NCC must stand firm against KMT

• By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒
• • 
   
  • 
   
  • 

CTi News’ six-year broadcasting license is set to expire on Dec. 11. It remains unclear whether it will be renewed, and many are calling on the National Communications Commission (NCC) not to renew it due to the channel’s pro-China leanings.

Beijing is worried, but dares not say anything for fear of making the case for the critics of the news channel. However, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is throwing its full weight behind a campaign for CTi News’ license to be renewed, decrying damage to freedom of expression in its opening salvo. If the situation were not so serious, it would have been comical.

A second front was opened by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and ousted Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), which was like cleaning a cesspit: The more muck you rake out, the worse the stench.

Many might be asking what right Ma has to talk of “freedom of expression” and how Han is qualified to raise the issue of “democratic freedoms.”

All that their public protestations achieved was to highlight the party’s manifest shortcomings on freedom of speech.

Ma is a professional hatchet man, nurtured by the party-state system. Armed with a Sun Yat-sen Scholarship, Ma as a young man headed to the US and became a campus spy, reporting on fellow Taiwanese students and compiling a blacklist of “offenders.”

From an early age, Ma took a hatchet to free speech, yet today he is accusing the NCC of “suppressing freedom, beyond even what was done during the Martial Law era.”

It is interesting that Ma uses the Martial Law era as benchmark for a lack of freedom of expression before accusing the government of doing even worse.

As Ma — a blood-stained perpetrator of that era — has first-hand knowledge, and since this chapter of the nation’s history is still in recent memory, perhaps he should step forward and explain how freedom of expression was quashed by the party-state and in which way the government is doing worse today.

While in the US, Ma blacklisted Taiwanese students for “political crimes,” yet he now pretends to be an innocent observer compelled to take a stand against crimes against free speech. If he had a shred of moral fiber in his body, he would never show his face in public again.

Meanwhile, Han has called on the public, whether people like the channel or not, to stand behind CTi News to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He also said that defending the channel would show the real measure of Taiwan’s democracy, as the hallmark of a dictatorship is when no alternative views are accepted.

The problem is that Han, who spent nine years in China, took to the People’s Republic of China dictatorship like a fish to water.

Until the CTi News controversy, had he ever displayed any interest in democracy, freedom of expression or freedom of the press? No, Han enjoyed his time in autocratic China a little too much.

Another problem with Han’s stance is that the alternative that CTi News represents is problematic. In a democracy, alternative viewpoints are welcomed; pumping out Chinese Communist Party propaganda is not.

Washington last month announced that by the end of this year, all US universities must close Confucius Institutes on their campuses. Nobody in the US has said that this policy is an assault on academic freedom.

Washington earlier this year designated a number of Chinese state-run media outlets operating in the US as foreign missions. Nobody in the US has criticized their government for encroaching on freedom of the press.

CTi News has, in accordance with regulations, applied for an extension of its broadcast license. Likewise, the NCC must, according to the law, decide whether to renew it.

Critics are accusing the NCC of violating freedom of expression by following its legal mandate — that is completely absurd.

Compelling the NCC to renew the license would have three negative consequences: It would cause broadcast regulations to become unenforceable, turn the commission into a toothless regulator and produce a stale broadcast media environment whereby established players have the right to exist in perpetuity.

The NCC has laid out eight assessment criteria at CTi News’ administrative hearing, which started on Monday last week. The main theme running through them can be distilled into two words: national security.

The accountability of Want Want China Times Media Group founder Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明) is a secondary theme: Are there any internal controls of the day-to-day running of CTi News’ output? Is its financial structure sound? Does Tsai’s business involvement in China create a conflict of interest and constitute a national security threat?

Indeed, Article 10 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法) clearly states that a license application shall be rejected if the applicant’s operations plan could adversely affect national security.

Interestingly, those who are advocating ignoring the law are also saying that the Regulations for License Renewal Applications by Broadcasting Enterprises (廣播事業申請換發執照辦法) and the Examination Regulations for the License Renewal of Satellite Broadcasting and Foreign Satellite Broadcasting Businesses (衛星廣播電視事業及境外衛星廣播電視事業換照審查辦法) make no mention of “national security,” claiming this proves that the NCC is engaging in political censorship.

The NCC has set out its stall. If it is relentlessly attacked by the KMT so that it might be forced to retreat into its shell, it would not just damage the commission’s authority or that of the whole Democratic Progressive Party administration: The greatest damage would be done to national security.

Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.

Translated by Edward Jones

美國大選，台灣怎麼站？

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）美國大選，台灣怎麼站？

2020/10/29 05:30

「中國問題」在美國總統選舉中，向來不曾缺席過，但二○二○年大選，中國問題一躍成為競選主軸，重要性甚至掩蓋過經濟議題，過去絕無僅有。「抗中」是川普取勝的利器，逼得民主黨總統候選人拜登的競選團隊，不得不將拜登描繪成比川普更反中的鷹派，正是最好的寫照。最近流出有關拜登父子的「郵電門」，無論真相如何，主要目的就是把拜登與中國打在一起，從而凸顯川普是對付習近平／中共的能手。

很多人不喜歡川普，認為川普行事粗魯無文、有反智傾向，有白人至上的偏見，甚至也有人認為川普踩了民主的紅線，也就是說，川普欠缺了文明的高度。弔詭的是，川普之所短正見其所長，具有如此強悍品質的川普，剛好命定般的是對治中共野蠻的剋星；所謂一物剋一物，習近平遇到川普，假仙撐不下去了，川普直搗黃龍。中國愚弄、欺瞞、使詐這麼久，根本性的原因就出在美國以民主規範看待專制獨裁的中國、以君子態度對付流氓行為。中國捉住並穿透民主體制的漏洞，巧取豪奪，使中國人民淪為血淚奴工以打造世界工廠，經濟實力壯大的同時，黨天下發揮「槍桿子出政權」的原則強化軍事力量，要完成「超英趕美」的夙願；習近平能稱王稱霸，關鍵在此。

二○一二年習近平就任中共總書記之後，中國圖霸用心從潛伏進展為白熱。二○一七年川普訪問北京，見到習近平就稱「國王」，習近平先說：「我不是國王，我只是主席。」川普回應道：「不對，你是終身主席，所以你就是國王。」川普透露這個秘辛時還有好戲，川普表示：「後來習近平說，好罷，他喜歡……。」

其實稱習近平為「國王」，還是小看了，習近平要做的是「天子」，建構的是「天朝」，南海稱霸、形塑一帶一路如朝貢之路等等，在在要展現「大漢聲威」。二○一七推出大內宣電影《戰狼》的賣點，赫然是「犯我中華者，雖遠必誅」，只要對照從中國外交部發言人華春瑩的「十四億中國人民會做出強有力反應」，到習近平最近的恫嚇：「中國人民已經組織起來！⋯⋯是惹不得的，惹了就不好辦了。」沒有川普橫衝直撞的霸氣、蠻勁，哪壓得住「天朝」慈禧的狂傲?!

這就解釋了為什麼被中共／習大大霸凌、威嚇的台灣及香港人民最支持川普。英國民調機構YouGov針對歐洲七國、亞太八國，調查對川普與拜登的支持度，顯示最挺川普的是台灣與香港。而台灣民意基金會的最新民調，更細緻的分疏，台灣人有五成三支持川普，不樂見川普連任的三成一五；交叉分析顯示民進黨、民眾黨、時力多數支持者樂見川普連任，唯獨國民黨支持者只一成九樂見，反川普的高達七成；顯示國民黨與「天朝」看齊的心態。最典型的例子就是陸軍前總司令陳廷寵，公開說：「我們是中國人驕傲的象徵，……但中華民族有不少敗類，要做美日走狗。」天朝子民的血脈真是源遠流長呀！習近平的「十四億人惹不得的」，不足奇了。

老實說，台灣人支持川普與否，對美國大選幾無影響力，美國人民的選票，才能決定美國未來四年的走向。可以觀察的是，川普連任成功，習大大熬得過熬不過四年？共產黨會不會垮？如果拜登出線，台灣也不必太緊張，台灣已賺到川普的四年，中國戰狼原形遂不可掩，美國人的反中保台已蔚為主流，不會反轉了。

（作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

護航「中天」＝護航中國

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）

2020/10/22 05:30

「中天」電視台六年屆滿的換照時間到了，北京即使焦急也不敢作聲，倒是國民黨卯足全力護航，祭出「言論自由」當進攻的矛頭，令人發噱。馬英九及韓國瑜等的助攻，像打開自家的糞坑，愈掏愈臭。馬英九有什麼本錢奢談言論自由？韓國瑜有什麼資格侈言「民主自由」？自曝其短而已。

馬英九是蔣家黨國豢養的職業打手，拿中山獎學金到美國當校園特務，一天到晚打小報告、製造黑名單，從來就是言論自由的劊子手！現在卻反過來指控ＮＣＣ：「打壓言論自由，甚至超越『戒嚴時代』。」馬英九承認「戒嚴時代」是負面指標，指控民進黨政府「甚至超越」，有趣。馬英九正是戒嚴時代斑斑血跡的加害者，那一頁歷史還活生生在眼前；馬英九何不現身說法告訴大家，到底戒嚴時代如何打壓言論自由？又如何今勝於昔？前手羅織黑名單、後手化妝成路人甲，臉皮真厚！真敢！馬英九若有一絲絲羞恥心，恐怕躲在地洞還怕不夠！厲害了，黨國馬英九。

韓國瑜則呼籲台灣人，不管喜不喜歡中天都應該站出來，捍衛的不是一家電視台，而是屬於大家的言論自由、新聞自由，並說這才是民主的真正表現，「沒有唱反調的媒體，是一個獨裁國家最鮮明的特徵」。問題之一是，韓國瑜在中國九年，如魚得水的生活於極權、專制政權中，快樂得不得了，哪有一丁點的民主思想？哪有一丁點在意言論自由、新聞自由？問題之二是，「中天」唱誰的反調？和誰同調？這才是問題。台灣確是民主國家，唱反調可，唱紅調絕不可。美國宣佈年底前關閉所有孔子學院，沒有人說是打壓學術自由，同樣的，美國管制五家親共官媒，沒有人抨擊是侵害媒體自由。就是這樣，沒有二話。

「中天」依法向ＮＣＣ申請換照，同樣的，ＮＣＣ依法必須裁決是否同意換照。ＮＣＣ管制與裁決衛星廣播電視之權責來自法律，指控不予換照就是侵犯言論自由云云，完全搞錯對象。強迫換照非過不可，造成三種結果：法條擺爛、ＮＣＣ放水、頻道萬年罔替。

ＮＣＣ特列出八大項做為審查「中天」換照公聽會的內容，核心要旨不過四字：「國家安全」，其次才問責老闆蔡衍明的「適格性」：中天內控有沒有不當干預新聞製播、財務結構是否健全等，劍尖所指的就是蔡衍明與中國利益糾葛有無造成國家安全之虞？「國家安全」明文載於「衛星廣播電視法」第十條第三項，此時此刻自是重中之重。

有趣的是，有人捨法律不問，搬出「換發執照法」、「換照審查辦法」替中天喊冤，指出此二辦法沒有「國家安全」等字眼，以此坐實ＮＣＣ是政治審查。行政辦法只是命令，位階在法律之下，與法律牴觸即失效；這樣也能掰？

ＮＣＣ既已擺出陣仗，若在國民黨群毆之下當縮頭烏龜，受傷的不只是公權力、不只是民進黨政府，坐視「國家安全」而不顧才是罪莫大焉。

（作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

中華民國國民黨」？什麼碗糕！

自由廣場》《金恒煒專欄》「中華民國國民黨」？什麼碗糕！

2020/10/15 05:30

國民黨黨團總召、政策會執行長林為洲拋出改黨名的議題，問「要不要去掉『中國』？」引起了黨內不同意見的爭議。明顯「中國」派佔了上風，迫使林為洲祭出「中華民國國民黨」來自救；這叫做越描越黑！

這話怎講？可以用多角度來考察：首先，這個「中華民國國民黨」黨名牴觸「政黨法」第八條第三項所規範的：「足以使人誤認為政府機關」的「不得」情形，法律上不成立；從意識形態而言，「中華民國國民黨」正是「黨國」思維的復辟，這不是改革而是倒退；從語意學上看，強調「中華民國」達得到達不到林為洲「去中國」的目的？離「改名」的原意十萬八千里，更不能取得主流民意的信服。

還有一個有趣對照。與林為洲「發難」的同一天，國民黨基隆黨部在二百人的國旗升旗典禮上，高懸的唯一宣示布條赫然是被開除前主席李登輝的名言「民之所欲常（長）在我心」；反映出地方議員的心聲：「多了中國兩字，在地方上不好選。」林為洲的思考正是著眼於選舉。

本來主張「改黨名」不設限的黨主席江啟臣，現在被迫改口，宣稱「如果改名改姓，個性都不改，好像也於事無補」云云。改名有沒有意義？有。有沒有用？有。「名者，實之賓也」，「名」就是門面，就是內裡的招牌。不重要嗎？舉兩個例子。錢玄同是《古史辨》的成員，他把自己名字改成「疑古玄同」，絕非無的放矢。胡適原名嗣穈，因為篤信達爾文的「適者生存」，遂改名「適」。同樣的，林為洲的「改名」之議，可以看成是一種向台灣選民表態的姿勢，也可看成展開國民黨「脫中」後新路線的宣告。

正當國民黨為改名鬧得沸沸揚揚時，前主席洪秀柱高調到中國去與中共謀統，難怪國民黨台南市議員蔡育輝要「拜託洪秀柱」，「她主張統一就不要在黨內攪和，統一就是沒有票。洪秀柱可以自己獨立門戶，另組一個兩岸統一的黨，看看有沒有選票。」洪秀柱才不甩呢，在中國表示：民意如流水，「民心是有可能隨之改變的」。這番秀逗的話，不怕閃了舌？連老共恐都不買！

就像禪宗搶衣缽一樣，黨人巴著黨不放，誰也不可能另組新政黨，誰也趕不走誰、誰出去誰死亡；看來是打不開的死結。其實也有解方。五○年代初，胡適寫信給蔣介石，勸他考慮國民黨分成幾個新政黨。胡適知道在蔣氏黨國體制下，不可能產生反對黨，這是沒有辦法下可以想到的唯一辦法。此一「胡說」，可以創造性的轉化以適合民主化台灣的國民黨政治發展；國民黨可以「裂」而「不分」。講清楚一點，就是分成以馬英九、洪秀柱等為首的堅持「中國」的「中國派」，另外成立以「台灣」、「本土」為號召的「本土派」，都在「中國國民黨」旗幟下，透過正當的民主競爭，兩派在初選中定出勝負，決定黨的路線。好處是，讓國民黨認真學習並落實黨內民主，完善民主程序；更重要的是脫困，與其陷在「中」、「台」兩難，不如用理性思考與計算找出口。

林為洲既然已打破蛋殼，要做成荷包蛋或任其擺爛？答案不難選。

（作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

江啟臣的「兩個中國」困境

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）江啟臣的「兩個中國」困境

2020/10/08 05:30

中國國民黨在立院提出兩個「公決案」，一個簡稱「助台抗中」，一個簡稱「美台復交」，全是騙人的把戲。兩個提案根本互不相容、相互打架，矛盾重重。

先說大矛盾。第一案揭示：「蔡英文政府應積極說服美國政府依照其〈台灣關係法〉之精神，一旦中共舉動明顯危及台灣……的行動時，……協助我國（編按：『我國』指中華民國）抵抗。」第二案是：「蔡英文政府應以美國與中華民國回復邦交為對美外交目標……」。然而〈台灣關係法〉開宗明義即表明「終止承認中華民國」。美國既然已終結中華民國，第二案的「復交」從何而來？美國從未與台灣建交過，遑論「復交」！？如果要與美國建交，國民黨就得要求蔡政府，「應以美國與台灣回復邦交作為對美外交目標」，如此才言之成理。既高標〈台灣關係法〉，又牴觸〈台灣關係法〉的立法原旨，無異是自己的矛打自己的盾，什麼跟什麼呀。

再說，〈台灣關係法〉既然取消中華民國，而且強調美國政府打交道的對象是「台灣人民」，那麼第一案搬出「我國」，不是公然使詐是什麼！更重要的是，既然國民黨要求美國與中華民國「復交」，斷不能搬出〈台灣關係法〉當前提，更不能挾此法要求美國履行以協助無何有的「我國」來抵抗中國。

國民黨荒誕絕倫的兩個公投案，全是瞞天過海的詐術。首先利用「公投案」放棄一貫打死不離口的「一中」。一旦強調「中華民國」，不啻是宣告「兩中」、「一邊一國」。問題是，現在才要拿「兩中」保命，保得住嗎？聯合國通過所謂「排我納匪案」後，雷震給蔣介石寫了〈救亡圖存獻議〉，主張「兩個中國」，而且鄭重警告：如果國民黨再這樣糊塗下去，「恐怕有一天求兩個中國而不可得」！雷震的教言，可以讓江啟臣們醒醒腦：「兩個中國」來不及了。如果真要承認「兩個中國」，那麼國民黨從此不能再叫「大陸」；江啟臣勢必與口口聲聲的「和陸」說莎喲娜拉了。

江啟臣今年特率黨管參加所謂「雙十國慶」，公開說：「目的就是強化國民黨與中華民國的連結，並先拿下中華民國的話語權。」國民黨要從「一中」撤退到「二中」︱︱用蔣介石的虛飾就是「轉進」。問題是〈台灣關係法〉去「中華民國」、稱「台灣」；那麼堅持中華民國又如何與〈台灣關係法〉掛上勾？國民黨使出挪移與置換的手法，在兩案中用「中華民國」代換上「台灣」。至於會如何衝撞黨內親中派或中國？等著瞧。

有趣的倒是民進黨的反應。行政院長蘇貞昌表示，國民黨終於良心發現，是好事一樁。問題是，國民黨若「有良心」，也不會走到今天的地步；重要的是，政治是「非道德」的，跟「良心」沒有什麼關係。至於民進黨發言人說什麼「歡迎國民黨與本黨站在一起」，向下沉淪到與中國國民黨同一層次？什麼笨蛋！

（作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

• Home
 
• Editorials

Thu, Oct 08, 2020 page8

• China and CCP are inseparable

  • By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒
  • • 
     
    • 
     
    • 

  A regular talking point of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) critics is the need to separate “China” from the CCP and adopt a stance that is “anti-CCP,” rather than “anti-China.”

  However, this is an abstraction that avoids the fact that the People’s Republic of China government is the legally recognized government of China, meaning that the critics are hiding behind an image of China of their own making.

  In his speeches, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has taken a different view, drawing a clear line between the CCP and China’s population. He said that the US cannot blindly take an unyieldingly tough attitude toward China, but should communicate with its people and help give them strength, adding that Chinese and the CCP are as different as night and day.

  Pompeo is seeking to incorporate the Chinese into the US’ encirclement of the CCP. This might be at the suggestion of Pompeo’s principal China policy adviser, Miles Yu (余茂春).

  Yu, who was born in China, would inevitably have complex personal feelings toward China.

  However, his former compatriots have been quick to disown him.

  Pompeo has said that the US has pursued an erroneous China policy for the past 25 years. Two-and-a-half decades ago, Washington tried to bring China in to the ranks of the free world based on liberal values.

  The thinking was that once China’s middle class reached a critical mass, the country would inevitably democratize. Paradoxically, the more the US invested in China, the more closely the capitalists and the middle class, created as a result of that investment, embraced the party. Washington policymakers’ wishful thinking proved to be wide off the mark and the US ended up nursing a viper in its bosom.

  Would US President Donald Trump’s policy of separating China from the CCP actually work?

  Interestingly, on July 9, Harvard University’s Ash Center published a study, titled Taking China’s Pulse, for which it conducted eight surveys in China between 2003 and 2016, gathering data from 32,000 respondents.

  According to the survey’s findings, in 2016 a record 93.1 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction with the central government.

  Since the survey’s publication, many people have questioned whether the CCP had a hand in it.

  Cai Xia (蔡霞), a “second-generation red” and former professor at China’s elite Central Party School and member of the CCP’s “liberal” faction, who fled to the US, has said that the Harvard survey appears suspect.

  There is a reason why the Chinese public supports its government: Where there is fertile earth, trees will grow.

  As Chinese writer Hu Shi (胡適) wrote: “The CCP did not leap out from a cave.”

  Reporting by the New York Times has revealed that behind Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hardline approach to ruling the country are a coterie of authoritarian theoreticians and policymakers. After Xi took over as leader, he began to denigrate the fundamental building blocks of liberal societies such as universal human rights and the separation of powers.

  The Mao Zedong (毛澤東)-era policy of “overtaking Britain and catching up with the US” once again became a benchmark.

  One of the most penetrating catchphrases to emerge from Xi so far has been: “Sorry, the goal now is not Westernization, but the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people.”

  Another example is the German documentary film A German Life, released in 2016, which documents the life of Brunhilde Pomsel, a former secretary, stenographer and typist for Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, aged 105 at the time of the interview.

  During the course of the interview, Pomsel said: “I don’t feel guilty ... unless you’re going to accuse the whole German people of helping that government come to power.”

  Separating Nazis from Germans is difficult; likewise, it is problematic to detach the CCP from Chinese.

  US historian Carl Becker wrote: “Democratic government is a species of social luxury” that is reliant on material conditions and wisdom for its success.

  China seriously lacks the values of the Enlightenment — proof of this is everywhere: Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (李克強) in May admitted that 600 million Chinese are living on a monthly income of barely 1,000 yuan (US$147.26 at the current exchange rate).

  Chinese intellectuals and politicians still blindly argue that liberal democracy is on the wane, that China is on the rise and that it will bring on a new era.

  Last month, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said it is not seeking to improve relations with either the US or China at the expense of the other.

  KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) is also reported to have said that the party is to seek “value” in its relations with the US and China.

  In truth, you cannot put a cigarette paper between the KMT’s “values” and those touted by the CCP under Xi.

  Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.

  Translated by Edward Jones

大法官是蔣介石的造王者

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）大法官是蔣介石的造王者

2020/10/01 05:30

促轉會召開研討會揭露大法官釋憲的荒謬過程，最教人瞠目且關乎台灣歷史進程的關鍵釋憲案，除台師大副教授劉恆妏提出的第卅一號及中原大學副教授林春元提出的第八十五號外，還有第廿九號。這些釋憲文都非單獨存在，背後呈現建構蔣家王朝的系列工程。蔣介石連任，甚至違憲三連任，都靠國民大會護航過關，護法黑手即大法官。

國大代表流亡台灣人數不足，蔣介石為了連任，必須解決國大人數及能否召開臨時會的問題。蔣分四步驟達陣：首先由立院修國大組織法，降低國代出席人數門檻，由原來規定的二分之一降為三分之一；第二步，就是由大法官釋憲（廿九號）賦予國大召開臨時會的合憲程序；第三步，再由大法官祭出卅一號釋憲文，奠定萬年國會的合憲性；第四步，由國民大會宣告〈臨時條款〉不但繼續有效，更有加強擴大之必要。

這裡必須翻一下〈臨時條款〉的舊帳。依〈中華民國憲法〉，總統是沒有實權的，行政權在行政院長手上。首任總統選舉時，蔣介石推胡適選總統，蔣願出任行政院長。為什麼呢？蔣介石說他是要做事的，不能當虛位元首。蔣介石說動胡適出任，胡欣然同意。然而黨內有人反對說，總統大位哪有讓非黨員出任？

在爭辯激烈情形下，行政院長張群表示：「總裁並不是不想當總統……但不願任此有名無實的職位，如果中常會能想出一種辦法，給總統一種特權，總裁是願意當總統候選人。」那麼計將安出？

司法院長王寵惠出點子了：「我們可以避開憲法條文的規定，賦予總統在特定時期得為緊急處分的權力。」接著解釋說：「我們有了一座大房子，還要一間小房子；大房子是憲法，臨時條款是小房子，兩間房子相互為用……。」當場有人大聲嚷道：「小房子比大房子大！」這是〈戡亂時期臨時條款〉的由來。

蔣介石為了三連任，同樣由大法官暗渡陳倉，祭出釋字第八十五號。依憲法，總統只能兩任，要連三任，唯有修憲之一途。《自由中國》被封，雷震、傅正被捕，直接原因固出於反對黨，間接原因就是因為《自由中國》強烈反對蔣違憲三連任。

《自由中國》連續半年以上在每期刊物上砲聲隆隆，尤其特請法學教授李聲庭寫文章，一條一條駁斥主張修憲的種種口實，結論很清楚：在目前情形下，硬要修憲也無「法」可修，主要原因就在「國民大會代表的人數無論如何也無法湊足；國代修憲之路不通，立委修憲仍要國大複決，依然遇到人數不足的問題……」。

李聲庭刻意警示，大法官若為此釋憲，是扭曲憲法。蔣介石才不管咧，依然動用大法官做出第八十五號解釋文：以在台現有的國代人數當成出席總額門檻。接下來國代修改〈臨時條款〉，蔣介石可以不受憲法兩任的拘束。

蔣介石建構蔣家王朝，在憲政體制上倚仗萬年國會與大法官會議；大法官就是蔣介石打造的造王者。

（作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）