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1617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

長歌琴劍—遙祭賓雁


不見長城阻天關﹐ 唯有巨浪筑愁籓﹐


秋水已望穿﹐ 故人不得還。


無盡長天兮﹐ 低眉念﹔


神傷大地兮﹐ 舉頭看。


 


鄉愁未催琴心老﹐ 常笑遮天巨魔小﹐


劍膽流墨書似刀﹐ 軟紙成影泰山高。


白山長白兮﹐ 著素縞﹔


黑水悠悠兮﹐ 遙相悼﹗


 


——這首詩是在我的忘年好友劉賓雁去世時所賦。2005.12.06