Let Us Come Home

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

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^th 2004, South China Morning Post.  Copy Rights SCMP, 2004

Challenging The Status Quo In Taiwan

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﹗

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

        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

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

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。