韓趙聯手的軟性政變

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）韓趙聯手的軟性政變 2021/02/04 05:30 國民黨可憐到爆，窩囊到不行。區區一個黨外人士而已，一宣稱「回復黨籍」，黨頓然吱吱咯咯的上動下搖。這位人士連黨門還未進，隔空挑明佔主席寶座、選總統，更叫人咋舌的是，此人，乖乖，語帶威脅的要黨主席立刻奉上中評委聘書，以取得選主席資格。氣燄之盛、口氣之大，眼中哪有黨？虧國民黨嚥得下這口氣。 這個「區區」，不是別人，是號稱「政治金童」的趙少康。政治金童？卻像伏爾泰嘲諷的「神聖羅馬帝國」一樣名不副實；「政治」？趙少康口口聲聲說自己是「媒體人」；「童」？年過耳順了，童什麼童！「金」才是趙少康本色。 趙少康是精刮利害的生意人，區區兩億元換來「不當黨產」價高十億的中廣；這筆橫財暴利，靠的是政媒雙棲、「入乎其內、出乎其外」的手法。現在公開叫陣，兵臨於江啟臣城下，要主席就主席、要選總統就選總統，毫不掩飾的說，等到安全上莊後，中廣董事長寶座才放手；任何成本、損失、風險概由國民黨承擔，趙少康一張嘴天地玄黃。 當然，趙少康挾韓國瑜部勒藍營，不只「趙韓同盟」，而是「李代桃僵」的政治版本；韓國瑜被九十三萬票罷免，形同政治死刑，需要找一個代理人，趙少康是最壞打算下的最好選擇：趙不只一路力挺，且是同路人。更重要的是，韓國瑜打包票：「中評委的事情我會去跟江啟臣討論」；忒大的口氣。韓國瑜擺得平擺不平江啟臣是一回事，其他有意問鼎的諸侯服不服固有待觀察。韓趙聯手發動軟性政變，目的是使國民黨新黨化；背後那把沒有亮出的傢伙就是韓粉。 趙少康能不能及如何豪奪巧取國民黨，是國民黨自家的事，反正好戲開鑼。但趙少康指鹿為馬、瞞天過海，那是顛倒黑白的詐術。趙少康宣布班師回朝時呼籲「台灣別搞省籍分化」，有沒有搞錯，一九九四年台北市長選舉，趙少康最旗幟鮮明的口號是「呼群保義」，「號召眷村榮民傾家蕩產支持他」。（楊實秋語）算準了天龍國族群結構的特色，趙少康孤注一擲的把外省人全押下去梭哈。所謂物極必反，趙少康的族群動員，激起了台灣人集體焦慮的反制，最後在三腳督下，反使陳水扁脫穎而出。搞省籍分化的始作俑者不是趙少康是誰！ 「呼群保義」不僅是趙少康選戰策略而已，是他堅如磐石的大中國沙文意識形態的外爍。國會全面改選時他說：「外省人比台灣人多，外省人有十幾億，三十幾省的外省人；台灣人才一千多萬，我們多數，你們少數。」「中華民國不只有台灣嘛！所以你們要聽我們的，我們多數你們少數。」把台灣打成「我們族群」與「你們族群」，當成恆定的統治與被統治關係，「你們要聽我們的」、「你們台灣人要聽我們外省人的」，這才是趙少康的終極信念。 中國共產黨建黨百週年不是玩假的：中央人民廣播電台訪問白狼不是訪假的；趙少康搶黨主席也不是搶假的。 （作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

Judicial corruption demands action

Home Editorials Thu, Feb 04, 2021 page8 Judicial corruption demands action By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒 Were it not for the Control Yuan, the massive judicial scandal involving allegations of corruption by former Supreme Court judge Shih Mu-chin (石木欽) and Chia Her Industrial president Weng Mao-chung (翁茂鍾) would have remained buried deep in multiple “black boxes.” However, there is another important aspect to the story that is worthy of attention. If Control Yuan members appointed by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) are not cleared out, even if the agency initiates impeachment proceedings against the more than 200 judicial personnel and civil servants accused of having been involved in illicit activities, nothing will happen. After the Judicial Yuan handed material related to Shih’s activities to the Control Yuan, an impeachment procedure against Shih was opened. At the Control Yuan’s impeachment review committee’s first hearing, members voted seven to four against impeaching Shih. The second hearing lacked a quorum, and after the third hearing failed to impeach him, the issue was left unresolved. Control Yuan member Fang Wan-fu (方萬富), a Ma appointee implicated in the case, mobilized Ma supporters in the Control Yuan to block Shih’s impeachment. Fortunately, the Ma clique in the Control Yuan was broken up when a new class of members joined, and on Aug. 14 last year, the committee voted in favor of Shih’s impeachment by 12 votes to none. Talking to reporters, Shih fired back, asking: “If I was involved in any impropriety, why was I not impeached during the first impeachment hearing?” He clearly understands the agency’s inner workings. On Sept. 9 last year, the Control Yuan issued a report stating that prosecutors had more than 130 files, but that it had only seen a dozen or so. The report said that the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office had confiscated 27 of Weng’s notebooks, but only the parts involving judges had been handed over: Everything involving prosecutors had been kept under wraps. As a result, the Control Yuan demanded that the Executive Yuan and Judicial Yuan punish implicated officials within two months, or the Control Yuan would take action itself. This bold move forced the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice to announce the results of its investigation on Jan. 18. The investigation found that Weng had had “improper contact” with 20 judges, 11 prosecutors, and nine Investigation Bureau officials. Can it really be that only 40 individuals were involved? Even Saber Youth — a judicial independence advocacy group composed of young prosecutors — called on the Judicial Yuan to make public a list of all officials implicated in the case. The Weng-Shih case involves alleged improper conduct which, according to the Control Yuan, occurred more than a decade — and in some instances more than two decades — ago. However, Fang was a Control Yuan member up until July 30 last year, so his case is still easy to investigate. The scandal concerns the entire judicial system and implicates powerful people at the highest level, from grand justices down to judges in the Supreme Court, High Administrative Court, Disciplinary Court, and administrative and district courts. The allegations implicate retired grand justices, a former Judicial Yuan vice president and division chief judges. Prosecutors from chief prosecutors down are also involved. Judicial Reform Foundation chairman Lin Yung-sung (林永頌) asked Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌): “Why are there no investigation reports from the National Police Agency, which falls under your purview?” There are no reports from the police agency or the Investigation Bureau, and the judiciary and prosecutors are clearly in cahoots with each other; if it is not corruption, the only explanation is gross incompetence. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) rejected the introduction of a jury system in favor of a lay judge system that would include so-called “citizen judges” in lieu of genuine judicial reform. Shih’s actions show that the “citizen judge” system is unworkable. Former Judicial Yuan president Rai Hau-min (賴浩敏) received a letter informing on Shih when he was newly installed as Taiwan High Court president. Shih was summoned by Rai for formal questioning. Shih strongly denied any illegal activity, saying that he had never provided advice to Weng, and persuaded Rai. If even an experienced lawyer such as Rai was duped by Shih, one can assume that a citizen judge could also be duped. The judiciary has for many years functioned as a closed interest group, with the Control Yuan as gatekeeper. How many more Weng cases are out there? How many more Shihs and Fangs are operating within the system? How many more crooked grand justices are yet to be exposed? Weng was not a particularly skilled operator — the problem lies with Taiwan’s rotten judicial system. “Independent trial” and “discretionary evidence” are used as shields by bad actors and impede the Control Yuan from properly supervising and investigating members of the judiciary. Tsai’s judicial reform, announced with so much fanfare five years ago, is left in tatters. Can she continue to stay out of the matter for much longer? Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator. Translated by Edward Jones

人民選出的人民收回

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）人民選出的人民收回 2021/01/28 05:30 先問個有趣的問題，同樣面臨被罷免境況；一個是民進黨的王浩宇；一個是無黨籍的黃捷，為什麼民進黨挺黃捷的力道反而遠甚於挺王浩宇？罷免王浩宇的門檻八萬多票，不只民進黨評估難難難，連藍營也沒有什麼把握。從過去罷免案的紀錄來看，除了罷免高雄市長韓國瑜成功外，幾乎是不可能的任務；即使修法降低門檻，時代力量的黃國昌依然因同意票未達標而過關。民進黨冷對王浩宇案，憑仗的就是此一天險之不能逾越。 王浩宇被罷，除選區藍大於綠外，王本人「顧人怨」也是重要因素。王浩宇罷免成功，無異是幫黃捷大忙，民進黨不敢忽視骨牌作用，蔡英文兩度下令全黨動起來，「不能坐著不管」；罷黃勢必比罷王難多多。 韓國瑜的罷免達陣，成為台灣選舉史上的轉折點，罷免不再是天方夜譚。受到韓國瑜被罷的刺激，國民黨及藍營燃起復仇之火，使出「報復性罷免」戰術，烽火遍地；攻下王浩宇，只是大虧之後的小贏，對一蹶不振的士氣倒有提升之功，最新民調顯示，國民黨支持度回升五．五個百分點。國民黨意圖藉由一次次的罷免戰操兵。 選舉要提「政見」，罷免基本上不需要理由，儘管「選罷法」明文規定「檢附罷免理由書」，但沒有審核機構，也不能／敢審核，形同具文而已。誠如美國加州一九一一年首次推動並通過罷免法的當時州長Hiram Johnson所說：不需要違法事實也可罷免，罷免是「預防性措施」，讓「不恤民意的官員下台」。 美國是聯邦制，罷免法由州議會制定，目前十九個州有罷免法。第一位被罷免下台的州長是一九二一年北達科州的Lynn Frazier，第二位是二○○三年的加州州長Gray Davis，補選繼任者就是大名鼎鼎的知名影星阿諾．史瓦辛格。以加州為例，Davis之前，有過一一七次的罷免，統統以失敗告終，可見罷免之難。州長、副州長、檢察長、參議員、全體或個別法官⋯⋯，都可以罷免，正如《聖經》〈約伯記〉所說：「上帝賞賜的上帝收回」，人民選出的人民罷免，如此而已。 我們憲法上明文規定，罷免權屬於人民基本權利之一，但從來沒有落實過。二○一六年十一月通過選罷法修正案，門檻終於下降到可以罷免的程度。罷免制度最重要的意義是，民選官員從總統到立委、議員以下都可以罷免；任期制不是必然、唯一的保證。罷免不必問理由，政黨當然可以參與，不介入才是假仙。至於「報復性罷免」法所不禁，不必掩飾；罷免勢必進入台灣政治程序。林濁水說：「罷免行政首長，邏輯還說得通，但罷免議員，違反言論免責的自由主義。」美國罷免州長、議員、官員等，史不絕書，所有罷免名單全在案，從沒人拿「言論自由」來扣帽子。民主制度固有想像的理想面，但本質上不脫赤裸裸的權力鬥爭；馬基雅維利主義在民主體制中也虎虎生風。 （作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）司法膿瘡爆裂了

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）司法膿瘡爆裂了 2021/01/21 05:30 如果沒有監察院，這宗司法大醜聞勢必掩藏在層層套套黑盒子中，永不見光；更要補上另一個關鍵性的重大環節，如果馬系監委沒有清除一空，即使監察院彈劾，也成不了事。 第五屆監察院接到司法院移送的有關高等法院前院長石木欽的黑材料，立案彈劾，審查會第一次七票對四票，「表決不通過」，第二次人數不足，流會三次後不了了之。馬英九提名的監委方萬富自己涉入此案，拉馬系監委築成鐵壁，杯葛成功！天可憐見，監委換屆，馬系勢力瓦解，去年八月十四日才能以十二比零彈劾成功。石木欽接受記者訪問，竟振振有詞的反嗆：「若涉違失，為何第一次彈劾沒過？」可見對監察院運作了然於胸。 九月九日監察院提出調查報告，表示檢調掌握一三○多個檔案，監察院只看到與石木欽有關的十餘份而已；北檢扣押賄賂人翁茂鍾廿七本筆記，只將有關司法官部分上交，檢察官涉案的全部秘而不告。監察院遂藉由記者會公開要求行政院、司法院在兩個月內「依法懲處」涉案的司法人員，否則「監察院自己來」。 監察院的大動作，迫使司法院、法務部在今年一月十八日公布調查結果，認定與翁茂鍾有「不當接觸」者計法官廿名、檢察體系的十一名、調查局九名。到底是不是只有四十人涉案？連「劍青檢改」都質疑，要求公布所有貪官名字！ 翁茂鍾案起於上世紀末，司法院表示，多屬十餘年前甚至廿餘年前的不當行為。但是，方萬富做監委做到去年七月卅一日，所以案子還是熱騰騰的新鮮貨。 這宗醜聞案牽動了司法每一個部門，涉案的幾乎是權大位尊的頂尖人物，大法官、最高法院、高等行政法院、懲戒法院、行政法院、各地地院不等，有優退大法官、司法院副院長、各級庭長，還有數不清的法官們；檢察官則從檢察長、司長到各地檢察官，真是洋洋大觀，甚至連調查官也不缺席。司改會律師林永頌質問行政院長蘇貞昌說：「為什麼你轄下的警政署沒有任何調查報告？」警政署沒有報告，調查局也沒有；司法機構沆瀣一氣，不是腐爛就是擺爛。 蔡英文推翻陪審制，硬推出參審制，起用所謂「國民法官」當司改的替死鬼；石木欽則用行為替國民法官制做了否證。當時司法院長賴浩敏接到檢舉黑函，召見剛出任高院院長的石木欽對質，石向賴打包票，表示絕無不法情事，也沒有指點翁茂鍾云云，賴院長就被說服了。重點是，如果連律師出身的賴浩敏都被唬弄過去，「國民法官」在法庭中不被唬弄才怪。 台灣司法機器早成利益集團的禁臠了，連監察院都儼然衛兵角色。現在要問的是，還有多少翁茂鍾？還有多少石木欽？還有多少方萬富？還有多少蔡清遊？並非翁茂鍾有多厲害，是司法老結構爛到骨子裡去了，還拿「獨立審判」、「自由心證」當堅甲，不容監察院置喙。 蔡總統五年前大言不慚的司改，成績血淋淋，蔡英文可以坐在總統府置身事外嗎?!

Pompeo secures close Taiwan ties

Mon, Jan 18, 2021 page6 Pompeo secures close Taiwan ties By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒 Like a thunderbolt out of the blue, with only 11 days remaining of US President Donald Trump’s term, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday last week announced that the US Department of State had, effective immediately, lifted all “self-imposed” restrictions on how US diplomats and other government officials engage with their Taiwanese counterparts. Pompeo’s announcement immediately triggered a backlash. Criticisms leveled by former US National Security Council director for China, Taiwan and Mongolia affairs Evan Medeiros, who served in the administration of former US president Barack Obama, were representative of the disapproving reaction. “The administration is over in two weeks… It looks like a publicity stunt,” Medeiros said. Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd also weighed in, saying: “If Pompeo was serious about this, why not do this one or two years ago?” Others opined that the move was a departing shot by Trump, designed to shake up US-China relations and set a trap for the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden. In fact, the seeds of Trump’s departing shot were sown by his protocol-breaking phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in late 2016. Since then, the Trump administration has used a combination of legislation and other actions to close in on its dramatic endgame step-by-step. US Senator Tom Cotton, US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel and US Representative Michael McCaul began to prepare the ground in March and April last year, proposing the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020 in the House of Representatives and US Senate, which requires the state department to review its “contact guidelines” for Taiwan. On Dec. 22 last year, the US Congress passed an appropriations bill for the next fiscal year that included the act. The act requires Pompeo’s department to review the guidelines within 180 days of being signed into law and to propose new guidelines. Far from being a “confused internal document,” as has been claimed by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Deputy Secretary-General Huang Kwei-bo (黃奎博), the new guidelines are the result of proper congressional procedure. In many respects, Pompeo has been running ahead of the law. Last year, the US’ Coordination Council for North American Affairs in Taipei was renamed the Taiwan Council for US Affairs, then-Taiwan National Security Council secretary-general David Lee (李大維) met with former US national security adviser John Bolton, and in August, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar visited Taiwan and met with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). The state department waited to officially announce the voiding of its four-decades-old contact guidelines after the act was passed by Congress on Jan. 9. Just a few days later, on Monday last week, Representative to the US Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) met with US Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Clarke Cooper, and on Thursday, US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft held a virtual meeting with Tsai. The trend of events is clear: The US-China relationship cannot go back to what it was. The New York Times quoted a Trump administration official as saying that the legacy of the Trump administration will perhaps be his tough stance on China and the establishment of closer ties with Taiwan. The official added that the Trump administration is thinking up ways in which it can prevent Biden from backsliding on its policies. The New York Times also quoted Antony Blinken, Biden’s pick to head the state department, as saying that he might block contact with high-level Taiwanese officials. However, the article’s main point came toward the end, where it concluded that there is increasing cross-party support for closer ties with Taipei. Those who are expecting the Biden administration to overturn Trump’s China policy are promoting hope over facts. For example, the Chinese-language newspaper United Daily News, which is close to the pan-blue camp, on Jan. 10 ran an article titled: “Be careful of beautiful presents concealing political intent.” If there is any malicious intent, it appears to be coming from that camp. KMT Legislator Alex Fai (費鴻泰) described Craft, after her visit to Taiwan had been canceled, as an “unwanted guest.” The language used is shameful and betrays a certain vulgarity in its speaker. The most stupefying intervention came from KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), who warned the Tsai administration not to allow Taiwan to become a “bargaining chip” or a “pawn” in the tussle between the US and China. This kind of language is no different from that of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesman Ma Xiaoguang (馬曉光) and spokeswoman Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮), who have depicted Taiwan as the US’ “chess piece.” The Chinese Communist Party and the KMT really are singing from the same hymn sheet. Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.

美中關係回不去了

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）美中關係回不去了 2021/01/14 05:30 看似驚雷一般，離川普總統卸任只剩區區十一天，國務卿龐皮歐宣佈廢除束縛美國對台官方來往的「接觸指南」，即日起失效。國務卿的聲明引發許多反彈，歐巴馬時代的國安會資深主任麥艾文（Evan Medeiros）的說法最具代表性，他質疑之一是：「本屆政府在兩週內就要結束了」，「看來像一個噱頭」；其二是「如果龐皮歐理直氣壯，為何前一年不做？」至於像親中的澳洲前總理陸克文所說，這是在拜登上任前，埋下動搖美中關係的「地雷」，就更情見乎辭了。川普這招真個是「怎敵他臨去秋波那一轉」。 其實，這「一轉」遠在二○一六年年底川普與蔡英文通電話時就現端倪了。最後透過立法與行動，一步一步達陣。 先是二○二○年三、四月間，參議員柯頓（Tom Cotton）與眾院外交委員會主席恩格（Eliot Engel）、共和黨籍首席議員麥考爾（Micheal McCaul）分別在參眾兩院提出「台灣保證法案」；明令國務院「檢討」對台「接觸指南」。去年十二月廿二日國會通過包括「台灣保證法」在內的聯邦政府撥款法案，規定在一八○天內向院報告，並要提出更新版本。這是國會立法，絕非國民黨副秘書長黃奎博亂掰的出於所謂「內部文件」。 龐皮歐其實行動先於法律，先是二○一九年「北美事務協調委員會」正名為「台灣美國事務委員會」，同年國家安全秘書長李大維與美國國安顧問波頓會晤；二○二○年八月美國衛生與公眾服務部長阿札爾（Alex Azar）訪問台灣。法案正式通過後的今年一月九日，美國國務卿才公開聲明華府行之四十年的「對台接觸指南」作廢。十一日國務院助卿古柏（Clarke Cooper）會見台灣駐美代表蕭美琴；十四日美政府宣佈，駐聯合國大使克拉夫特（Kelly Craft）訪台，並與蔡總統見面，即使因美國總統交接而臨時取消，意思到了。 形勢很清楚，美中關係回不去了。《紐約時報》引用官員的話：「對中國採取強硬立場以及與台灣建立更緊密關係，或許是川普政治遺緒（legacy）的一部分」，並報導目前政府已設法鎖定一些讓拜登難以逆轉的政策。固然《紐時》也引用準國務卿布林肯（Antony J. Blinken） 的話說，即使如此，拜登也可能會阻止與台灣官員進行高層接觸；重點是《紐時》收尾的結論：「兩黨越來越支持與台北建立更緊密的關係」。就此而言，那些寄望拜登上任之後「翻盤」，可能是沙特所說的「先驗性的期望」（a priori hope）而已。 《聯合報》〈小心美麗禮物背後的政治意圖〉就是一例；這種居心與國民黨黨團總召費鴻泰把克拉夫特稱作「惡客」同樣的可恥、可鄙與下流。 最叫人傻眼的是，國民黨主席江啟臣警告蔡政府不要變成美中對弈的籌碼或棄子，這與中國國務院發言人馬曉光、國台辦發言人朱鳳蓮所說「甘當美國棋子」有何不同？國民黨、共產黨，沒招了。 （作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）

先進病房，疫苗後打vs.領導先打，我才打

自由廣場》（金恒煒專欄）先進病房，疫苗後打vs.領導先打，我才打 2021/01/07 05:30 武漢肺炎疫苗的施打應當怎麼分配？涉及的是道德、公平與輕重緩急等的考量與設定。然而，政治體制的殊異，在疫苗的先後施打上竟會展現落差懸殊的戲劇性現象。 十二月十八日史丹佛大學一百多名醫務人員舉行大規模示威，口號是「先進病房，疫苗後打」（First in the room, back of the line），指控「史丹佛可恥」！抗議醫療中心把不必戴N95口罩、在家工作不必到院治療武肺病患的資深醫生納入第一波優先接種名單；急需的第一線醫療人員反排到後面；明顯是有權的人操縱了醫院董事會。重要的是，這波抗爭之後，史大領導階層馬上發出聲明，承認錯誤，負起所有責任，決定重新制定分發程序。 強烈對比的是中國。疫苗是有了，但從醫療專業到一般人竟寧願排到後面打。這還不奇，奇的是他們的口號是「領導先打，我才打」。上海復旦大學華山醫院感染科主任張文宏評論醫務人員拒絕接種的原委：「你要十％接種也好，廿％接種也好，其實我們都不著急的。」那麼，「今天誰應該去打？我個人覺得要打是領導幹部先打！」「美國之音」訪問安徽居民周先生，他表示：領導先打也不一定就有用，要看哪一級領導，縣領導？省領導？還是中央領導？《中國青年報》前編輯李大同則點名國務院總理、副總理們、國家主席、副主席們說，你們打這些疫苗给我們看看，「你們打，老百姓就打。」江蘇鎮江市當地中共官員沒有一個人報名先打，楊浦區中醫醫院超過九成的醫護人員拒打疫苗。 有趣吧，美中兩國連打疫苗都有不同的先後選擇。史丹佛的醫療人員透過抗爭讓大學道歉並改正錯誤，這是民主社會抵抗權的行使。二戰時法國被納粹佔領，大戰結束後，沙特創辦《現代》雜誌，創刊號中特別點明作家身負無可逃避的天職：「我個人認為福婁拜（Flaubert）對鎮壓巴黎公社有難辭其咎的責任，因為他從未寫下任何阻止的言論。或許你認為這事與他無關，那麼卡拉斯（Calas）的審判與伏爾泰何關？德雷福斯（Dreyfus）事件又與左拉何干？」抗議不公、不義是推動文明向上的不可或缺力量。 中國完全不同，習大大執政五年以來，《紐約時報》報導，「習近平認為奴性和忠誠高於一切」，澳大利亞廣播公司記者博圖斯（Bill Birtles ）接受「美國之音」訪問時表示，在習近平領導下，中國只剩下一種聲音。從律師轉為公民記者的張展，武漢爆發肺炎開始，努力不懈的一路調查、報導、攝影並質疑，中共當局以「尋釁滋事」入罪，判四年徒刑，她在被捕前接受外媒訪問強調：「這國家不能後退！」 不許追求真相、不許說出實情，否則嚴酷鎮壓。那麼「領導先打，我才打」成為顛倒中共權力邏輯的另類對抗形式；荒謬但真實。 （作者金恒煒為政治評論者；http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/）