歡迎舊雨新知，繼續光臨指導！
本博同時停止，擇日關閉。
2009年3月20日 星期五
2009年3月18日 星期三
2009年3月16日 星期一
我們的自由開始溶解﹗
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。
2009年3月15日 星期日
將一段留言和回復發表于此
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。
2009年3月13日 星期五
2009年3月12日 星期四
民進黨陷入嚴重的民粹誤區
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！
2009年3月9日 星期一
2009年3月8日 星期日
我也是臺灣人
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。
2009年3月2日 星期一
馬英九的特質
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。
2009年3月1日 星期日
Amazing similarities
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.
2008年11月2日 星期日
在對立後面
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。
2008年8月13日 星期三
陳水扁的理想
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。
2008年3月5日 星期三
Ma Ying-Jeou’s Trigonometric Challenge
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.
2007年9月2日 星期日
China Mocks the Spirit of the Olympics
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.
2007年6月2日 星期六
The Tiananmen Knot
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
2006年2月28日 星期二
“廢統”的淺薄政治涵義
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。
2006年1月19日 星期四
沒有世人關注 民運仍在堅持
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
2005年12月5日 星期一
2005年10月19日 星期三
民進黨沉淪莫此為甚
民進黨幾位立委爆料TVBS為港資﹐因為港資就是中資﹐所以﹐這是TVBS被中資掌控﹐TVBS與中國裡應外合﹐企圖顛覆顛覆台灣政府。
這一指控牽涉到政府與媒體的關係﹐我來自專制的中國大陸﹐因爭取包括新聞自由的民主價值被政府追緝﹐而流亡到了民主的台灣﹐對於專制與民主制度下﹐政府與媒體之間的關係有點淺顯的思考﹐想在此就教於以推動台灣民主的功臣自居的民進黨人。
- 民主制度下媒體批評監督政府。專制制度下媒體只能歌頌政府﹐為政府立場護航﹔
- 如果媒體批判政府﹐民主政府以媒體為第四權﹐無論多麼不情願﹐也必須給予尊重。專制政府會扣帽子指責其企圖顛覆﹔
- 民主政府對於媒體或任何民間公司只有依法行政管理的權力﹐哪怕該媒體或民間企業背後的投資主導者是政治立場敵對力量的侵入﹐也不能以此為超越政府與民間關係的籍口。專制政府會對令其頭痛的媒體或任何民間公司背後的投資進行政治審查﹐哪怕只是懷疑有所謂“敵人”力量的涉入﹐都會以“裡應外合”等名詞羅織罪名﹐直到這種令人頭痛的壓力消失為止﹔
對於TVBS指責是企圖顛覆政府﹐我也是因“陰謀顛覆政府罪”而被中國政府通緝﹐專制的中國政府拿出的罪證就是我曾經組織數十萬人遊行抗爭﹐雖然所有的抗爭均為和平方式﹐也從未提出對政府統治權的挑戰﹐然而﹐專制政府照樣以此為罪名通緝起訴。
我想在一個民主社會的執政黨國會議員指責任何人顛覆﹐那麼所依據的事實一定鐵證如山了吧﹖事實上﹐被指控的TVBS最近的所作所為﹐正是善盡媒體職責﹐監督批評政府﹐其職責內容也遵守媒體舉證義務﹐令上至總統的執政當局窮於應付﹐顛覆之議﹐只能凸顯指責者居心叵測或水準太差。
這些立委爆料的證據不足﹐指責的邏輯混沌﹐其它民進黨人應該也一目瞭然﹐如果這些國會議員水準太差﹐總是會有其它有水準的國會議員﹐政府官員﹐政黨發言人出面澄清吧﹖
然而﹐整個民進黨因道德勇氣不足或道德標準模糊而緘默不語。
不僅如此﹐新聞局更是配合默契﹐抽絲剝繭﹐找到了聯意公司未依法向新聞局申報董監事名單變動的證據﹐先依衛廣法三十八條﹐開出新台幣二十萬元罰單﹐並宣稱TVBS公司股權登記若以偽造文書申請﹐違反衛星廣播電視法﹐以不法手段取得許可﹐可撤銷執照。
姚局長可以以身為政務官必須嚴格執法為自己的行為解釋﹐若以同樣嚴格的標準審視﹐台灣的所有港資企業是否都應該噤若寒蟬了呢﹖把依法以台灣公司投資說成是港資﹐把港資說成是中資﹐姚局長這是瀆職以及濫權﹐至少算是不熟悉法律﹐不適任政務官職。
而對於TVBS未依法向新聞局申報董監事名單變動的技術過失﹐姚局長以撤照為恫嚇﹐這屬於缺乏基本民主修養。在一個以民主進步為宗旨為黨名的執政體系﹐缺乏基本民主修養本應令其長官震怒撤職﹐但似乎這已經屬於民進黨執政的常態﹐人民至今也只能搖頭嘆息。
人民因為對於民主價值的尊崇而給予衝撞國民黨專制體制的民進黨今天執政的機會﹐當TVBS這個媒體對於其執政的腐敗給予嚴厲批判的時候﹐就算TVBS的投資背景完全是中資﹐完全是中共這個專制體制﹐他們的聲音也必須給予尊重。然而﹐不去對於他們言論的內容給予嚴肅誠懇的回應和反省﹐反而從TVBS的投資背景開刀﹐民進黨的沉淪令人民扼腕悔嘆。
民主進步黨﹐還記得民主﹐進步嗎﹖人民還記得。
2005年6月3日 星期五
柴玲是個好樣的﹗
轉眼之間﹐我們已經在紀念“六四”十六週年的紀念日了﹐我們是不是還要在明年後年繼續感慨這轉眼之間呢﹖更加令我們深思的應該是這轉眼之間逝去這麼多年之後﹐丁子霖還不能從政府口中得到一個公道﹐當年的殺人者今天卻越來越熟練地週旋於國際社會﹐享受著中國經濟奇跡的光環﹐我們還在流亡﹐而且不得不面對我們已經成為越來越多的人的“不方便”這樣一個嚴酷現實。
去年的今天﹐我曾在華爾街日報發表一篇文章。在那篇文章裡﹐我作為天安門學運的領導者之一﹐向丁子霖道歉﹐痛苦但誠實面對我內心深處必將跟隨我一生的負罪感。同時提醒世人﹐丁子霖等待的道歉更應該來自開槍殺人的人﹐我以這樣的聲音呼喚世人的良知﹕天安門不僅僅是當年鼓舞世人﹐喚醒良知的一個逐漸淡去的畫面﹔天安門之後倒塌的柏林牆﹐走出監牢的曼德拉﹐獨立的東帝汶在告訴世人﹐這世界的確在我們的良知力量之下變得越來越美好﹔天安門也是提醒我們這個良知的事業是個未完成的事業﹗我們決不能遺忘﹗
事實上﹐我們不僅背負倖存者的罪惡感﹐還背負著倖存者責任感﹐這樣的責任感要求我們必須理性地反思﹐過去的十六年﹐我們常常聽到的一些說法﹕學生是不是太激進了？八九年的屠殺學生應不應負責？對於這樣的指責﹐我們從未停止表達我們的反省。
不久之前﹐我在台灣的一所大學演講時﹐這個問題再次浮現﹕八九年學運的失敗﹐學生堅持不肯撤退是否要承擔部份責任﹖我舉了這樣的一個例子來回答。
一個小村莊﹐有一個雜貨店﹐店老闆是一個很粗魯的人﹐一天到晚酗酒打孩子﹐結果有一天其中有幾個小孩子站出來反抗﹐反抗的小孩脫口而出一句頂撞﹐於是這父親惱羞成怒就把幾個小孩子打死了﹐全村決定譴責這個父親﹐可是過了這些日子﹐因為全村就只有這間雜貨店﹐買醬油還是得找他﹐買大米也得去找他﹐那怎麼辦呢？
這家雜貨店這幾年生意愈做愈好﹐先做成超市﹐而後繼快速續發展﹐而成為一個有規模的商業中心﹐很多人在這裡上班。那個老闆呢﹐慢慢改變過去的粗魯形像﹐現在也不穿拖鞋咬檳榔﹐偶而也穿個西裝打領帶﹐也比較有笑容﹐也學會用英文說歡迎光臨了。但任何人提起打死小孩這件事情他仍然堅持沒這回事﹐或者說這是當時不得不採取的措施﹐否則沒有紀律﹐就不可能有發展﹐就不可能有大家所依賴的全村經濟引擎﹐再或者說這是他的家務事﹐跟別人不相乾。過了一些日子﹐村子就有這樣的聲音出現了：“那小孩子也有不對之處﹐就算小孩反抗有道理﹐畢竟不能對大人那麼不禮貌嘛。”
今天的中國就是大家不得不去打交道的雜貨店嗎﹖世人就是無奈的村人嗎﹖我們是那群還在主張為死者討回公道的常常令人覺得“不方便”的反抗孩童嗎﹖然而﹐我們不該忘記誰才是真正的兇手﹐面對這個兇手﹐世人也許常常覺得無力﹐但即使無力我們也不能錯誤地指責受害人。在理解村人需要醬油大米和工作機會之餘﹐提醒世人這村莊還需要公平和正義﹐還需要不再打死無辜孩童的保證啊﹗一個會打死自己孩子而不受制裁的人很可能搶回醬油大米和工作﹐甚至還可能繼續向其他無辜的人的逞凶啊﹗
去年的今天﹐我在美國華盛頓市與王丹等十幾位當年的學生領袖一起﹐在中國大使館前繼續呼喊沒變的口號時﹐我望著台下站著的當年夥伴﹐十幾年前﹐我們投身於這場驚天動地的運動時﹐展現出了不起的勇敢與理性﹐在過去的十幾年間﹐我們這些當初被稱為天安門的孩子的一代人經歷了許多﹐已經不再是孩子了﹐但理想始終沒變﹐責任感始終沒有放棄。我望著他們十幾年之後更加堅定的眼神﹐大聲告白﹕“夥伴們﹐我們當初是好樣的﹐我以能和你們並肩為榮﹗”當時台下沒有柴玲﹐柴玲因為主張堅持下去﹐而受到很不公平的指責﹐我們沒能站出來保護她﹐深深覺得有愧。柴玲也是這樣一個好夥伴﹐也是我深感榮幸與之為伍的英雄。
推進中國的民主化﹐是我們這群“天安門的孩子”一生不會推卸的責任與使命﹐在十六年前我們走上北京街頭至今我們流亡海外﹐這一點認知不曾改變﹐而那時得到的世人的理解與支持﹐曾給我們極大的力量。今天我們堅持著理想﹐也仍然尋求世人的堅定支持﹐提醒世人十六年前被殺死的逐夢者﹐他們的夢想在我們不再堅持時就也死去了。
遺忘﹐偏頗與縱容都是可怕的﹐歷史的悲劇往往在它們侵入我們的意識之時重複。我繼去年向丁子霖道歉而大聲疾呼不該遺忘之後﹐今年應該盯著因為人們的無力感而衍生的偏頗縱容﹐大聲說出﹕柴玲是個好樣的﹗
——發表於《世界日報》2005.06.04
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)