is a reminder too that Beijing
continues to repress freedom of speech at its own risk. As Jiang himself puts
it: “People should always be able to speak – and to speak
the truth.”

A popular line of thinking
propagated by the Chinese government, and followed by some China watchers
and most business leaders with an eye to investment in the world’s largest growing market, is that in a country as large, as populous and
as potentially unstable as China,
stability must come first. There is a great deal of truth to this – until stability becomes an excuse for oppression. Arguing that a
reassessment of Tiananmen is simply a means of expressing the will of the
people, Jiang points out towards the end of this letter, “When so-called stability oppresses everything, it can only result in even greater instability.”

Jiang writes movingly of his
own memories, of treating victims of the People’s Liberation
Army at Beijing’s PLA No. 301 Hospital, where he was a surgeon
on the night of June 3, saying that in all his years as a doctor he had never
seen injuries like them and that they haunt him to this day. He writes of Nobel
Peace Prize nominee Ding Zilin, who lost her 17 year-old-son that night, and
has campaigned tirelessly ever since for the government to take responsibility
for its actions. “So far,” he writes, “we have not had a word in answer,”

Jiang writes with the
conviction of a man who feels that Tiananmen is a wound in the psyche of modern
China
that has not healed because it has been ignored for too long.

A nationally respected surgeon, Chinese Communist Party member and a
veteran of the People’s Liberation Army, he also
tells us that these feelings are shared amongst Party members in far higher
positions than his own. His letter records a 1998 meeting with former president
Yang Shangkun, in which Yang called the Tiananmen Incident “historically, the Party’s biggest mistake,” adding that “in the future” it would “definitely be reassessed.”

As we approach the 15th
anniversary of Tiananmen, I pray that Yang’s vision of
the future and the rightful outcome of Jiang’s plea are at
hand. I say this not only because I think it is time my generation were allowed
to come home, but also because I agree with Jiang that, in a China that buries
its past and exiles and imprisons those who dare to speak what others only
bottle up inside, stability is merely an illusion.

—— Published March 12^th2004, By Asian Wall Street Journal

Let Us Come Home

2004-02-03T15:38:00.000-08:00

At the age of 21, I was swept into the leading ranks of a
popular, student-led movement urging the government of China to
undertake democratic reforms. That movement was brutally put down by troops and
tanks in Tiananmen Square and nearby Chang'an Avenue on June 4, 1989. I and a
generation of fellow student leaders have been in exile ever since.

Fifteen years on, when I look at my homeland from Taiwan, where I
live, and from Hong Kong, which I was recently
allowed to visit, I wonder at how little has changed. True, public
demonstrations for more democratic freedoms in Hong Kong
have not been suppressed by troops
and tanks. But Taiwan's
democratic freedoms are thus threatened. Meanwhile, Falungong practitioners
continue to be arrested in China,
as are "bad" political elements, and my generation of student leaders
cannot go home.

China may well be the world's miracle economy--the sleeping giant that
has awoken. But let us not forget either that China's problems are immense. The
future of its 1.3 billion consumers
is bedevilled by outrageous extremes of wealth and poverty; unemployment in China's former
iron rice-bowl hinterland is dangerously high (unofficial sources put the
national level at around 15%); and China's banking system is teetering
on the brink of bankruptcy. Add to these problems a noisy democracy across the
Taiwan Strait that is clamouring for the ultimate democratic
freedom--self-determination--and
Hong Kong's demands that China genuinely subscribe
to the spirit of the Basic Law in its administration of the former British
colony. These are not problems that I believe can be solved by totalitarian
central power.

When I look at Taiwan, I am struck by how smooth
the transition from totalitarianism to democracy has been. That accomplishment
is at least in part due to the long-serving Kuomintang, which realized the
necessity for dialogue, and the necessity of allowing democratic reforms that
eventually handed governance to the people. By allowing dialogue in Taiwan, the KMT
allowed the emergence of a rational political environment. Indeed, democracy
begins with understanding the importance of dialogue.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's recent visit to the United States
resulted in a cautiously worded
rebuke by President George W. Bush to President Chen Shui-bian for his plans to
hold a referendum during Taiwan's
March 20 presidential elections. The next day, Chen responded publicly by
asking: "What is the Taiwan
problem?" And he answered that question: "The Taiwan problem
is China's
inability to accept democracy, freedom of speech and human rights."

However we see Chen's plans to hold a referendum, it is
impossible to deny that he has truth on his side. Taiwan needs China
economically, and culturally it has much in common with the mainland. But
politically, China's
failure to engage in even-handed dialogue with Taiwan and respect the democratic
desires of the island's people has made China itself the obstacle in
achieving reunification. Its intransigence, its preference for threats before
dialogue, have produced radicalized opposition in Taiwan, so that now even its
long-time ally in the goal of reunification, the KMT, has turned its back on China and
accepts the Democratic Progressive Party's formulation of "one country on
either side of the strait."

Mao Zedong once said that power comes from the barrel of a
gun. Beijing
used that gun on my fellow students in 1989; it now suggests
it is ready to use it again on the people of Taiwan. Thus, I find myself facing
the same oppressor today that I faced 15 years ago. And 15 years on, I find
that my thinking has not changed. The solution to China's vast problems begins with
that seed of democracy: dialogue. Out of dialogue come ideas, inspiration and
solutions. Out of dialogue come rational opposition and a rational political
landscape.

When I arrived in Hong Kong
in January, I concluded a brief speech at the airport by saying to Beijing, by saying to
President Hu Jintao, "Let us come home." I repeat that request. At
the youthful age of 21 I led a peaceful movement embraced by an estimated 100
million people across the country. In the course of that movement we repeatedly
called on the Beijing
government for dialogue and were denied.

We called for it then in Tiananmen
Square; I call for it now in exile. Too many voices have been
exiled and for too long. It is time they came home. It is time Beijing accepted an alternative to the barrel
of the gun.

——This article was publishes on the Far Eastern Economic Review, Issue
cover-dated February 05, 2004.

Finding Hope in Hong Kong’s Changes

2004-01-12T15:55:00.000-08:00

Since arriving in Hong
Kong late Saturday afternoon, everybody has been telling me how
the former British colony has changed since the handover in 1997. I look around
and I agree, yes, much has changed.

Hong Kong is clearly a more Chinese city today than it was when I last
visited, nearly a decade ago, in 1994. But I have also been observing for some
time, from Taiwan,
another democratizing quarter of “greater China,” the challenge that Hong Kong’s shrinking freedoms have presented to the
special administrative region.

It is a challenge that some Hong Kong
citizens – and they are renowned for their pragmatism, for their business
acumen, for that Chinese quality of bending with the breeze – have met by
curtailing their own freedoms, suppressing
their own freedom of speech, in the perceived interests of a faraway
totalitarian central government.

This is natural enough. It is in the way of
things that people seek the path of least resistance. What is more, it is a tried
and tested formula in the mainland: give people prosperity; they give you the
keys to government house. But the easy path is not always necessarily as easy
as it looks, particularly when it begins to erode hope and dignity.

And that is why the biggest change here for
me is not that so many more people speak Mandarin today than they did a decade
ago, or that Hong Kong’s once infamous reputation for brusque shop clerks and
push-and-shove crowds seems to have taken a turn for the better, but that a new
mood has overtaken the city. In short, Beijing
has not inherited the politically quiescent trading port it thought it had.
Some 500,000 people took the streets in protest against Article 23 last July,
and just two weeks ago another 100,000 marched for greater democratic freedoms.

For me such
actions are grounds for hope, and cannot help but remind me how in 1989 the
people of Hong Kong then took to the streets in support
of the democracy movement I led, and which drove me into exile from China. In
nearly 15 years of exile I have continued to find hope in Hong
Kong’s anniversary vigils – some 40,000 people in 1998, the year
after handover – in remembrance of the tragedy of June 4, 1989.

I am grateful for the support Hong Kong
has shown my comrades over the years, and I also like to think that Hong Kong’s unofficial day of remembrance has blossomed
into a movement that seeks to put its own people’s interests first. Just as I
and my fellow students did in 1989, in both Hong Kong
and in Taiwan
now, people are using democracy to achieve democracy.

The reality is, there is no other way
forward. For more than two decades now the mantra has been, put business first
and everything else will follow. That has not happened. China’s huge
economic strides have not yet translated into more tolerance for democracy.
Just as Beijing
responds to the lively democracy it confronts across the Taiwan
Strait with military threats, in Hong Kong
it blocks the people’s democratic aspirations with rulings from on high.

When I arrived on Saturday afternoon, I
noted my appreciation for being allowed to enter Hong Kong.
What I did not say is that I should have been allowed to visit long ago, if the
one country two systems formula is to be taken seriously by the world, and in
particular by Taiwan,
which watches developments in Hong Kong with
concern.

On my arrival, I also expressed my hope
that this was the first step in a long journey home for a generation of
students who tried to wake a giant from its slumber. When I said to Beijing, to
President Hu Jintao, “let us come home,” it was not in the belief that the time
had come; it was in the hope of reminding the world, on Chinese soil, that
China’s intolerance continues to exile many of its own citizens.

Exile is a forced retreat from problems. And
in a sense the easy path of turning a blind eye to problems in exchange for,
say, low tax rates and a humming stock market is a form of stay-put exile. It
is powerless condition with little ground for hope.

But Hong Kong
has changed, and that change does give me hope. As a returned exile, I find
hope in the fact that Hong Kong is rejecting
the easy path. I find hope in the fact the people have the courage to demand
that, in Hong Kong, Beijing reconsider the controls it exercises
so effectively closer to home.

I find hope in the fact that the Hong Kong government allowed me to visit, and I find hope
in the fact that the Hong Kong people are
using democratic means to achieve democratic ends. After all these years, I
still believe there is no other way forward for the country I call home.

——Published Jan. 14^th2004, South China Morning Post. Copy Rights SCMP, 2004

Challenging The Status Quo In Taiwan

2003-12-14T15:42:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush’s censure of Taiwan’s
President Chen Shui-bian for unilaterally moving toward changing the status quo
between the US, China and Taiwan was for some here a slap to
the face. Given the increasing political polarization of the island, it will
variously be read as comeuppance and as an affront to the island’s dignity.

But, however it is interpreted, the
question remains whether Mr. Chen deserved a dressing down. Washington’s
irritation stems from Mr. Chen’s call for a referendum urging China to remove close to 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan.
Those missiles actually exist; China
has recently threatened to use them.

Certain U.S. policy makers have criticized
Mr. Chen for having acted “foolishly.” But at least he cannot be accused of
having acted wrongly, or – perhaps more importantly – undemocratically.
However, it would seem – as Mr. Chen has implied in response to the latest
developments – China’s
threatening missiles are a “natural state of affairs.” At the very least, it would appear that China is free to threaten Taiwan without international
condemnation.

This so-called status quo – a small
democratic island militarily threatened by an autocratically governed superpower – is a historical legacy. However, it in
no way represents the interests of or benefits the Taiwanese people today. Its
existence means that Taiwan
– the world’s 14th largest trading nation – is a community in isolation,
humiliated by denial of the right to an international identity, representation
in the United Nations, or almost any other international organization,
including even the World Health Organization.

China’s insistence that this status quo be
maintained at all costs has won it no friends here in Taiwan. Its refusal to allow World
Health Organization officials access to the island during the outbreak of SARS
earlier this year, is seen here as simply the latest – if not one of the more
resented – instance in a long litany of humiliations Taiwan has had to accept.
Indeed, Taiwan
is a member of just two international organizations: the World Trade
Organization and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. In the WTO, Taiwan is known as the “Representation of the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to WTO.” In APEC gatherings, Taiwan’s president is barred from attendance,
while ministerial-level meetings attended by foreign ministers is open only to Taiwan’s
economic minister. Even in that most inclusive of global gatherings, the
Olympic games, Taiwan’ s athletes cannot enter the arena bearing their national
flag, and their team goes under the name Chinese Taipei.

This is the status quo, and its
upholders are currently toasting each other in Washington. China’s
stand on Taiwan is no
different from its stand on Tibet
and Xinjiang – both of which can now be safely relied upon not to trouble the
world with troublesome democratic movements and public votes for the right to
self-determination. That stand is
that Taiwan
is an inalienable part of the Motherland, and no movement towards independence
can be tolerated.

But if the world recognizes the moral
authority of the Dalai Lama’s efforts to highlight the plight of his people and
find a peaceful end to their oppression, how it can it brand a democracy’s
efforts to choose its own fate “trouble making?” Are Taiwanese to be blamed for
thinking the avowed commitment to democracy that took the U.S. to Iraq
would also bring the U.S. to
the defense of Taiwan?

Speaking this week, Mr. Chen said the “Taiwan problem” was China’s inability to accept
“democracy, freedom and human rights.” But the problem is equally a unique
convergence of a historical standoff between the Chinese Communist Party and the
Chinese Nationalist Party, the exigencies of appeasing an emergent modern China, and the complexities of Washington lobbies. In other words, the Taiwan problem is as much the U.S.’s as it is China’s. And, in that sense, the
growing momentum of a democratic movement in Taiwan
that calls for a clearer definition of Taiwan’s
international status is a challenge for both the U.S.
and China.
For China, the challenge is
to resist seeing Taiwan’s
burgeoning democracy as a threat that must be crushed. And, for the U.S.
the challenge is to recognize that to champion democracy is to live with the
outcome of its collective choices.

At least one positive emerged in Washington this week: the beginnings of an agreement to
deal with the Taiwan
issue peacefully. Bravo. But let us
not forget that peace should be unconditional; that it should not be achieved
at the expense of justice. To ensure
a peaceful resolution in those conditions, as the world’s leading power, and as
the one nation that should be counted on to say “no” to China when necessary,
the U.S. bears an undeniable responsibility when it comes to Taiwan.

The American commitment to justice, democracy and
human rights, demands it assume the
role of an impartial mediator in this standoff. National security may bias it
to maintaining the status quo, but if Taiwan society continues to evolve
to the point where a majority of people realize that a true deepening of
democracy is not compatible with the status quo it will have to recognize that.
It is an open secret here in Taiwan
that a referendum for independence would find little opposition if it could be
carried out free from fear of attack. In this unfair standoff, in which a small
but determined democracy finds itself pitted against a vast totalitarian
regime, it is disappointing not only to see the U.S. take sides, but to take the
wrong one.

——Published Dec 16, 2003, Asian Wall Street Journal

沒有交代﹐老百姓將更震怒﹗

2002-12-09T15:02:00.000-08:00

曾幾何時﹐台灣政壇開始流行起“震怒”﹐總統夫人在美遭搜身﹐總統震怒﹔921重建進度緩慢﹐游揆震怒﹔臺北市警察局內湖分局警員偷勤聚賭﹐分局長也震怒﹔這次高雄市議長副議長選舉﹐泛藍高舉鑲金黑旗﹐與民進黨懸崖勒馬相比﹐再與前不久國民黨誓誓旦旦“已與黑金劃清界線”的言論相對照﹐難怪面子上掛不住的黨主席連戰要“震怒”了﹗

指責國民黨要對過去的黑金有個交代的親民黨﹐也許這一兩天也會應景地震怒一下吧﹐否則初入政壇的這些親民黨新科議員向黑金沉淪的速度如此之快﹐動作如此整齊劃一﹐親民黨怎麼向大眾交代﹖令人不禁想起宋楚瑜擔任省主席﹐省長期間﹐府會關係其樂融融的時代﹐是否在高雄市要借尸還魂了﹐可否麻煩宋主席今天也震怒一下﹐然後向貴黨副主席張昭雄先生所說的﹐該交代一下呢﹖

民進黨在過去的兩年多來﹐施政成績奇差﹐雖不至於說民不聊生﹐也至少是怨聲載道﹐曾經把這個具有理想性色彩的反對黨推上執政寶座的選民﹐今天多少有點後悔﹐對於國民黨的治理能力多少有所懷念。然而2004年﹐票怎樣投﹐大多數人應該會覺得很痛苦吧﹖如果看不到當初支持民進黨的理由繼續存在﹐當然就投不下去﹐但是就算心裡百般情願原諒國民黨﹐仍然找不到國民黨擺脫黑金的蛛絲馬跡﹐至少我這一張票就不會回流﹗

有人用“壯士斷腕”來要求連戰先生﹐宋楚瑜先生明快處理此次高雄市議長選舉泛藍成功被黑金整合的局面﹐我倒是覺得叫“刮骨療毒”更正確﹐只有震怒﹐沒有交代﹐撂句狠話﹐讓你們看看老百姓震怒是什麼樣子﹗

——中時晚報，2002，12，10

陳水扁的輝煌

2002-11-16T16:07:00.000-08:00

陳水扁總統應該意識到一件事﹐他或者他所屬的民進黨最輝煌的一刻﹐比起他當選總統更輝煌的一刻﹐是他競選連任台北市長敗選的那一刻。這是從一個政治人物應該有的審視勝負的心態提醒陳水扁總統﹐在他政治生涯多次的勝選中﹐沒有哪一次的勝選超過那一次的敗選給他個人得到的肯定﹐鼓勵與喝彩。

陳水扁總統曾參選台北市議員﹑立法委員﹑台北市長以及總統﹐勝多敗少﹐奠定了他今天在民進黨以及在台灣無可取代的政治實力﹐除了他在多年反對運動中堅韌不拔的毅力之外﹐善用政治環境﹐選舉制度是他成功的另外不可小覷的因素。如果過去的選舉不是大選區多候選人﹐犀利的反對黨候選人並不見得有利﹔如果不是族群問題在過去的十年被強烈突顯﹐有些選票可能永遠無法流到陳水扁的名下﹔如果在第一次台北市長選舉以及這次總統選舉中泛藍沒有分裂﹐沒有得到漁翁之利的陳水扁很難在總得票率不滿四成的情況下勝出﹔換言之﹐陳水扁總是那個在正確的時間﹐正確的地點出現的正確人物。

只有那一次﹐迎戰馬英九﹐這個集結了國民黨為光復首都而出現的難得的團結﹐數十萬外省族群的焦慮﹐為政治混沌而黯然(或悍然)辭職給他帶來的悲劇英雄色彩﹐以及可以說集萬千寵愛於一身的個人媚力的超級對手﹐是他個人以“快樂新希望”的口號﹐以他四年勤於市政的任事風範﹐以他不畏艱險的改革魄力﹐以他一步一腳印交出的漂亮成績單打出他人生最顛峰的一次選戰。陳水扁總統應該記得﹐那是他最出色的一次選戰吧﹐那是他最悲壯的一次失敗吧﹐是一次可以載入台灣現代歷史的﹐可以定義“雖敗尤榮”這個成語的政治歷程。

我希望他還能記得勝在哪裡﹐是實幹﹐是謙遜﹐是平和﹐是台北市那四年的亮麗發展﹐是給人民希望﹔敗在哪裡﹐除了對手的強之外﹐社會的焦慮﹐無論來自族群意識還是經濟壓力或者是兩岸關係﹐將永遠是他突破自己的最大障礙。無論為了李應元的台北市長選舉﹐或自己競選連任﹐我都希望陳水扁能常常想起自己的輝煌的失敗。

——本文發表於聯合晚報，2002年11月18日。

給張藝謀建議英雄續集腳本

2002-09-29T16:29:00.000-07:00

藝謀吾兄﹐

英雄在金球獎飲恨﹐因西方片商的(惡意﹖)檔期安排﹐可知將與奧斯卡絕緣﹐但吾兄切不可因此英雄氣短﹐小弟在此給兄鼓勵打氣﹐更直接建議續拍英雄﹐教訓這群不懂藝術的西方村野小民﹐小弟並在此野人獻曝﹐為張兄建議英雄續集腳本。

如同英雄第一集﹐故事應發生於大時代﹐最好是在西方﹐以期更強烈刺激西人感官﹐務求小金人落袋﹐是故﹐弟將之搬到二十世紀三﹑四十年代的歐洲。時西人有德﹑法﹑英﹑意﹑西等諸國﹐各自為陣﹐書不同文﹐車不同軌。德國位居歐洲腹地﹐經一“英雄”元首勒特希君﹐勵精圖治﹐德軍兵強馬壯﹑船堅炮利﹐先滅波蘭﹐再取捷﹑匈等小國﹐復與意大利﹑羅馬尼亞等國結盟﹐至四十年代初﹐已先後消滅收服歐洲多國﹐其統一歐洲之大業已然初露端猊。當然﹐如此大業﹐必仰杖軍威天下。德軍所向披靡﹐所到之處﹐血流成河﹐至波蘭時曾大舉殺戮異族﹐一中國裔家庭亦在所難免﹐全家屠毒﹐僅余一男﹐名盼歸。其實此人正是英雄一集中殘劍與如月之后代的后代﹐為躲避秦王奪取天下之後的繼續追殺﹐一路逃避至歐洲。

盼歸承襲家傳﹐一身好功夫﹐為報家仇﹐決行刺勒特希﹐並通過殺死法國﹑西班牙等國反抗軍中欲行刺勒特希的英雄﹐而取得入柏林與仇家面對面的機會。千鈞一髮之際﹐勒特希女友愛瑪﹐在識破盼歸計謀後﹐力勸“勒特希不能殺﹗”

中國兩千年前﹐秦始皇在滅六國之後就沒再太大規模地殺戮這件事啟發著盼歸矛盾的心﹐換言之﹐雖然德軍的鐵蹄所到之處﹐生靈塗炭﹐但那只不過是取得天下所要付出的區區代價﹐畢竟勒特希在消滅所有的反抗勢力之後﹐就沒仗可打﹐自然就天下太平了。對於能夠統一歐洲之後可能產生的天下和平這樣的主題來講﹐一個人﹐一個家庭﹐一個國家﹐一個民族﹐幾個國家﹐幾個民族的悲劇又算得了什麼呢﹖

他想﹐如何不被人欺侮﹐一般人看來是要反抗﹐而至高的境界﹐就是被欺侮夠了﹐或者乾脆讓欺侮人的人作了主人﹐欺侮自然會停止﹐只有沒有繼續的反抗﹐也許就永遠沒有欺侮了。這是中國幾千年沉澱的最主要的淳朴農業社會哲學價值。

盼歸終於沒有能夠下手﹐以高妙的境界﹐期盼以降順﹐最終助勒特希完成歐洲統一﹐書同文﹐火車同軌﹐德國汽車只需一種文字說明書的大業。盼歸必須被黨衛軍殺死﹐因為﹐勒特希要想統一歐洲﹐進而統一世界﹐就必須表現出對異族的毫不留情﹗

可惜﹐勒特希的統一大業在世界反法西斯聯軍的野蠻反抗之下﹐最終失敗了﹐勒特希與愛瑪柏林仰藥﹐臨終時﹐他說﹐“只有一個刺客理解我﹗”

戰後的歐洲雖然表面上經濟復甦﹐人民安居樂業﹐而且也沒有大的戰亂﹐但卻不得不繼續忍受﹐書不同文﹐車不同軌的亂相。甚至不得不忍受多元化之下的尼采﹑薩特等異端邪說﹐不得不忍受畢卡索以及他的傳人的塗鴉﹐不得不忍受披頭四以及嬉皮﹑龐客運動的嘈雜﹐雖然最終通過外交努力﹐歐洲形成共同體﹐間接完成統一﹐但畢竟缺乏金戈鐵馬的英雄氣﹐不夠精彩。藝謀兄﹐我與你相信﹐人們其實永遠期待真正的英雄﹗就讓德軍整齊劃一的軍容﹐提醒世人﹐和平的重要﹐秩序的重要﹐而且﹐穩定壓倒一切﹗

藝謀兄﹐不知這樣的腳本是否可以﹖是否跟英雄第一集一脈相承﹖期待兄盡早開拍﹐小弟知道﹐因為台灣背景﹐我無法掛名編劇﹐否則北京政府如何表現其泱泱大國的霸氣﹐唯我獨尊的威嚴﹖然而我區區一個人的權益﹐比起兄被誤解為拍北京政府馬屁所受的委屈﹐又算得了什麼呢﹖比起真正的英雄大業來說﹐又算得了什麼呢﹖

——本文於2002年，張藝謀《英雄》上映，觀後所寫，以“張爾謀”的筆名在大陸網站上刊登，兩天就收到幾百封迴響，兩天後就被刪除了。

國家人權委員會不宜設立於總統府 ------論人權與政府的關係

2000-08-03T17:59:00.000-07:00

民進黨在執政之前的多年努力中﹐人權﹐常常成為攻擊執政黨的重要題目﹔為該黨在國內贏得台灣人民的同情與支持﹐在國際間贏得能見度與合法性﹔甚至今天已經成為總統的陳水扁先生也以當年為美麗島事件辯護的“人權律師”為其政治上的重要資產。出于這樣的政治傳承﹐民進黨在執政之後﹐一再宣稱將成立國家級的人權專責機構。

政府重視人權﹐這是人民之福。然而﹐“只聽樓梯響﹐不見人下來”令人困惑﹐合理懷疑政府是否在執政前後態度不一﹖筆者相信﹐政府遲遲未能貫徹有關國家人權委員會的政見﹐除了眼前面臨太多政治危機﹐無暇顧及這種使政府“有美名卻無實惠”的政策外﹐如何使這樣一個地位崇高的國家人權委員會是否會成為很多人擔心的人權大拜拜﹐恐怕才是政府遲遲不能兌現其政見的思考重點。

按照陳水扁總統在競選前後的主張﹐國家人權委員會應該是設立於總統府的機構﹐甚而至於已經確定由副總統主導﹐然而﹐這樣的一種設計面臨現實上多方面的挑戰﹔首先﹐在總統府設立一個有實際權力﹑地位﹑預算的機構﹐必須立法﹑修法﹐以今天的的朝野互動關係﹐即使人權問題共識建立容易﹐也恐怕很難保障通過的法案合乎執政黨的口味﹔其次﹐以今天總統﹑副總統之間的關係﹐把這樣一個可能具有巨大爆發力的機構﹐交給呂秀蓮﹐即使陳水扁真的放心﹐恐怕週邊幕僚也會忙不迭地搖頭擺手吧。

人權概念的形成﹐是第二次世界大戰之後﹐痛定思痛的人們反思人類苦難的主要來源之一是擁有權力者對于人的基本權力的踐踏與漠視而導致﹐有鑒於此才將人權概念明確化﹐而人權運動也在過去的五十年中形成清晰的脈絡與倫理﹔其中最為重要的兩個原則就是人權運動的對政府性以及人權組織的非政府性﹐二戰之後﹐國家化日益成熟﹐各國政府成為擁有權力的核心﹐戕害人權的也主要以著力於穩固政治權力及發展經濟的各國政府為主﹐人權日益成為這些政府的“不方便”﹐人權運動便在這樣一種環境之下慢慢形成以非政府組織為主要形態﹐以國際機構(如聯合國)為主要舞台﹐通過媒體訴諸社會﹐形成壓力的方式運作﹐也因此導致了這樣一個運動幾乎宿命的弱勢地位。世界上最著名的人權組織“大赦國際”便是這種方式的典型。西方主要民主國家之中﹐只有法國設有“人權部”﹐專司維護人權工作﹐唯成效不彰﹐常常成為法國人的笑柄。

當今國際社會中﹐仍然公然“踐踏”人權的極權專制國家﹐自然不可能設立什麼“國家人權委員會”﹔實行民主的國家中﹐公然“踐踏”人權需承擔極大政治風險﹐此種情況並不常見﹐所以在民主社會中﹐人權工作主要是針對政府“漠視”人權。民主國家政府會漠視人權嗎﹖相信任何一個人權工作者都會說﹕司空見慣。二戰後居於西方民主國家領袖地位的美國﹐在其主導通過了世界人權宣言﹑聯合國人權憲章(一九四八年十二月十日)之後的二十年之中﹐仍然維持著對于有色人種的公然歧視與政治權力的公然剝削﹐導致了六十年代的美國民權運動。

如果以台灣為例﹐即使在民進黨執政之後﹐為了“掃黑金”而出現的司法濫權也屬于對于人權的公然漠視﹐而這種漠視往往以一個更重要的社會公義為借口或目的。關在靖蘆的大陸偷渡客被以罪犯對待而剝奪自由﹐也屬于典型的漠視人權行為﹐這類的漠視行為往往存在於政府政策與行為與大眾利益並沒有直接關係時﹐政府便宜行事而發生。然而﹐這些就都是不折不扣的漠視﹑侵犯人權的行為。

如果我們真的期待台灣成為人權方面令人稱羨的國家﹐如果政府果真有誠意扶持這一代表人類文明方向的運動﹐當然可以有所作為﹐首先應該是以更開放的心胸接受監督﹐過去十年來通過的政府資訊公開﹐公務員行為準則等相關法律便是積極行為﹔其次﹐人權教育﹐就是一件政府可以承擔的工作﹐教育政府公務員瞭解自身行為須時時注意不得傷害人民基本權利﹐這是政府必須作的事情﹐教育人民更瞭解自身的權利﹐告知其維護方式及申訴救濟管道﹐則是提高社會人權水準的直接方法﹔更有心﹐可以編列固定預算支持人權團體﹐委託民間機構進行政府部門人權維護的績效的調查評估﹐這應該也是一個不錯的方法﹐過去中國人權協會所進行的台灣地區人權白皮書的工作就應該得到更多的經費及政策支持。

至於設立國家級的人權委員會﹐這樣一個機構不應該設立於總統府。總統府層級﹐真的很高﹐甚至太高﹐很難想象這樣一個聚集了一群具有社會份量﹑崇高地位 (應該也繁忙不堪) 的社會賢達的委員會能夠具體作什麼事。但這還僅僅是理由之一﹐更重要的是以政治倫理﹑人權倫理而言﹐人權這種絕對的原則以及人權工作者這些原則的忠實捍衛者﹐對於政府來說﹐往往是極大的“不方便”﹐而政府﹐在人權工作者眼中是被監督者﹐常常要成為批判﹑討伐的對象﹐期待政府主動推動這樣的人權工作﹐是違背邏輯的。期待總統府層級的機構去關注一個司法官的措辭是否傷害某慣竊嫌疑人的基本尊嚴是不現實的也是違背政治倫理的。

這樣一個機構設立在立法院可能更適合﹐如果有政府足夠的重視與配合﹐包括行政﹑司法部門官員的直接參與﹐充足的預算﹐以及必不可少的民間人權團體的直接參與﹐這樣一個國家級人權委員會應該比設立在總統府的容易達成﹐好操作﹐也絕對不會淪為大拜拜。主要西方民主國家幾乎都在其國會設有體制內的人權機構﹐國會的非政府性及原本就存在的針對政府的監督機製使其在推動人權工作時很可以有所發揮﹐實在可以成為台灣借鑒的典範。

人權工作是僵化﹑教條的﹐人權工作是瑣碎﹑繁雜的﹐人權工作是可能違背大眾旨意的(就象為陳進興辯護都可能成為全民公敵)﹐人權工作是不計社會效益的﹐而這也導致了人權運動幾乎宿命的邊緣地位﹐但也因此人權工作是可敬﹑可愛而且需要你我共同支持的。

統一是不是選項之一﹖

2000-06-04T15:34:00.000-07:00

針對是否出任國統會主委這一問題﹐陳水扁總統質疑說，國統會設置要點第一條是，「總統為在自由民主的原則下，加速國家統一，研究並諮詢有關國家統一之大政方針，特以任務編組方式，設置國家統一委員會」，但事實是如此嗎？國家統一的政策目標是在自由民主原則之下，這有取得人民認同與多數支持嗎？有經過由下而上的討論嗎？有必要進一步討論。

如果總統果真覺得有必要進一步討論﹐我們對此表示熱烈的歡迎。兩蔣時代﹐“反共復國”﹐“三不”
這些政策當然就是“說了就算”輪不到全社會廣泛討論﹐凝聚共識。或者說﹐當時的社會共識正是以這種自上而下的方式形成的。專制決策無須廣泛凝聚共識。而民主社會﹐在相關國家定位這樣的重大問題上﹐決策當然需要整個社會的接受。李登輝時代﹐社會已然民主﹐可是當政者依然以一己之念﹐力排眾議﹐“戒急用忍”﹐“兩國論”
都是在完全沒有社會共識的情況下出台的重大決策﹐出台時﹐引發社會震蕩﹔再之後﹐繼任者“檢討﹐修正”﹐其實就是否定﹐再一次引發社會的不安定。希望陳總統能夠瞭解﹐凝聚社會共識的重要性。

總統說進一步討論﹐不知是真是假﹖廣泛討論﹐當然是凝聚共識的最好方法﹐然而﹐參與討論的各方﹐包括以詅聽方式參與的絕大多數民眾﹐都應該保持準備被說服的心態﹐才有可能出現真正有意義的討論﹐主政者更應該具備哪怕未被說服﹐仍然願意接受大多數人民形成的共識的謙卑。這就是所謂理性﹐是成熟民主社會的重要基礎。

然而在台灣﹐每當觸及統獨問題﹐上自政客名嘴﹐學者專家﹐下到販夫走卒﹐路人甲乙﹐無不面紅耳赤﹐聲嘶力竭﹔根本無法把一個主張清楚地表達出來﹐遑論深入思考﹐理性討論及至被說服。

可能會有人說﹐統獨問題本身太敏感﹐太複雜﹐原本就不是一個容易達成共識的問題。說這個問題敏感所以難以討論出結果﹐是倒果為因﹐如果大家可以平心靜氣﹐再敏感的話題﹐應該也可以面對﹔說太複雜﹐哪一個國政問題不複雜﹐相比較起來﹐統獨問題在台灣的社會共識基礎是非常高的﹕無論族群﹑政黨﹑教育背景多麼不同的人們﹐都希望維持既有的生活方式，包括自由的政治生活﹑經濟生活﹑文化生活﹑社會生活；都反對被中共專制統治；都渴望更高的國際承認與更多的國際尊嚴；都反對以軍事方式解決現有的問題；而這些都是面對以及討論統獨問題的理性基礎。

對于統獨問題﹐台灣人民今天的立場﹐無論是主張統一﹐還是獨立﹐多半是因為情感性因素而形成及改變。這當然和整個台灣社會不求甚解的風氣﹐以及媒體煽情有餘﹐認真不足有重大關係﹐但是統獨問題﹐悠關台灣的前途﹐悠關每一個生活在這塊土地上的人的命運﹐而且這一話題成為輿論焦點也已經曠日持久﹐人民對此的思考居然還是停留在膚淺的情感性階段﹐真的有點說不過去。

政治人物們要負主要責任。事實上﹐長期以來﹐統獨問題不能形成社會共識﹐就是因為政治勢力對于自己的主張沒有被廣泛接受的信心﹐不願意﹐也不敢進一步討論。而他們的主張又大多根本建立在選舉利益上﹐連自己都覺得想說服他人﹐不那麼容易﹐當然不太義正詞嚴﹐理直氣壯了。

阿扁總統在針對國統會問題上曾經說﹐統一不應該是唯一選項﹐說得好﹐如果在討論之前就把結果先設定﹐當然就不能算是真正的理性討論。根據同理﹐請問阿扁總統﹕統一是不是選項之一﹖

要讓汪道涵認識台灣的什麼﹖

1999-06-29T15:47:00.000-07:00

經過兩岸兩會長期較力，好事多磨的汪道涵訪台一事終於在海基會副秘書長詹志宏北京之行中確定，並將於今年九、十月間成行。

台灣方面將汪此行定位為「認識台灣之旅」遭到大陸方面嚴詞拒絕，稱此行應該算是「兩會高層對話」，對此，海基會以及台灣人民除了錯愕之外，實在搞不清楚對方到底堅持個什麼，也深深嘆息大陸方面思考以及行事的保守僵化。

而在我一個大陸旅居台灣的人士看來，兩岸之間歧見至深，歷史及現實政治固然是主要原因，兩岸間的不瞭解、不認識，當然也是一個重要因素，而且這樣的不瞭解、不認識使得兩岸決策當局往往找不到最好的政策，所以，如果此行確實能夠讓汪道涵這樣一個對於大陸對台政策有絕對影響力的人認識台灣，未嘗不是一件意義重大的好事。

無論大陸方面是否願意承認此行為「認識台灣之旅」，汪道涵此次訪台多少能夠認識台灣一些，然而能夠認識台灣的什麼，則端賴台灣方面的安排。要讓汪道涵認識台灣的什麼？就變成了台灣方面安排行程時所必須思考的戰略問題了。

認識台灣的經濟實力嗎？這也許是一般人在思考這一問題時首先想到的，在我看來，如果此次汪道涵訪台，有意無意感受到的都是台灣的財富，恐怕對於台灣不見得有什麼特別的好處。首先，台灣的富足，一海之隔的中國大陸當然十分瞭解，如果汪道涵感受到哪怕一點點台灣方面炫耀的味道，除了反感之外，恐怕還會以大陸過去二一十年來的快速經濟發展作為心理武裝，端出更加踞傲的態度，如此，豈不更加無助於加強兩岸間的良性互動？而從過去的經驗來看，筆者的這種擔憂恐怕難以用杞人憂天來形容。

認識台灣的民主政治吧？這無疑是台灣最為驕傲的成績了，如果可能，讓汪道涵通過台灣之旅認識到民主政治的可貴、可行，並在回去之後切實發揮影響力，當然是求之不得的好事，可是，任何理性的思考都能夠得出結論，在短短的七天之行中達成這種效果，可謂天方夜譚。

那麼，要讓汪道涵認識台灣的什麼？

讓汪道涵看到台灣人的快樂吧，讓汪道涵看到台灣人的尊嚴吧，讓汪道涵看到台灣人民掌握自己的命運給他們自己帶來的無限希望吧！這些體現在或者說隱藏於生活的點點滴滴中的，台灣人自己都不注意的東西，正是讓我這個來自大陸的人震撼、感動而且羨慕的東西。

讓汪道涵看看台灣最普通的老百姓的生活，讓他以最自然、最直接的方式去接觸台灣的社會最真實的一面，這是生活在台灣的人們自己都視若無睹的一面，讓汪道涵看看一個政府公務員的家，看看一個科技人員的工作環境，看看年青人創業的夢想如何實現，看看一個地方民意代表忙碌辛苦的生活，感受這種生活的價值，感受這種生活所充滿的無窮潛力，感受這種生活的不容欺侮。

不管海協會承認不承認，台灣還是可以給汪道涵一個震撼性的「認識台灣之旅」。

【1999-06-30/聯合報/15版/民意論壇】

爭取一個免于恐懼的社會

1995-02-15T14:55:00.000-08:00

幾年以來，流亡異鄉，心中最放不下的是我年近花甲的雙親，雖然自從八九年底開始就和他們保持著電話，通信聯絡，也從未忘記省下自己不多的零用金寄回家鄉給父母親治病，有朋友去新疆我總是懇求他們代我看望一下我日夜思念的父母，告訴他們，遠方的兒子一切平安。但這一切并不能彌補不能見面的痛苦。去年（九四年）夏天在台灣結婚，大喜日子的前一個晚上我和家里通了電話，聽著我老母親在電話的另一端一會兒哭、一會兒笑，我的心中充滿悲傷。自己的婚事，我的父母親居然不能參加，而這恰恰是他們在夢中都已描繪過無數次的一天呀！

把父母親接出國的努力，我已持續了好幾年了，至今仍無法如愿。去年年底，我父親因心臟病不得不來北京阜外醫院，准備進行開心手術，我幾乎控制不住自己情緒，幾天幾夜，我臥不成寐，淚水在半夜浸濕我的枕頭，這幾年以來和家人聯絡的情形有如電影畫面，映現在我腦海中。

八九年四月二十日學運剛剛開始，還未成任何氣候，我與幾個朋友秘密籌划借胡耀邦喪禮的機會，把學運組織化。中共北京市委在得知此一消息后短短二十個小時之內，以前所未有的高效率，找到當時從新疆來北京就讀中共中央黨校的我的父親，在四月二十一日中午派員隨我父親一道到北師大阻止我的行動，全市學生的誓師大會將于晚九時舉行。那漫長的九個小時，我一方面處理著各種復雜的准備工作，一方面不斷轉移，從一個學生宿舍到另一個，每一分鐘我都在痛苦中煎熬，我在躲避的是生我養我疼我愛我的親生父親呀！九點鐘，當我站在北師大講台上向聚集在那里的六萬名大學同學宣布：“中國第一個公開的，民間政治組織成立”時，我立時被響徹云霄的歡呼聲所圍繞，奇怪的是，在如此震耳欲聾的聲浪中，我卻能聽到一個熟悉的聲音：“兒子！”我驚異地尋聲望去。“你知道你在做什么？知道就好，知道就好。”我的父親站在講台腳下，離我很近的地方，我看到的他似乎一夜之間老了十歲，臉痛苦地扭曲著，我的心口一陣劇痛，我似乎感覺到那是父親的心，也在劇痛。

那個晚上，我和我的同伴匯合一部分在北大、法大集結的學生，浩浩蕩蕩，約八萬多人走向天安門。我在街道上，我在廣場，我在人民會堂前，聲嘶力竭地哭喊自由，我不敢想父親那張臉，更不敢想，父親是怎樣從師大回到他的住處的，他一定哭了。

父親是具有四十多年黨齡的老共產黨員，翻譯過包括馬克思、列寧、毛澤東等多位共產主義“偉人”的著作，給毛澤東作過翻譯。文革期間，被毫不留情地整肅，造反派的折磨使他幾乎癱瘓。他沒有癱瘓，也保住了很多醫生都宣布保不住了的腿，甚至最后扔掉了拐杖，令醫生嘖嘖稱奇。我知道，他是靠了從我奶奶那里承襲的樂觀積極的精神，是靠了他從小作放牛娃至后來一生從未放棄的勇敢與命運對抗的精神，重新站起來的。這種精神，曾鼓舞我從小就不怕強勢，從高中時代就向強權挑戰。那時，我知道，他站在我身后。我父親的樂觀勇敢使我在學運開始時勇敢地站出來，并沒有太大的顧慮﹔作好了蹲大獄的准備，其它的，有我爸爸。可是當我在師大講台上看到父親那張因痛苦而扭曲的臉時，我找不到他的自信了：他一生站在強權的對面，現在他老了，當他的兒子要站在強權面前時，作父母的天性使他害怕，使他寧愿屈就于他對抗了一生的強權，全為保護他的兒子。現在是我站出來保護他的時候了，而我卻使他擔驚受怕。

學運如火如荼地延續了五十天。這期間，我們見了幾次面，有一次在我宿舍，香港的幾個記者，剛好在場。當我回答記者的問題時，深深地為這一場偉大的運動而驕傲，我看到我父親的頭高高地昂起，他也為他的兒子在驕傲吧！

更多的是擔心，只有我們兩人時，他抱住我，老淚縱橫，說：“你不知道他們呀！你不知道這社會的復雜與恐怖”。

我絕食五天時，我母親從新疆來到北京，她是坐了三天三夜火車趕來的。她見到我時，我正在醫院，聽說我媽媽要來，我洗了個澡。我已不記得上次洗澡是什么時候，每天在廣場摸爬滾打的我們，幾乎已全都變了又臟又黑又瘦的泥猴，我媽媽見到我的樣子一定很難過，我的臉色早已毫無任何血色，絕食已使我牙齦和嘴唇都變得慘白，我向護士要了一杯熱水，忍著胃的巨痛把它灌下去，以使我的臉上略帶紅潤。

母親憔悴了很多，她不停地撫摸我的臉，彷佛我不是二十一歲而是十一歲。她從護士手中接過一碗我一直拒絕喝的稀飯，以沉穩卻是不容置疑的態度，堅決地說：“從我得知你絕食到現在，我已絕食三天半了。”然后就像我小時生病時一樣，把一湯匙稀飯遞到我嘴邊。我默默地張開了嘴，和著母親的笑容吃下了五天以來第一口食物。

“六﹒四”屠殺之后那一兩天，我百般努力讓我父母得知我沒有倒下，在近乎絕望的情緒中，通過了一位朋友，我得到父母親帶給我這樣一個口信：“只要你活著，十年二十年三十年我們都活著等著與你見面。”我可以想像出父母親說這話時的表情，這句話至今鼓舞著我，為我的理想，為和父母親的再次見面而奮斗。

流亡的這幾年，和父母通話時也經歷了起初欲言又止，言辭閃爍，到前不久的一通電話，父親暢所欲言的變化。

在那通電話中，我與父親討論中國的發展，他很虛心地問我：“國內很多人仍然認為，如果中國變成民主了，會天下大亂，也許會象台灣立法院打架一樣烏煙瘴氣，你們怎么回答？”

“爸爸，你記不記得學運初起時，北京市黨委叫你到師大來勸阻我？”

“當然記得。”

“你為什么來阻止我？”

父親想了想，說：“恐懼，怕你經歷牢獄之災，甚至被暗殺也不是不可能。”

“對，后來，你告訴我只要活著，幾十年后見面也沒問題時，你害怕嗎？”

“反倒不怕了，心想只有不怕時，才能不死。”

“可后來在聽到我成功出逃之前，你們是不是很怕？”

“怕得病倒了，兒子，我們在恐懼中熬了四十天。”

“我們后來在通話時，你還說些不要反政府之類的話，是為了什么？”

“還不是怕要監聽。”

“我的朋友去看你時，你總是要大家說話小聲是為什么？”

“鄰居如果聽到，會害怕與我們來往。”

“如果你們可以出來看我，這里的生活環境完全不同，我又沒錢，你們也要從頭學英語，怕不怕？”

“不怕，到了美國還有什么好怕的？”

“對了，爸爸，如果用一句簡單的話說出我們所爭取的，那就是一個人人可以免于恐懼的社會。”

父親沉默許久，用激動的語氣說出了他這幾年在電話中最無懼的一句話：“祝你們爭取一個沒有恐懼的社會的努力早日成功。”

——此文發表於美國《世界日報》，1995年。