2020年6月25日 星期四

蔡英文「變形記」

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)蔡英文「變形記」

2020-06-25 05:30
監察院本來就是憲政雞肋,經過這一波人事命令,更淪為國家級笑話。蔡英文在這齣荒謬劇中擔綱導演,推出了不折不扣的鬧劇,只能用荒腔走板來形容。國民黨的黃健庭欣然應召出任副院長;其實就是跳船,黨中央了無招架之力,頓成笑柄。在綠營立委群起反對下,黃健庭羊肉沒吃到惹了一身腥,無端折翼,悲劇一樁。
監察院正副院長與委員的提名在總統一人獨斷,民進黨國會佔多數,監院人事案原是小菜一碟,竟可以搞到廚房失火!事情鬧到不能收拾了,蔡英文方始出面道歉,表示「責無旁貸」,但振振有辭的辯解,表示提名有理,是為了跨越黨派、維持監院高度中立性云云。然而外界所質疑、抨擊與非議的,不在跨不跨黨,劍尖直指黃健庭弊案纏身;更嚴重的是,黃透露總統府對他的案情知之甚詳。蔡英文沒有一字解釋為何提名有案在身的人?反而將錯就錯,「兩個名額暫不補實」;把自己的錯「變形」成另一面貌!不啻古羅馬小說《變形記》的台灣政治版本 。
「變變變」其實是蔡英文一貫伎倆,結構性改造工程撇在一旁,使出大衛魔術,用一種虛像來取代真實。監院當廢不廢,卻加掛「人權委員會」矇混。行政院長蘇貞昌表示:民進黨一直主張三權分立,「我就是創黨黨員,我們始終到今天還是主張三權。」然而蘇揆直認不韙說,這一次立院修訂監察法,特別設立人權委員會,是把老的監察院轉成新的、有時代意義的運作機關。這就是變形手術,讓監院借殼重生。
「國家人權委員會」是今年一月修法,純然是為「新」監院量身打造。監院本有七個委員會,是依內規設立,而「國家人權委員會」則是透過立法,位階自在七委員會之上,尤其冠「國家」兩字,不成為監院太上皇也難。可見蔡英文並不打算廢考監兩院,成立所謂「國家人權委員會」,轉移了廢監院的視聽,於是「變形」而開工大吉。
「正名制憲」明文載於黨綱;總統兼黨主席的蔡英文要不要遵守?這裡又看到她使出乾坤大挪移的變形術,用「中華民國台灣」轉化了「制憲正名」的必要;換句話說,新的話語已取消實際憲政工程。
建立陪審制明文列在民進黨行動綱領,蔡英文二○一六年總統就職典禮上信誓旦旦向全民宣示進行司法改革,結果呢,司改不改,還一手扼殺了陪審團制。只能參審、反對陪審;民進黨黨團總召柯建銘表示,是「上面的意思」。為什麼不採陪審而要參審?為什麼兩案並行也嚴拒?法務部次長蔡碧仲一句話就境界全出了,他說「還是現行職業法官制最好」;參審制就是現行職業法官制換湯不換藥的「變形」,而且是蔡英文「交代」的。蔡英文假司改之名行維持司法現制之實。這又是一樁「變形記」。
蔡英文是不是應當改名為蔡變形?民進黨是不是應當改名為變形黨?
(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/

2020年6月11日 星期四

韓國瑜拒提無效之訟為哪樁?

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)韓國瑜拒提無效之訟為哪樁?

2020-06-11 05:30
韓國瑜甫坐上市長寶座,椅子還沒熱,就搶著選總統,藍營內部有人說,此舉將造成「國民黨三殺」:總統、立委雙輸,罷免會過。不過真的「三殺」,不在罷免前,而是罷免後的現在;刀刀見骨,刀起頭落。
第一殺,當然是驚心的九十三萬票。國民黨高層全力助韓抗罷並揚言「罷免案不光是韓國瑜個人問題,也牽動國民黨再起的氣勢。」罷免通過,國民黨「再起」無望了。第二殺是高市議長許崑源墜樓自殺。藍營前立委蔡正元指稱是「殉國殉黨」;「黨國」在台灣壽終正寢了。第三殺是曾代表國民黨角逐基隆市長的謝立功,宣佈退出國民黨,改投民眾黨;這是跳船,「良禽擇木而棲」,國民黨號稱「百年」的大船要沉了,樹倒猢猻散。
最值得觀察的毋寧是罷免案通過四天之後的國民黨中常會。黨主席江啟臣率領中常委、黨務主管及立委到高雄殯儀館開「行動中常會」。乖乖隆的咚,殯儀館耶!國民黨藉追悼許崑源進殯儀館,「既傷逝者行自念也」;既現實又象徵,拍「黨國云亡」的電影,絕對是最吸睛的一幕。
那麼韓國瑜還有撇步嗎?有,不但有,且已著手部署了。被罷免後,韓國瑜在臉書上寫了非常阿Q的句子:「真正的勝負輸贏卻是在選舉落幕之後才真正開始」。明明輸了,還有什麼勝招?韓國瑜不像被困在垓下自刎而死的項羽,後人惋惜說:「江東子弟多才俊,捲土重來未可知。」韓國瑜在幕落之後,宣稱「真正開始」,所憑仗的正如「江東子弟八千人」的「韓粉」。
維持韓粉的激情與韓粉的隊伍,乃是韓國瑜「再起」的唯一本錢。韓國瑜拒提罷免無效之訟,目的在擋住黨內強棒接收韓粉而已,「尊重人民意志」云云,騙肖!朱立倫已表態有意擔起高雄市長補選的重任,問題卡在四個月入籍時間;而且只有韓國瑜提出罷免無效之訴,才能以時間換取空間,朱立倫才有取得候選人披戰袍出征的機會。韓國瑜快速宣告放棄司法手段,自使朱立倫們請纓無路。反思一下。朱立倫一旦橫柴入灶,成為市長補選人,為打敗民進黨,韓粉非得傾巢而出擁戴新共主不可,韓國瑜不邊緣化也難;放棄訴訟就是阻卻強棒飛車南下。韓國瑜知道非霸住韓粉領袖地位不放才能「我將再起」;臥榻之旁豈容他人酣睡?哪會拱手將韓粉轉讓他人?另一方面韓也積極物色在地可操控代理人參選,百忙中見黃昭順,不是為此還有別事?
韓國瑜臉書上明志的第一句話:「這一次,誰會是贏家?」表面看只是不承認失敗,其實是拉許崑源的屍體當自家的武器;這一句話原出於許崑源的「絕命詩」。打著許崑源的旗幟,為市長、議長雙殺出一口氣為號召,韓粉烽火遍地之勢成。
徒有誓師不夠,也要操兵。韓國瑜進行所謂「報復性罷免」,指名黃捷、陳柏惟、王浩宇、劉世芳、陳致中等,漫天要價,甚至點名罷免總統,扯淡不打草稿,凸顯草包本色。標靶只在延續韓粉香火於不墜,即使不能擴大韓粉隊伍,至少韓粉向心力不散,如此而已。韓國瑜也下了動員令,揮軍凱道,著白衣宣告韓家軍成立,到時候韓旗飄飄壓倒黨旗飛揚了。
這是韓國瑜「再起」的唯一途徑,捨此,不要說進取黨主席大位,恐怕連立錐之地都沒有;韓粉大操兵,國民黨內沒有黨中央只有韓國瑜。
(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/

2020年6月4日 星期四

六月六日,高雄人加油!

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)

2020-06-04 05:30
六月六日罷免韓國瑜會不會奏功?關涉的不僅僅是高雄市長一人的去留而已,是台灣民主里程碑上重要一頁能不能書寫成功。罷韓的關鍵在投票率,民調是否能化為實實在在的選票?才見真章。不然,轟轟烈烈的罷韓運動形同虛耗,徒然讓「草包」們笑傲高雄。高雄人加油!
罷免案過去並無成功的例子可援,難度比選舉或有過之而無不及。雖然預測很難,但還是有跡可尋。中國國民黨或說韓國瑜這一方,認為罷免案的關鍵在「國家機器」介入的程度,也有藍兮兮的所謂媒體人指控「國家機器動得很厲害!」其實高雄市府機器動得才厲害!換一個角度看,如果現在執政的是國民黨,「國家機器」不但動得厲害而且徹底!一定會把罷免門檻再修到高不可攀,讓「罷韓」胎死腹中;二十六年前國民黨幹過一次。為了保韓國瑜等四立委不被罷免,利用國會多數把門檻拉到讓罷免案失能程度,果然,國民黨保住韓國瑜們。二○一四年太陽花運動後展開「割闌尾/藍委」運動,罷免高門檻再次發威,飲恨敗北。好不容易等到政黨輪替,二○一六年修改選罷法,不但降低了提案、連署人數;同意票只要多於不同意票,且同意票達原選區選舉人總數四分之一,罷免案即通過。罷免門檻降低,是不是就像韓國瑜人馬王淺秋所說:「台灣民主制度將永無寧日」?不然,二○一七年罷免立委黃國昌就以失敗告終。所以罷免公職人員不是要罷誰就罷誰,只有像韓國瑜這種集「天意民意」於一身的才成。
兩天後投票,韓國瑜會不會下台一鞠躬?反面看比較準。藍營內部的說法透顯失敗主義瀰漫,王淺秋的「永無寧日」說,已帶出冬寒的訊息。藍委吳斯懷據藍媒報導是向高雄選民「溫情喊話」:「市民準備過苦日子了嗎?」吳斯懷黨國行伍出身,不必苛責他沒民主觀,搬出「苦日子」恐嚇高雄市民,層次太低而自露馬腳。國民黨立院黨團總召林為洲更絕,一副「預知死亡事件」云:即使被罷免,仍要「做到最後一天!」連訃聞的標題都擬好了。最神來一筆的是國民黨立委鄭正鈐、陳以信等提案修正選罷法,明定「就職未滿一年不得進行罷免提議、連署,且原具投票資格者才能罷免投票」,針對性十足,還假惺惺宣稱提案無關藍綠,更「無法救韓」云云;可見韓國瑜死矣不能救矣,夠白了罷。
一旦丟了烏紗帽,韓國瑜計將安出?挾著韓粉之重,或許可以班師搶黨主席寶座回朝。問題是,大選大輸又不榮譽的「被下台」,國民黨真敢拱韓當主席?整個黨要砸死在韓一人手上?韓國瑜的另類選擇是不是要尋求「轉進」中國?當中國通過港版國安法,受全球一致指責之際,韓國瑜竟要求市府團隊學習中國「溫暖的服務」!「溫暖的服務」?十足大外宣用語,可以列入《一九八四》的「老大哥」格言。這樣肉麻當有趣,難說不是向「我的黨」拋媚眼、效忠誠?這比到「中聯辦」還要赤裸裸。難道韓國瑜已知「秦兵敗了」,要向中南海尋頭路?!
(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/

2020年6月1日 星期一

‘Campus thugs’ siding with China

By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒

Chung Yuan ChristiaN University is clearly in bed with the People’s Republic of China.
This can be the only explanation why the school’s authorities have done their utmost to shield a student, who lodged a complaint against an associate professor, and then used thuggish tactics to compel the teacher to issue two separate apologies to China.
The original complaint, filed by an unnamed Chinese student, was for remarks by associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) during a class on the origin of COVID-19.
A second complaint was filed by the same student after Chao, during an apology, stated that he was a teacher from the “Republic of China [ROC], Taiwan.”
The incident was exposed by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Mark Ho (何志偉) at a news conference with Chao on May 11.
DPP Legislator Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃) publicly expressed support for Chao, while other members of the legislature began to intervene, too.
The Ministry of Education and the Mainland Affairs Council have announced the formation of a joint working group to investigate the affair.
As Minister of Education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠) put it: “We must uphold freedom by means of the academy and the teaching profession, otherwise we might as well give up on our democracy.”
Chao’s employers treated him incredibly badly, exerting pressure on him before the affair hit the headlines, then sitting on their hands during the ensuing media storm. The school has said one thing in public and another in private, and behaved in a thoroughly duplicitous manner that does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
The entirety of the university’s administrative apparatus was brought down on Chao to force him to apologize.
According to video footage of the lesson released online, Chao says: “Yep, I’m talking about you.”
Out of context, it appears as if Chao was referring to the class’ only Chinese student when in fact he was referring to the Chinese authorities.
The school’s administrators went to war with one of their own teachers and forced him to get down on his knees and grovel, not because of a perceived jibe at a Chinese student, but because he dared criticize China’s government during class.
In an audio recording of a disciplinary meeting between Chao and the university’s dean of studies Hsia Cheng-hwa (夏誠華), Hsia upbraids Chao, initially accusing him of “bias.”
During the Martial Law era, the Taiwan Garrison Command would routinely accuse dissidents of holding “extreme” or “biased” views.
It seems the specter of the Taiwan Garrison Command still lives on at the university.
Referring to Chao’s statement on being from the ROC, Hsia says on the same tape: “Today, when you made your apology to the mainland student, why on earth did you feel the need to emphasize this?”
No one from the pan-blue pro-unification camp dares say “the Republic of China” when they are in China. For example, Taipei City Councilor Wang Hung-wei (王鴻薇) on Phoenix Television — a Chinese-owned media company — did not dare emphasize “Taiwan’s president,” but instead said “Taiwan’s leader.”
After the university’s underhanded manipulation was revealed to the public, the school issued a four-point statement to protect itself, trying to cover up its nasty behavior.
First, the school criticized Chao for “extremely unprofessional behavior and expressing opinions unrelated to the course curriculum.”
On the other side of the Taiwan Strait, Chinese security officials on May 10 arrested former law professor Zhang Xuezhong (張雪忠).
Zhang’s employment at the East China University of Political Science and Law had been terminated for “spreading personal political opinions to teachers and staff, using his position to disseminate political views to students and seriously transgressing the standards of the higher education teaching profession.”
The offense that Chung Yuan Christian University slapped on Chao was not different in substance from that of its Chinese counterpart.
Second, the school stated that it is located in the ROC, so it did not clamp down on Chao for emphasizing that he is a “professor of the Republic of China, Taiwan.” This is rather embarrassing for Hsia.
In March 2017, the school signed a “one China” pledge with the Chinese authorities to qualify for participation in exchange programs with Chinese universities. The “one China” wording certainly did not refer to the ROC, so the second point does not make sense.
Furthermore, during an interview with the Chinese-language online network CRNTT, published on Aug. 23, 2018, Hsia declared that, “those ‘nativists’ will split Taiwanese society ... Isn’t it better to make use of the giant’s [China’s] broad shoulders?”
It appears that Chao’s real crime was to offend Hsia’s pro-Beijing sensibilities.
During the 2015 student movement against changes to the high-school curriculum, the university’s president Samuel Chang (張光正) tried to intimidate a protesting high-school student, saying that if this kind of protest became a habit, “companies probably will not want to employ you.”
Chang’s reaction contradicts his claim that the school is founded on the principle of “guaranteeing students’ right to learn.”
Third, the university accused Chao of causing offense to the Chinese student: “We protect the right of students from any country and any region to learn.”
“Any country and any region” is clearly a reference to China. By using “the right to learn” to override the “right to teach,” the university suppressed the right to lecture that academia in Taiwan has worked so hard to obtain simply to toady to Beijing.
Chao’s statement angered China, but it did not infringe upon the Chinese student’s right to learn.
Finally, the school accused Chao of “disregarding teaching quality standards and using one-sided information to incite social division and create misconceptions” and also stated that it reserves the right to take legal action against Chao.
Nothing that Chao said could be interpreted as having brought his employer into disrepute, but the school does not say that it might take legal action on behalf of China.
Furthermore, the school claims the right to decide what constitutes inadequate “teaching quality” or “one-sided information” and criticized Chao for “bias,” yet it appears blind to its own bias and one-sidedness.
The university has sunk to the level of a Confucius Institute. As Chen put it: The government must step in to save the school from the “campus thugs.”
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Edward Jones