Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Laura Ingalls
Freedom House Calls for Inquiry into Taiwan Clashes
WashingtonNovember 20, 2008
Freedom House urges Taiwan's government to create an independent commission to thoroughly investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin's historic visit and recommend needed reforms.
"A public investigation of the violence—which involved both sides—will send a critical message that the new government of President Ma Ying-jeou is interested in upholding the democratic values of transparency and accountability," said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House executive director. "The inquiry should examine evidence on both sides and recommend any needed reforms to police practices and the legal framework governing demonstrations."
Hundreds of university students are currently staging a sit-in in Taipei's Freedom Square and several other cities to protest the government's handling of the incident. During Chen’s visit, police reportedly used heavy-handed tactics—including physical assault, arbitrary detention and destruction of property—to prevent Chen from seeing symbols of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, as well as broader demonstrations against the Chinese regime. Demonstrators also employed violence against police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs outside Chen's hotel on November 6.
The clashes reveal a need for police to undergo crowd control training that adheres to the standards used in other democracies. Likewise, demonstrators and political advocacy groups must recommit themselves to orderly protests that avoid violence under any circumstances.
The inquiry commission should examine controversial passages in Taiwan's Assembly and Parade Law, such as restrictions on where people are allowed to demonstrate, and determine whether they need to be liberalized to protect citizens' rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The commission should also investigate claims that police are selectively enforcing the law.
The visit by Chen, the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan since it split from China in 1949, and the recent arrests of several opposition party figures are raising concerns that that President Ma and his Kuomintang Party may rollback democratic freedoms.
"The government must renew its commitment to tolerating robust freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, no matter what the cause," said Windsor.
Taiwan is ranked Free in the 2008 edition of Freedom in the World, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and in the 2008 version of Freedom of the Press.
For more information on Taiwan, visit:
Freedom in the World 2008: Taiwan
Freedom of the Press 2008: Taiwan
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring political rights and civil liberties in Taiwan since 1972.
資料來源：http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=725
2008年11月27日 星期四
2008年11月18日 星期二
轉貼－Newsweek 報導－Strait Talk: So Near And Yet So Far
By Jonathan Adams
Recent anti-China demonstrations and violence in Taiwan have highlighted the wide culture and perception gap between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Living in Taipei, I sometimes feel that, even as both sides strengthen commercial ties, their political cultures remain separated by a wide, perhaps irreconcilable gulf.
Hopes were high under Taiwan's new president Ma Ying-jeou of a new era of cross-strait reconciliation. And indeed, there's been progress. The 15-year dream of direct cross-strait air and shipping links was finally realized earlier this month. And the island has opened its doors to more Chinese tourists.
But if the economies are drawing closer, the Taiwanese and Chinese peoples seem as far apart as ever. Witness events in the last month. In late October, a Chinese official visiting southern Taiwan was roughed up by a small, angry anti-China crowd (including, pathetically, an elderly woman who banged on the official's car with her crutch).
On Oct. 25, tens of thousands poured into the Taipei streets to demonstrate against China and the Beijing-friendly president Ma. A common refrain I heard at the protests: Ma is selling out Taiwan, sacrificing its dignity and autonomy for filthy lucre.
Things got worse during the Nov. 3-7 visit of China's top cross-strait negotiator, Chen Yunlin. Protesters trapped him in a Taipei hotel for eight hours. An unruly crowd surrounded and yelled at a celebrity Chinese journalist from CCTV. And enraged anti-China demonstrators clashed violently with police. (I personally saw one irate, hard-bitten southerner attempt to scale four layers of barbed-wire-wrapped metal barriers, before reason triumphed over emotion).
To be sure, the violent protesters were an extreme minority. Yet negative views of China are widespread here. According to a recent government-commissioned poll, 65% of Taiwanese think China's government is "unfriendly" to Taiwan's government, and 46% think it's unfriendly to Taiwan citizens. Not too surprising, since China's coastline bristles with missiles -- over 1,000, by recent counts -- aimed at Taiwan, ostensibly to "deter" any moves towards formal independence.
But another poll, from "Global Views" magazine in September, surprised me more. The magazine asked "If both sides of the Taiwan Strait one day match each other in terms of the economy, politics and society, would you support unification?"
Fully 66% of respondents said "No" -- up sharply from May 2004, when 38% rejected the idea.
Anecdotally, nothing in my experience suggests that further exchanges will help reverse that sentiment. In fact, it may only harden attitudes. Take the Taiwanese landlord I recently met, whose family runs factories in Suzhou. She complained about Chinese workers, saying if you compensate one for an injury, the next day scores of other workers come in with fake or self-inflicted ones, looking for their handout. Chinese take advantage of any perceived kindness or weakness, she said.
Then there was the young Taiwanese travel agent I met at one recent rally. She knows Chinese tourists could help the island's economy (and her own business), but she still doesn't welcome them. "They spit, and urinate in public," was her reason (she should have added chain-smoking indoors and out, which is a more serious nuisance, in my observation).
Or the young Taiwanese student I met on a bus to Quanzhou, in China's Fujian Province, where he was attending Overseas Chinese University. He spent most of the two-hour ride from Xiamen complaining bitterly about China. He spoke with contempt about the Chinese, who he clearly saw as backward, uncouth hicks. But what most upset him wasn't the people, or the lack of political freedoms, or free speech. No, it was the food. He missed his Taipei night markets, and quality seafood.
For their part, the Chinese have a host of complaints about Taiwanese. A fashion designer I met in Beijing said Taiwanese are snobs, and look down on mainlanders -- a common complaint. Taiwan bosses of mainland factories are widely viewed as exploitative slave-drivers who help themselves to at least one or two mistresses and lord it over their mainland "cousins."
Other Chinese I've met are either ignorant about Taiwan, or spout Beijing's propaganda line, automaton-like. "I must insist that Taiwan is a part of China, that is our bottom line," a young woman told me recently on an overnight train from Guangzhou to Xiamen. I had to look over to see if she was reading from a cue card. On the train coming back, after a couple of "Blue Power" Guangdong beers, a young man elaborated on how Taiwan was just part of the US' grand plot to keep China down. Riiiight.
For his part, Chen Yunlin was reportedly livid that Taiwanese police couldn't simply clear the hotel area of protesters -- a simple enough task in the mainland, but not in freewheeling, democratic Taiwan, where there's such a thing as civil liberties. He was stuck making small talk with the Kuomintang chairman for an uncomfortably long time ("So, is it always this warm in Taipei this time of year?").
If anything, the recent month has underscored the fact that unification remains a pipe dream. The differences in culture, attitude and mentality are far too vast to bridge. Taiwanese want to do more business with Chinese, take more Chinese tourist dollars, get to their mainland factories more easily -- that's about it. If Ma actually does anything to erode Taiwan's political freedoms, the violent minority throwing a tantrum last week could quickly become a majority.
I'd guess the Chinese delegation got the message. At Taipei's Grand Hotel, that gaudy monument to Chinese kitsch, a manager told Taiwan media that hotel staff walking through the hallways could hear late-night noises from behind the delegation's closed room doors. The Chinese were all watching Taiwan TV news -- 24-hour cable stations showing looping footage of the violent protests against them, and spirited, emotional debate about their visit.
For some of the Chinese, at least, the unification dream must have died right there.
資料來源：http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/chinacalling/archive/2008/11/14/strait-talk-so-near-and-yet-so-far.aspx
Recent anti-China demonstrations and violence in Taiwan have highlighted the wide culture and perception gap between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Living in Taipei, I sometimes feel that, even as both sides strengthen commercial ties, their political cultures remain separated by a wide, perhaps irreconcilable gulf.
Hopes were high under Taiwan's new president Ma Ying-jeou of a new era of cross-strait reconciliation. And indeed, there's been progress. The 15-year dream of direct cross-strait air and shipping links was finally realized earlier this month. And the island has opened its doors to more Chinese tourists.
But if the economies are drawing closer, the Taiwanese and Chinese peoples seem as far apart as ever. Witness events in the last month. In late October, a Chinese official visiting southern Taiwan was roughed up by a small, angry anti-China crowd (including, pathetically, an elderly woman who banged on the official's car with her crutch).
On Oct. 25, tens of thousands poured into the Taipei streets to demonstrate against China and the Beijing-friendly president Ma. A common refrain I heard at the protests: Ma is selling out Taiwan, sacrificing its dignity and autonomy for filthy lucre.
Things got worse during the Nov. 3-7 visit of China's top cross-strait negotiator, Chen Yunlin. Protesters trapped him in a Taipei hotel for eight hours. An unruly crowd surrounded and yelled at a celebrity Chinese journalist from CCTV. And enraged anti-China demonstrators clashed violently with police. (I personally saw one irate, hard-bitten southerner attempt to scale four layers of barbed-wire-wrapped metal barriers, before reason triumphed over emotion).
To be sure, the violent protesters were an extreme minority. Yet negative views of China are widespread here. According to a recent government-commissioned poll, 65% of Taiwanese think China's government is "unfriendly" to Taiwan's government, and 46% think it's unfriendly to Taiwan citizens. Not too surprising, since China's coastline bristles with missiles -- over 1,000, by recent counts -- aimed at Taiwan, ostensibly to "deter" any moves towards formal independence.
But another poll, from "Global Views" magazine in September, surprised me more. The magazine asked "If both sides of the Taiwan Strait one day match each other in terms of the economy, politics and society, would you support unification?"
Fully 66% of respondents said "No" -- up sharply from May 2004, when 38% rejected the idea.
Anecdotally, nothing in my experience suggests that further exchanges will help reverse that sentiment. In fact, it may only harden attitudes. Take the Taiwanese landlord I recently met, whose family runs factories in Suzhou. She complained about Chinese workers, saying if you compensate one for an injury, the next day scores of other workers come in with fake or self-inflicted ones, looking for their handout. Chinese take advantage of any perceived kindness or weakness, she said.
Then there was the young Taiwanese travel agent I met at one recent rally. She knows Chinese tourists could help the island's economy (and her own business), but she still doesn't welcome them. "They spit, and urinate in public," was her reason (she should have added chain-smoking indoors and out, which is a more serious nuisance, in my observation).
Or the young Taiwanese student I met on a bus to Quanzhou, in China's Fujian Province, where he was attending Overseas Chinese University. He spent most of the two-hour ride from Xiamen complaining bitterly about China. He spoke with contempt about the Chinese, who he clearly saw as backward, uncouth hicks. But what most upset him wasn't the people, or the lack of political freedoms, or free speech. No, it was the food. He missed his Taipei night markets, and quality seafood.
For their part, the Chinese have a host of complaints about Taiwanese. A fashion designer I met in Beijing said Taiwanese are snobs, and look down on mainlanders -- a common complaint. Taiwan bosses of mainland factories are widely viewed as exploitative slave-drivers who help themselves to at least one or two mistresses and lord it over their mainland "cousins."
Other Chinese I've met are either ignorant about Taiwan, or spout Beijing's propaganda line, automaton-like. "I must insist that Taiwan is a part of China, that is our bottom line," a young woman told me recently on an overnight train from Guangzhou to Xiamen. I had to look over to see if she was reading from a cue card. On the train coming back, after a couple of "Blue Power" Guangdong beers, a young man elaborated on how Taiwan was just part of the US' grand plot to keep China down. Riiiight.
For his part, Chen Yunlin was reportedly livid that Taiwanese police couldn't simply clear the hotel area of protesters -- a simple enough task in the mainland, but not in freewheeling, democratic Taiwan, where there's such a thing as civil liberties. He was stuck making small talk with the Kuomintang chairman for an uncomfortably long time ("So, is it always this warm in Taipei this time of year?").
If anything, the recent month has underscored the fact that unification remains a pipe dream. The differences in culture, attitude and mentality are far too vast to bridge. Taiwanese want to do more business with Chinese, take more Chinese tourist dollars, get to their mainland factories more easily -- that's about it. If Ma actually does anything to erode Taiwan's political freedoms, the violent minority throwing a tantrum last week could quickly become a majority.
I'd guess the Chinese delegation got the message. At Taipei's Grand Hotel, that gaudy monument to Chinese kitsch, a manager told Taiwan media that hotel staff walking through the hallways could hear late-night noises from behind the delegation's closed room doors. The Chinese were all watching Taiwan TV news -- 24-hour cable stations showing looping footage of the violent protests against them, and spirited, emotional debate about their visit.
For some of the Chinese, at least, the unification dream must have died right there.
資料來源：http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/chinacalling/archive/2008/11/14/strait-talk-so-near-and-yet-so-far.aspx
轉貼－Newsweek 報導－Fallout from Chen Shui-Bian's Dramatic Arrest
By Melinda Liu
China has denied that it put pressure on Taiwan to arrest former President Chen Shui-bian, who's been arrested, accused of embezzlement, money laundering, taking bribes, and forging documents while in office. Chen, a long time opponent of reunification with Beijing, accused his successor Ma Ying-jeou of ordering his detention to curry favour with mainland China’s leaders. He has yet to be charged, but may be held for up to four months while prosecutors prepare their case against him. As Newsweek’s Duncan Hewitt writes, the case highlights growing political rifts in Taiwan over relations with China:
The detention of Chen Shui-bian on corruption charges, coming so soon after new president Ma Ying-jeou signed accords authorizing historic direct shipping links with mainland China, could be seen as yet another victory for Mr Ma and his Kuomintang party (KMT), as they seek to consolidate power after eight years in opposition. But in practice, Mr Chen’s detention is likely to highlight political tensions which have growing in Taiwan since President Ma’s accession in May this year.
Hopes that Mr Ma, a Harvard-educated lawyer seen as relatively moderate, would bring consensus to a society long fragmented over attitudes towards reunification with the mainland, have been shattered. Polls have shown his popularity plunging from some 60% to around 23% in late October. There is undoubtedly much public anger in Taiwan towards Chen Shui-bian, who has admitted breaking the law by not fully disclosing campaign donations -- but the arrests of seven other figures associated with his Democratic Progressive Party, also in connection with corruption allegations, over the past few months, have led to fears being raised about the independence of Taiwan’s judiciary under the new leadership.
Such warnings have not just come from traditional DPP supporters. Last week, before Mr Chen’s arrest, twenty prominent international Asia specialists, including Professors Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Jacobs of Monash University and June Teufel Dreyer of the University of Miami, along with former Far Eastern Economic Review Taipei correspondent Julian Baum, issued an unprecedented open letter expressing “deep concern” at the behaviour of Taiwanese prosecutors. “It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan,” they wrote, “but these have occurred in both political camps.” The recent detentions, they said, had created an impression that the KMT authorities “are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government.” They accused prosecutors of “a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law,” by holding several detainees incommunicado without being charged, and of “trial by press” by leaking detrimental information to the media. They suggested that such actions were jeopardizing the achievements of Taiwan’s transition from one party rule (by the KMT) to democracy in the late 1980s and early 90s.
Allegations of a regression to past authoritarianism also surfaced last week, when China’s top negotiator, Chen Yunlin, visited Taiwan to sign the historic accords allowing direct air, postal and shipping links between Taiwan and the mainland. There is actually a fairly broad consensus of support in Taiwan for the opening of such links – indeed most of the details of the accords were negotiated when Chen Shui-bian and the DPP were still in power. But final agreement could not be reached back then because Mr Chen would not accept China’s demand that he must first accept Beijing’s “One China” concept (which basically means accepting that Taiwan is part of China and the two sides will one day be reunified, even if they differ on the exact means to achieve this.)
But President Ma’s approach to the visit of Chen Yunlin, the most senior mainland official to visit Taiwan for six decades, seemed calculated to upset his opponents. Critics accused him of bending over backwards to “give face” to the mainland delegation: the official flag of Taiwan, which Beijing does not recognise, was not flown at the presidential palace when Mr Chen visited; the President was addressed by the mainland delegation as plain Mr Ma, since Beijing does not recognise his presidential status. Equally controversially, would-be protesters were refused permission to stage demonstrations against Mr Chen’s visit.
Such refusals are rare in Taiwan’s democratic era – and when protesters did try to demonstrate anyway, they were met with police beatings that left over 100 people injured and shocked many who thought Taiwanese society had turned its back on such brutality. “People were very upset,” says Frank Muyard, Director of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China in Taipei. “For the police to use force against peaceful protesters is something which hasn’t been seen in Taiwan for perhaps 16 years, since before [former President] Lee Teng-hui took full power during the transition to democracy.”
Public anger spilled over, leading to chaotic scenes when Chen Yunlin was prevented from leaving his hotel for hours by furious demonstrators. Students and academics seeking to protest peacefully at the government’s handling of the affair were also dispersed by police, leading to an open letter by 500 academics calling for the right to free speech to be protected, and for a probe into police violence. The English-language Taipei Times newspaper, while criticising leaders of the opposition DPP for not discussing plans for Chen Yunlin’s visit with the government in advance, accused Ma and the KMT of ‘reverting to time-dishonored tactics reminiscent of the Martial Law era.”
“Deploying 7,000 police officers over a four-day period and restricting the public’s freedom of movement were a recipe for disaster,” it said in an editorial, adding that Mr Ma “either misjudged public opinion, showing how ineffective he is as the nation’s top decision-maker, or he didn’t care about the political ramifications of his actions — at least not in Taiwan.”
Critics accused him of grandstanding by turning Chen Yunlin’s visit into such a big event – when the accords could have been signed with much less fanfare and public fallout – and of alienating anyone with doubts about closer ties with the Chinese mainland. This was highlighted on Tuesday when an 80-year \-old man, claiming to be a long-standing KMT member, set himself on fire in central Taipei, in protest at what he said was excessive police brutality against marchers carrying Taiwan’s official flag during Mr Chen’s visit; he was taken to hospital with third degree burns over 80% of his body.
These events have left a society long used to fragmentation - where most academics, analysts and media organisations are on one side or the other of the political divide – still reeling at the increase in political tension under President Ma: “Chen Shui-bian was a very divisive figure,” says Frank Muyard of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China. “People hoped Ma would be more conciliatory – they saw him as a gentle, well-educated, nice person who would help Taiwan come together and do something for reconciliation. But he hasn’t done that. Now many people see him as partisan, too eager to please China – they don’t trust him to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty.”
For the mainland government, which has reported the opening of cross-strait links with great fanfare as a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides, there’s a clear degree of satisfaction in seeing Chen Shui-bian under arrest. Beijing despised him for his background in Taiwan’s pro-independence movement of the 1970s and 80s. “Chen Shui-bian in handcuffs” was the banner headline in the popular nationalist tabloid newspaper the Global Times on Wednesday. And for months China’s state-run media has revelled in reporting every detail of the various allegations of corruption against Mr Chen, his wife and associates (in marked contrast to the minimal amount of detail it gave in the corruption case of another Chen, former Communist Party Secretary of Shanghai Chen Liangyu, who was jailed for eighteen years in April.)
Ma Ying-jeou’s popularity with China’s leaders, on the other hand, is clearly at an all-time high: as well as agreeing to direct links and the One China principle, he has also relaxed restrictions which prevented Taiwanese companies from investing more than 40% of their assets in the mainland, further boosting economic ties. Yet recent events suggest his actions may also risk provoking a deeper anti-mainland backlash, at the very moment when physical links between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have become closer than ever.
資料來源：http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/chinacalling/archive/2008/11/12/fallout-from-chen-shui-bian-s-dramatic-arrest.aspx
China has denied that it put pressure on Taiwan to arrest former President Chen Shui-bian, who's been arrested, accused of embezzlement, money laundering, taking bribes, and forging documents while in office. Chen, a long time opponent of reunification with Beijing, accused his successor Ma Ying-jeou of ordering his detention to curry favour with mainland China’s leaders. He has yet to be charged, but may be held for up to four months while prosecutors prepare their case against him. As Newsweek’s Duncan Hewitt writes, the case highlights growing political rifts in Taiwan over relations with China:
The detention of Chen Shui-bian on corruption charges, coming so soon after new president Ma Ying-jeou signed accords authorizing historic direct shipping links with mainland China, could be seen as yet another victory for Mr Ma and his Kuomintang party (KMT), as they seek to consolidate power after eight years in opposition. But in practice, Mr Chen’s detention is likely to highlight political tensions which have growing in Taiwan since President Ma’s accession in May this year.
Hopes that Mr Ma, a Harvard-educated lawyer seen as relatively moderate, would bring consensus to a society long fragmented over attitudes towards reunification with the mainland, have been shattered. Polls have shown his popularity plunging from some 60% to around 23% in late October. There is undoubtedly much public anger in Taiwan towards Chen Shui-bian, who has admitted breaking the law by not fully disclosing campaign donations -- but the arrests of seven other figures associated with his Democratic Progressive Party, also in connection with corruption allegations, over the past few months, have led to fears being raised about the independence of Taiwan’s judiciary under the new leadership.
Such warnings have not just come from traditional DPP supporters. Last week, before Mr Chen’s arrest, twenty prominent international Asia specialists, including Professors Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania, Bruce Jacobs of Monash University and June Teufel Dreyer of the University of Miami, along with former Far Eastern Economic Review Taipei correspondent Julian Baum, issued an unprecedented open letter expressing “deep concern” at the behaviour of Taiwanese prosecutors. “It is obvious that there have been cases of corruption in Taiwan,” they wrote, “but these have occurred in both political camps.” The recent detentions, they said, had created an impression that the KMT authorities “are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government.” They accused prosecutors of “a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law,” by holding several detainees incommunicado without being charged, and of “trial by press” by leaking detrimental information to the media. They suggested that such actions were jeopardizing the achievements of Taiwan’s transition from one party rule (by the KMT) to democracy in the late 1980s and early 90s.
Allegations of a regression to past authoritarianism also surfaced last week, when China’s top negotiator, Chen Yunlin, visited Taiwan to sign the historic accords allowing direct air, postal and shipping links between Taiwan and the mainland. There is actually a fairly broad consensus of support in Taiwan for the opening of such links – indeed most of the details of the accords were negotiated when Chen Shui-bian and the DPP were still in power. But final agreement could not be reached back then because Mr Chen would not accept China’s demand that he must first accept Beijing’s “One China” concept (which basically means accepting that Taiwan is part of China and the two sides will one day be reunified, even if they differ on the exact means to achieve this.)
But President Ma’s approach to the visit of Chen Yunlin, the most senior mainland official to visit Taiwan for six decades, seemed calculated to upset his opponents. Critics accused him of bending over backwards to “give face” to the mainland delegation: the official flag of Taiwan, which Beijing does not recognise, was not flown at the presidential palace when Mr Chen visited; the President was addressed by the mainland delegation as plain Mr Ma, since Beijing does not recognise his presidential status. Equally controversially, would-be protesters were refused permission to stage demonstrations against Mr Chen’s visit.
Such refusals are rare in Taiwan’s democratic era – and when protesters did try to demonstrate anyway, they were met with police beatings that left over 100 people injured and shocked many who thought Taiwanese society had turned its back on such brutality. “People were very upset,” says Frank Muyard, Director of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China in Taipei. “For the police to use force against peaceful protesters is something which hasn’t been seen in Taiwan for perhaps 16 years, since before [former President] Lee Teng-hui took full power during the transition to democracy.”
Public anger spilled over, leading to chaotic scenes when Chen Yunlin was prevented from leaving his hotel for hours by furious demonstrators. Students and academics seeking to protest peacefully at the government’s handling of the affair were also dispersed by police, leading to an open letter by 500 academics calling for the right to free speech to be protected, and for a probe into police violence. The English-language Taipei Times newspaper, while criticising leaders of the opposition DPP for not discussing plans for Chen Yunlin’s visit with the government in advance, accused Ma and the KMT of ‘reverting to time-dishonored tactics reminiscent of the Martial Law era.”
“Deploying 7,000 police officers over a four-day period and restricting the public’s freedom of movement were a recipe for disaster,” it said in an editorial, adding that Mr Ma “either misjudged public opinion, showing how ineffective he is as the nation’s top decision-maker, or he didn’t care about the political ramifications of his actions — at least not in Taiwan.”
Critics accused him of grandstanding by turning Chen Yunlin’s visit into such a big event – when the accords could have been signed with much less fanfare and public fallout – and of alienating anyone with doubts about closer ties with the Chinese mainland. This was highlighted on Tuesday when an 80-year \-old man, claiming to be a long-standing KMT member, set himself on fire in central Taipei, in protest at what he said was excessive police brutality against marchers carrying Taiwan’s official flag during Mr Chen’s visit; he was taken to hospital with third degree burns over 80% of his body.
These events have left a society long used to fragmentation - where most academics, analysts and media organisations are on one side or the other of the political divide – still reeling at the increase in political tension under President Ma: “Chen Shui-bian was a very divisive figure,” says Frank Muyard of the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China. “People hoped Ma would be more conciliatory – they saw him as a gentle, well-educated, nice person who would help Taiwan come together and do something for reconciliation. But he hasn’t done that. Now many people see him as partisan, too eager to please China – they don’t trust him to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty.”
For the mainland government, which has reported the opening of cross-strait links with great fanfare as a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides, there’s a clear degree of satisfaction in seeing Chen Shui-bian under arrest. Beijing despised him for his background in Taiwan’s pro-independence movement of the 1970s and 80s. “Chen Shui-bian in handcuffs” was the banner headline in the popular nationalist tabloid newspaper the Global Times on Wednesday. And for months China’s state-run media has revelled in reporting every detail of the various allegations of corruption against Mr Chen, his wife and associates (in marked contrast to the minimal amount of detail it gave in the corruption case of another Chen, former Communist Party Secretary of Shanghai Chen Liangyu, who was jailed for eighteen years in April.)
Ma Ying-jeou’s popularity with China’s leaders, on the other hand, is clearly at an all-time high: as well as agreeing to direct links and the One China principle, he has also relaxed restrictions which prevented Taiwanese companies from investing more than 40% of their assets in the mainland, further boosting economic ties. Yet recent events suggest his actions may also risk provoking a deeper anti-mainland backlash, at the very moment when physical links between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have become closer than ever.
資料來源：http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/chinacalling/archive/2008/11/12/fallout-from-chen-shui-bian-s-dramatic-arrest.aspx
2008年11月9日 星期日
轉貼－兩岸換貓熊 華約秘書處：國內事務
貓熊團團和圓圓即將到台灣，不過進出口文件上的輸出、輸入地，才是最敏感的部份。根據TVBS向華盛頓公約組織的秘書處詢問得知，華盛頓公約規範的，是國與國之間的貓熊交易，而主管單位是聯合國下的環境規劃署UNEP，華盛頓公約秘書處特別強調，聯合國只認同一個中國，也就是說大陸跟台灣交換貓熊，在聯合國環境規劃署看來，根本就是大陸的「國內事務」。大陸以貓熊作為外交使節，就是從美國華盛頓國家動物園開始的，1972年，興興和玲玲一到華府，就造成萬人空巷的場面，到現在貓熊添添、美香跟3歲的寶寶泰山，還是華盛頓國家動物園的鎮園之寶，只是代價可不便宜。
麗莎貓熊館長：「動物園要借一對貓熊，一年要美金100萬，華盛頓國家動物園也是一樣，不過當有貓熊寶寶誕生，每年就還要多付60萬美元，台灣用換的，一年省3300萬美金熊貓租金。」
貓熊被列為華盛頓公約的第一級保育動物，所有「國際」間的貓熊租借或交易，都受到華盛頓公約的規範。不過華盛頓公約秘書處表示，華盛頓公約的管理單位是聯合國環境規劃署，而在聯合國之下只有一個中國，也就是說，大陸就算是要送台灣貓熊，這都屬於大陸國內事務，聯合國環境規劃署也管不了。
TVBS記者倪嘉徽：「中國大陸的貓熊，出國到美國沒有問題，但能不能到台灣，關鍵還是在一個中國的政治因素。」
資料來源：http://news.pchome.com.tw/living/tvbs/20081107/index-12260579931610239009.html
麗莎貓熊館長：「動物園要借一對貓熊，一年要美金100萬，華盛頓國家動物園也是一樣，不過當有貓熊寶寶誕生，每年就還要多付60萬美元，台灣用換的，一年省3300萬美金熊貓租金。」
貓熊被列為華盛頓公約的第一級保育動物，所有「國際」間的貓熊租借或交易，都受到華盛頓公約的規範。不過華盛頓公約秘書處表示，華盛頓公約的管理單位是聯合國環境規劃署，而在聯合國之下只有一個中國，也就是說，大陸就算是要送台灣貓熊，這都屬於大陸國內事務，聯合國環境規劃署也管不了。
TVBS記者倪嘉徽：「中國大陸的貓熊，出國到美國沒有問題，但能不能到台灣，關鍵還是在一個中國的政治因素。」
資料來源：http://news.pchome.com.tw/living/tvbs/20081107/index-12260579931610239009.html
集遊法本來就是應該修改的惡法
集遊法本來就是應該修改的惡法
因為它向來是當權者用來壓制弱勢團體、少數團體或甚至是反對黨的正當工具
為何正當？對！就是因為它是「法」，可以冠冕堂皇的套上合法的帽子。
先撇開這次的圓山事件，想想幾年前的紅衫軍
施明德號召遍地開花時，南部地方的首長也可以因為政治理念不同的原因
不准紅衫軍的集會遊行申請通過，這就是用惡法合理化壓制人民聲音的例子
到時強制驅離紅衫軍就可以說因為它們是非法的、擾亂治安
再看看樂生療養院或其他社會、環保團體的抗議活動，往往人數不到幾十人，
他們的抗議活動藍綠執政時都不曾停歇，人數這麼少的集會
請問哪裡妨礙到交通、擾亂治安？
也同樣因為集會遊行這個惡法而落得必須被驅離的下場！
民主國家的人民本來就有表達意見的自由，
而人民為何要走上街頭？就是因為現有管道無法幫他們解決問題。
或對政府的施政不滿表達抗議的心聲，
然而人民要表達心聲居然還要當權者核准？！這就是根本邏輯上的矛盾
再來有些人說集遊法存在是對社會治安有幫助的
我們憲法第二十三條就明定：（基本人權之限制）
以上各條列舉之自由權利，除為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序或增進公共利益所必要者外，不得以法律限制之。
因此如果有黑道或有心人士要上街遊行鬧事，
拿刀拿槍破壞治安、妨礙他人自由甚至安全者
大可放心，因為這些情況已違反憲法第二十三條，公權力絕對有權介入抑止。
沒有人樂意看到暴力，而很遺憾的，這次晶華酒店和圓山事件仍發生暴力衝突
但深入檢討，馬政府難到一點責任也沒有嗎？請馬政府摸摸良心，
到底是誰在陳雲林來時佔走整個禮拜的路權，強力壓制反對聲音？
到底是誰動用全台六分之一的警力保護一個中國來的民間組織會長？
到底是誰在民眾拿出國旗時強力沒收？
到底是誰衝進唱片行禁止播放台灣音樂？強闖進飯店房間搶奪物品？
到底是誰為了保護陳雲林，對進出晶華、圓山的人強力盤查，
甚至在無憑無據的情況下強押人上車載往派出所？
請見：http://vivataiwantv.blogspot.com/2008/11/day2-081104.html
我們只想問，為何一個中國的官員來，政府就可以擴權至此？
是誰給了政府這樣的權利？
請問這些行為到底合乎哪一條法律？
難道王卓鈞、蔡朝明不該出來說明，並下台以示負責？
難道只要馬英九把反對人士簡化為暴民、非法
把責任全推給在野黨主席，一切就算交代了嗎？
這次集遊法的運動，不是針對警察，也沒有人說警察就應該活該被人打
重點在於，政府能否在人民抗議時搬出公權力粗暴對待
重點在於，政府能否用集遊法泯滅所有不合它意的聲音
重點在於，集遊法能讓當權者擴權，完全不符合民主制度
集遊法由核准改成報備制，
人民要集會遊行時一樣要事先告知當局和警察機關
只是人民不需再乞求政府的「恩准」
人民對政府或掌權者發出怒吼總是會有失序的情況發生
像是在義大利熱內亞八大工業國高峰會議，或是在西雅圖舉辦的世界貿易談判
就曾引發示威抗議者大規模的暴動，甚至在警民衝突中喪生
然而世界各大報或輿論，絕不會因為抗議活動走樣就將這些示威者稱為暴民
要看示威抗議的訴求是什麼？為什麼有人被逼得不得不上街流血衝突？
這才是輿論探討的本質，也是民主可貴的地方！
如果還是有人認為這次晶華或圓山事件是丟臉丟到國外去
下面我約略剪一下國際媒體大多是怎麼呈現這些抗議衝突的：
CNN：
Thousands in Taiwan protest China ties
Violent protest in Taiwan
Protests outside the area where Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou met with a high-ranking Chinese envoy visiting.
Reuters (路透社)：
The meeting came as hundreds of protesters opposed to close ties with the mainland gathered around the meeting site, a government guest house, to denounce the two officials, according to news agencies. Riot police barricaded streets and stood in long lines with shields and batons. The previous night, Mr. Chen had been trapped by protesters in a hotel, the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei, while attending a banquet there.
Hundreds of protesters surrounded the hotel, chanting, throwing eggs and burning Chinese flags, according to news agencies. Riot police intervened and dozens of people were injured.
International Herald Tribune (國際先驅論壇報)：
Taiwan's Ma meets China envoy as thousands protest
Demonstrations that began hours after Chen's arrival on Monday exploded early on Thursday as a thousand protesters opposed to closer Taiwan-China ties squared off against riot police to stop the negotiator from leaving a banquet.
Demonstrators gathered hours after Chen's arrival on Monday to caution Ma against getting too cozy with China.
Taiwan's main opposition Democratic Progressive Party, which backed the island's anti-China president from 2000 to 2008, organized a rowdy street demonstration on Thursday as Ma met Chen, who angered many by calling Ma "you" instead of "president" -- not recognizing him as head of state.
At least 10,000 people filled streets, some lobbing eggs and trying to break through police barriers.
"My estimate is that they represent at least a quarter of the population," said Alex Chiang, associate politics professor at National Cheng Chi University in Taipei.
Through much of the night, hundreds of riot police used batons and a water cannon to fend off groups of protesters who threw rocks, bottles and trash at them outside Chen's hotel. Some also wrecked barriers to seek entry to the hillside venue.
Dozens were injured in the scuffles, local TV said.
The New York Times (紐約時報)：
Pro-independence groups staged small protests around Taipei to coincide with Mr Chen's visit, waving flags and banners.
One one group offered cash rewards for protesters who hit Mr Chen with eggs.
"Taiwan is not China's! ... I'm very proud to be a Taiwanese person. ... I love Taiwan. It's my mother country," one female protester told reporters.
Thousands of police were deployed to ensure Mr Chen's safety, after his deputy Zhang Mingqing was jostled and knocked to the ground by protesters during a visit to Taiwan in October.
The Wall Street Journal (華爾街日報)：
With about 800 Taiwanese pro-independence protesters squaring off against police outside a hotel where the two sides met for dinner, Chen Yunlin, the head of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, said talks this week "have progressed smoothly and have achieved satisfactory results."
可以看出各大媒體多是用 “Protester”、”Demonstrator”，
亦即抗議、示威者來形容這些群眾，
並解釋群眾因為對馬政府的作為深感不安而不得不上街遊行
所以，人民走上街頭，難道執政者沒有責任調整自己的方針、
跟人民展開對話嗎？
如果還認為一切都是發起遊行的人要負責，
這跟阿扁當初那一句「阿就選上了，不然要怎樣？」的傲慢心態有何不同？
更何況，馬總統別忘了，當初自己也認為遊行法是惡法？應該要改成報備制
我們也衷心希望，馬總統可別換了位置，就換了腦袋了！
最後，堅稱紅衫軍是和平的人
請到Youtobe看看，同樣也是汽油彈等等五花八門的武器齊發
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=bNbVemnBrw0&feature=related
也有圍毆、追打、砸店等事件層出不窮
只是很多畫面被新聞台剪掉罷了....
因為它向來是當權者用來壓制弱勢團體、少數團體或甚至是反對黨的正當工具
為何正當？對！就是因為它是「法」，可以冠冕堂皇的套上合法的帽子。
先撇開這次的圓山事件，想想幾年前的紅衫軍
施明德號召遍地開花時，南部地方的首長也可以因為政治理念不同的原因
不准紅衫軍的集會遊行申請通過，這就是用惡法合理化壓制人民聲音的例子
到時強制驅離紅衫軍就可以說因為它們是非法的、擾亂治安
再看看樂生療養院或其他社會、環保團體的抗議活動，往往人數不到幾十人，
他們的抗議活動藍綠執政時都不曾停歇，人數這麼少的集會
請問哪裡妨礙到交通、擾亂治安？
也同樣因為集會遊行這個惡法而落得必須被驅離的下場！
民主國家的人民本來就有表達意見的自由，
而人民為何要走上街頭？就是因為現有管道無法幫他們解決問題。
或對政府的施政不滿表達抗議的心聲，
然而人民要表達心聲居然還要當權者核准？！這就是根本邏輯上的矛盾
再來有些人說集遊法存在是對社會治安有幫助的
我們憲法第二十三條就明定：（基本人權之限制）
以上各條列舉之自由權利，除為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序或增進公共利益所必要者外，不得以法律限制之。
因此如果有黑道或有心人士要上街遊行鬧事，
拿刀拿槍破壞治安、妨礙他人自由甚至安全者
大可放心，因為這些情況已違反憲法第二十三條，公權力絕對有權介入抑止。
沒有人樂意看到暴力，而很遺憾的，這次晶華酒店和圓山事件仍發生暴力衝突
但深入檢討，馬政府難到一點責任也沒有嗎？請馬政府摸摸良心，
到底是誰在陳雲林來時佔走整個禮拜的路權，強力壓制反對聲音？
到底是誰動用全台六分之一的警力保護一個中國來的民間組織會長？
到底是誰在民眾拿出國旗時強力沒收？
到底是誰衝進唱片行禁止播放台灣音樂？強闖進飯店房間搶奪物品？
到底是誰為了保護陳雲林，對進出晶華、圓山的人強力盤查，
甚至在無憑無據的情況下強押人上車載往派出所？
請見：http://vivataiwantv.blogspot.com/2008/11/day2-081104.html
我們只想問，為何一個中國的官員來，政府就可以擴權至此？
是誰給了政府這樣的權利？
請問這些行為到底合乎哪一條法律？
難道王卓鈞、蔡朝明不該出來說明，並下台以示負責？
難道只要馬英九把反對人士簡化為暴民、非法
把責任全推給在野黨主席，一切就算交代了嗎？
這次集遊法的運動，不是針對警察，也沒有人說警察就應該活該被人打
重點在於，政府能否在人民抗議時搬出公權力粗暴對待
重點在於，政府能否用集遊法泯滅所有不合它意的聲音
重點在於，集遊法能讓當權者擴權，完全不符合民主制度
集遊法由核准改成報備制，
人民要集會遊行時一樣要事先告知當局和警察機關
只是人民不需再乞求政府的「恩准」
人民對政府或掌權者發出怒吼總是會有失序的情況發生
像是在義大利熱內亞八大工業國高峰會議，或是在西雅圖舉辦的世界貿易談判
就曾引發示威抗議者大規模的暴動，甚至在警民衝突中喪生
然而世界各大報或輿論，絕不會因為抗議活動走樣就將這些示威者稱為暴民
要看示威抗議的訴求是什麼？為什麼有人被逼得不得不上街流血衝突？
這才是輿論探討的本質，也是民主可貴的地方！
如果還是有人認為這次晶華或圓山事件是丟臉丟到國外去
下面我約略剪一下國際媒體大多是怎麼呈現這些抗議衝突的：
CNN：
Thousands in Taiwan protest China ties
Violent protest in Taiwan
Protests outside the area where Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou met with a high-ranking Chinese envoy visiting.
Reuters (路透社)：
The meeting came as hundreds of protesters opposed to close ties with the mainland gathered around the meeting site, a government guest house, to denounce the two officials, according to news agencies. Riot police barricaded streets and stood in long lines with shields and batons. The previous night, Mr. Chen had been trapped by protesters in a hotel, the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei, while attending a banquet there.
Hundreds of protesters surrounded the hotel, chanting, throwing eggs and burning Chinese flags, according to news agencies. Riot police intervened and dozens of people were injured.
International Herald Tribune (國際先驅論壇報)：
Taiwan's Ma meets China envoy as thousands protest
Demonstrations that began hours after Chen's arrival on Monday exploded early on Thursday as a thousand protesters opposed to closer Taiwan-China ties squared off against riot police to stop the negotiator from leaving a banquet.
Demonstrators gathered hours after Chen's arrival on Monday to caution Ma against getting too cozy with China.
Taiwan's main opposition Democratic Progressive Party, which backed the island's anti-China president from 2000 to 2008, organized a rowdy street demonstration on Thursday as Ma met Chen, who angered many by calling Ma "you" instead of "president" -- not recognizing him as head of state.
At least 10,000 people filled streets, some lobbing eggs and trying to break through police barriers.
"My estimate is that they represent at least a quarter of the population," said Alex Chiang, associate politics professor at National Cheng Chi University in Taipei.
Through much of the night, hundreds of riot police used batons and a water cannon to fend off groups of protesters who threw rocks, bottles and trash at them outside Chen's hotel. Some also wrecked barriers to seek entry to the hillside venue.
Dozens were injured in the scuffles, local TV said.
The New York Times (紐約時報)：
Pro-independence groups staged small protests around Taipei to coincide with Mr Chen's visit, waving flags and banners.
One one group offered cash rewards for protesters who hit Mr Chen with eggs.
"Taiwan is not China's! ... I'm very proud to be a Taiwanese person. ... I love Taiwan. It's my mother country," one female protester told reporters.
Thousands of police were deployed to ensure Mr Chen's safety, after his deputy Zhang Mingqing was jostled and knocked to the ground by protesters during a visit to Taiwan in October.
The Wall Street Journal (華爾街日報)：
With about 800 Taiwanese pro-independence protesters squaring off against police outside a hotel where the two sides met for dinner, Chen Yunlin, the head of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, said talks this week "have progressed smoothly and have achieved satisfactory results."
可以看出各大媒體多是用 “Protester”、”Demonstrator”，
亦即抗議、示威者來形容這些群眾，
並解釋群眾因為對馬政府的作為深感不安而不得不上街遊行
所以，人民走上街頭，難道執政者沒有責任調整自己的方針、
跟人民展開對話嗎？
如果還認為一切都是發起遊行的人要負責，
這跟阿扁當初那一句「阿就選上了，不然要怎樣？」的傲慢心態有何不同？
更何況，馬總統別忘了，當初自己也認為遊行法是惡法？應該要改成報備制
我們也衷心希望，馬總統可別換了位置，就換了腦袋了！
最後，堅稱紅衫軍是和平的人
請到Youtobe看看，同樣也是汽油彈等等五花八門的武器齊發
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=bNbVemnBrw0&feature=related
也有圍毆、追打、砸店等事件層出不窮
只是很多畫面被新聞台剪掉罷了....
2008年11月8日 星期六
我為什麼拒絕交保、絕食抗議
蘇治芬的控訴：「如果我有污錢，我寧願被槍弊；如果我有污錢，我寧願被槍弊……」
我要表達我為什麼拒絕交保，因為他使用的是公器，所以我們就必須在他的公器裡面接受它的宰制，但是這個公器是國家賦予他的權力，但是如果他行使得當，而且這個程序是符合社會正義的，我可以接受，也願意配合調查，但是在他行使公器裡頭，我認為它行使過當，過於腐爛，對於一個政治人物不知道尊重，咱們是反對運動的政治家庭出身，政治廉潔對咱來說是很重要的，咱政治操守這麼廉潔，這款的人應該是要得到社會人的尊重，但是我這麼做的時候，今天是你們反而利用公器扣住我們，然後扣住我們這種涉嫌貪污那麼重大的帽子，就算未來我在法庭上，被無罪開釋，但老實說這段過程，如果以國外來講，你無罪開釋可能社會會還給你一個公理，但是以台灣現在的媒體它不可能還你一個公道，到時候我們無罪開釋的話可能在報紙上就只有這麼一點點(手比小小一個方塊)，就好像邱義仁一樣，起初他被收押時我就心裡很不舒服很難過，所以今天我會拒絕交保。
我也覺得因為邱義仁的代誌……讓我覺得……因為你說邱義仁污錢的話，我絕對不相信，我們對邱義仁認識太久，你說邱義仁你會認為他有污錢嗎?(問她妹妹蘇＊＊)，我是絕對不會相信他會污錢，所以我覺得這種東西…這種東西…是讓我覺得…覺得……我絕對不接受這種公器的宰制，所以我今天就想說你，想說我怕被關，我們在聲押庭上不是二邊在對談嗎?(說現場的狀況)，我不怕被關，我也不怕坐牢，我願意接受配合調查，但是我覺得你們的程序一定要嚴謹一定要尊重，因為我們還是無罪推定論，所以目前我還是個無罪推定的人，所以你也要尊重我目前當個無罪推定的人。
我的意思就是說，你的証據要相當充份，但是他在聲押庭的時候完全舉不出來啊，你知道嗎?他的提示是怎樣嗎?他就是這樣子用(手比公文的高度)，我們有監聽譯文一堆，你就用這樣就對啦(手又再比一次)，像道具! 他像道具一樣就是監聽譯文，這算哪門子啊! (敲桌)，這太過份了吧，我們是民選的首長，現在不要說咱是一個縣長或咱是一個民進黨員，就算台灣老百姓他們也不該這樣子，我是說我這件事要凸顯以後你們地檢署要聲押，你要聲押一個人要有充份的把握還有你要有充份的証據，還有你一定要尊重當事人，我覺得太過……像我們這種人被他們踩在腳底下(歎氣)……這樣我用一世人……
我已經參與政治三十冬，我三十冬裡面……三十冬裡面……啊!我是一個拒絕接受行賄的人，一個拒絕接受行賄的人，人家一直要拿錢給我們，咱一直不跟人家拿，現在反過來變成這樣……
勇伯（按：李進勇，蘇治芬偵訊時之陪同律師，曾任基隆市長、法務部政次）問我為何要拒絕交保，我告訴他我為什麼敢進來被它收押，我跟他說的很白，我要抗議這種……對抗宰制的工具，我不願意成為被宰制的工具，所以我要行使我的抵抗權，我也跟他說，你不用擔心啦，有就是有沒有就是沒有，已經做到這樣了啊…這麼的窮，做縣長是越做越窮，交保金六佰萬，不然你有多少錢(問勇伯)? (縣長仿勇伯語氣：撿撿有佰凸萬)，審判長對我說做一個縣長選一個舉花幾仟萬，怎麼可能沒錢，我說你不知道我們的選舉原本就是很多民眾的支持和寄付。
我不願意成為一個被宰制的工具，邱義仁被收押，我以一個三十幾年的朋友的交情，讓我思考很多，讓我對目前偵查的過當，然後對一個台灣民主幾十年應該被尊重的人物，沒有得到應該有的待遇，讓我真的覺得很悲哀，所以就是從邱義仁的事件到這個，我應該要用另外一種方法，去跟台灣人說，我參與政治一世人，如果到最後地檢署以這種方式來對待我的話，應該有所反擊，我用我的身體來表達。
我有一句話：「如果我有污錢，我寧願被槍弊，如果我有污錢，我寧願被槍弊」，打拚成這樣只是想要樹立一個典範而已，不然參與政治是要做什麼。要跟台灣人說，一個應該受社會上尊重的人，敬重的人，像這種重大貪污，又六佰萬交保，是要去哪裡拿六佰萬?它把我們當成是誰?當成國民黨的政治人物嗎?
縣政的部份，交給李副縣長，你跟應元說一下，有關縣政的部份，讓他扛這個重擔，跟他謝一個多謝。
我想跟縣府的同仁說，我跟你們在一起三年，雖然我曾經疾言厲色過，但是在公務上我謹守份際，尊重公務人員，從來不曾要求過公務人員蓋過一顆你們不想蓋的章，那如果同仁們知道，你們相信我的清白，那就請你們用msn或email告訴我的孩子………我比較放心不下我的孩子。
（蘇治芬 口述 幕僚於雲二監 整理記錄 2008.11.06 09:30）
註：蘇治芬遭拘提迄今52小時…未進食
《蘇治芬聲明2008/11/05》
押人取供，未訊先決
蘇治芬拒交保絕食抗議政治粗暴介入司法
11月4日凌晨6點，雲林檢調單位在未經約談調查的情況下，大舉搜索雲林縣政府縣長室及縣長官邸，並以莫須有之罪名拘提本人，歷經十多小時之疲勞訊問，11月5 日凌晨3點雲林地方法院裁定600萬元交保。經嚴肅考慮，本人決定放棄保釋，以示抗議，其理由如下：
1、 雲林地檢署未經任何約談行動即大陣仗的拘提、搜索動作，嚴重違反程序正義及比例原則，並於偵訊過程中於當事人未全部到案的情況下，即逕自於早上十點對外發布不實之新聞稿，聲稱四人已全部到案偵訊完畢並將提出聲押，顯見是預設立場未訊先決。
2、 檢方在未掌握任何不利本人之具體證據的情況下，僅因廠商之羈押日期將屆，即輕率拘提並聲押一縣之長，可見是押人取供，無限上綱，難怪其聲押遭到地院駁回，而且地院亦認為本人絕無串證逃亡之虞，可見檢方先前之大動作純屬多餘。
3、 雲林地檢署一連串背離常理，匪夷所思的行動，已經逾越法制應有之常規，本人認為這是清白抹黑、人格謀殺，是政治粗暴介入司法。尤其特別選在陳雲林來台，中南部縣市動員北上嗆聲之際進行這樣的司法突襲，其動機更是啟人疑竇。
4、 貪污的刑法一定要有積極證據才構成偵辦要件，但檢察官在對我連番疲勞訊問時，本人及律師一再要求檢察官依法提示證據，讓我說明，但檢察官完全提示不出來。
蘇治芬自從政以來，一向清廉自持，為人行事雲林鄉親可為共鑑，如今遭此不白之冤，本人在此對雲林地檢署提出最嚴正的抗議；對於地方法院交保的裁定，本人亦不能接受。既無證據顯示本人涉案，當然只有無保開釋，才能還本人之清白。為表達抗議，本人已開始絕食，感謝雲林鄉親對治芬的聲援和支持，我以生命向大家保證，你們的縣長絕對是清白的，我也要呼籲縣府員工同仁們，不要受此事件影響，各自堅守崗位，在副縣長和各單位首長領導下繼續服務縣民，做我們該做的事。
04/11 2008 TUE 10:12 FAX
（按：上所顯示為雲林縣政府收到地檢署傳真時間）
（雲林地檢署）新聞稿（的疑點）
一、
1蘇治芬係現任雲林縣縣長，雲林縣工商發展投資策進會主任委員；陳勇兆則係林縣工商發展投資（按：漏「策」）進會總幹事；葉安耕係明信營造股份有限公司董事長，葉安耕前曾因法定抵押權問題與銀行涉訟，經蘇治芬之母蘇洪月嬌之施壓幫忙，得以順利解決，葉安耕因此感念蘇洪月嬌，於歷次選舉均出錢出力幫忙，蘇洪月嬌去世後，葉安耕轉而成為蘇治芬之大樁腳，在治芬競選縣長時，出力甚多，二人情誼匪淺（按：以上這些文字，比較像敵對陣營的競選文宣吧？！）；林文優、張晉彰、洪植一（按：漏「、」頓號）黃鴻斌四人為璟美科技股份有限公司（以下簡稱璟美公司）股東；黃揮原係現任雲林縣環保局長，鄭木聰係雲林縣環保局業務承辦員。
2 璟美公司為興建垃圾掩埋場，總投入之資金高達近7000萬元，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等四人之資金壓力甚大，且一旦未能取得操作許可，所有之投資將成泡沫，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等四人因此非常心急，遂請與蘇治芬熟識之葉安耕幫忙設法，葉安耕遂表示「可以拿500萬出來，讓我去講講看。」葉安耕旋前往縣長室拜見蘇治芬，在縣長室，葉安耕向蘇治芬表示「璟美公司的操作許可證，如果可以就核發給他們，這樣他們才可以順利營運，我工程款才能順利兌現領到錢，改天如果你選舉，他們也會幫忙贊助（金錢）。」以此暗示蘇治芬璟美公司股東願意行賄之信息。95年9月間某日，葉安耕在斗六市中華路長興冰店將璟美公司所簽發之10張支票（面額共500萬）交給蘇治芬，蘇治芬看完後將支票交還給葉安（按：漏「耕」字）保管。（按：新聞稿發出之際，檢察官還在對蘇進行疲勞訊問，葉某也可能同遭類似對待。即使葉安耕片面作出供詞，沒有對質，如何證實真偽？）
4（按：漏小標「3」）96年4月30日，葉安耕提示上開支票獲得兌現，同年6月起至97年1月間止，蘇治芬指派陳勇兆分三次前往明信公司，找葉安耕領取上開款項。（按：陳勇兆在新聞稿發出時，因舅喪向縣府請假，當日根本未被傳喚出庭。疑點同上。）
二、
1林文優、黃鴻彬（按：與前之「斌」有異）、高朝國、張晉彰、林尚永基於行賄公務員之犯意聯絡，於91年11月28日（按：當時蘇治芬尚未上任，縣長為張榮味）自璟美公司元大銀斗信分行帳號0183213427800提領150萬元後，由高朝國於翌日將其中之50萬元親自送往鄭木聰位於斗六市大同路住處（其中100萬元則交付給當時之環保局長顏嘉賢），希望鄭木聰在審查璟美公司所請之設置許可證時能予以放水，免作環境影響評估，以便能儘速取得設置許可，鄭木聰基於違背職務收受賄賂之犯意，收受該50萬元，使璟美公司得以免作環境影響評估，並於92年10月3日順利取得設置許可。
2 92年10月3日（按：當時蘇治芬尚未上任，縣長為張榮味）璟美公司取得設置許可後，開始進行下一階段之程序，即公文「跑件」，公文除了要照會雲林縣政府相關局處室，包括地政局、環保局、農業局、工務局等，以取得地目變更、建築執照、使用執照等，為求速度能更快一點，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等基於行賄犯意聯絡，於92年10月3日後某日，由張晉彰代表將10萬元親自送至鄭木聰位於斗六市大同路住處，鄭木聰基於不違背職務收受賄賂之犯意，亦欣然接受上開10萬元。
三、璟美公司原向雲林縣政府申請設置垃圾掩埋場操作許可證時，係以申請每日處理之數量195公噸、每月5850公噸而取得免作環境影響評估，許可興建垃圾掩埋場，並於取得垃圾掩埋場使用執照後，自95年4月25 日申請核可試運轉後即違法超收垃圾量，本案操作許可證核發期限雖係至100年8月31日止，惟許可證上註記「有效期限屆滿前，掩埋場容積已飽和時，應立即停止營業」，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等人為能繼續違法超收垃圾以謀取更多不法利益，希望環保局長張揮原能在垃圾場高層（高層的高度愈高，垃圾就堆的愈多）、空氣及水的檢能放水（按：漏標點符號）經林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌四人商議後決定，基於行賄的犯意聯絡，推由林文優於97年7月17日，親自前往彰化市建寶里介壽南路14 巷45號住處，將50萬元親交給黃揮原收受，黃揮原亦未推辭基於違背職務收受賄賂之犯意而予以收受。
四、本署檢察官於97年11月04日指揮法務部調查局中部機動組、雲林縣調查站持法院核發之搜索，兵分12路，搜索雲林縣政府、官邸、雲林縣環保局等12處所，並帶回縣長蘇治芬、陳勇兆、黃揮原、鄭木聰等四人，訊問後，以上開四人犯嫌重大，所犯為重罪及有串證之虞，向法院聲請羈押。（按：字級與格式為地檢署原新聞稿之字級及格式）（按：陳勇兆根本未被傳喚出庭。地檢署新聞稿完全捏造事實，憑空杜撰。）
疑點一：新聞稿指承辦人鄭木聰91、92年即陸續受賄，當時縣長為張榮味，蘇治芬根本尚未就任，檢調偵辦時完全未傳喚張榮味及其任內的環保署長，是否選擇性辦案？（蘇治芬就任雲林縣縣長時間為94年12月底）
疑點二：蘇治芬4日清晨遭帶走，拘押時間長達13小時直至隔日凌晨，明顯違法。
疑點三：既然蘇被偵訊直到5日凌晨3點，地檢署卻在4日上午10點，距離拘押蘇治芬不到3小時內，立即發佈罪證確鑿、「訊後聲押」的新聞？
疑點四：工策會總幹事陳勇兆11月4日當天因舅喪本來就向縣府請假，根本沒有出席偵查庭，何來「帶回縣長蘇治芬、陳勇兆、黃揮原、鄭木聰等四人」？陳員又如何被「訊問」及因「犯嫌重大，所犯為重罪及有串證之虞」被檢察官向法院聲押？
疑點五：陳勇兆後續於5、6兩日三度到地檢署，且多次上宣傳車聲援蘇治芬，地檢署如罪證確鑿，且認有串證之虞，連新聞稿都發佈了，為何未採取任何動作？
疑點六：雲林地檢署對外宣稱罪證明確，既然如此，便不需再偵查，沒有串證之虞，何須聲押？
疑點七：偵查不公開是司法常識，但本案不論地檢署的發言人或新聞稿，所談的全是跟案情偵查有關的內容，對當事人又無法提示具體事實，卻對社會及媒體無矢放話，完全違背偵查不公開的原則及無罪推定的精神。
我要表達我為什麼拒絕交保，因為他使用的是公器，所以我們就必須在他的公器裡面接受它的宰制，但是這個公器是國家賦予他的權力，但是如果他行使得當，而且這個程序是符合社會正義的，我可以接受，也願意配合調查，但是在他行使公器裡頭，我認為它行使過當，過於腐爛，對於一個政治人物不知道尊重，咱們是反對運動的政治家庭出身，政治廉潔對咱來說是很重要的，咱政治操守這麼廉潔，這款的人應該是要得到社會人的尊重，但是我這麼做的時候，今天是你們反而利用公器扣住我們，然後扣住我們這種涉嫌貪污那麼重大的帽子，就算未來我在法庭上，被無罪開釋，但老實說這段過程，如果以國外來講，你無罪開釋可能社會會還給你一個公理，但是以台灣現在的媒體它不可能還你一個公道，到時候我們無罪開釋的話可能在報紙上就只有這麼一點點(手比小小一個方塊)，就好像邱義仁一樣，起初他被收押時我就心裡很不舒服很難過，所以今天我會拒絕交保。
我也覺得因為邱義仁的代誌……讓我覺得……因為你說邱義仁污錢的話，我絕對不相信，我們對邱義仁認識太久，你說邱義仁你會認為他有污錢嗎?(問她妹妹蘇＊＊)，我是絕對不會相信他會污錢，所以我覺得這種東西…這種東西…是讓我覺得…覺得……我絕對不接受這種公器的宰制，所以我今天就想說你，想說我怕被關，我們在聲押庭上不是二邊在對談嗎?(說現場的狀況)，我不怕被關，我也不怕坐牢，我願意接受配合調查，但是我覺得你們的程序一定要嚴謹一定要尊重，因為我們還是無罪推定論，所以目前我還是個無罪推定的人，所以你也要尊重我目前當個無罪推定的人。
我的意思就是說，你的証據要相當充份，但是他在聲押庭的時候完全舉不出來啊，你知道嗎?他的提示是怎樣嗎?他就是這樣子用(手比公文的高度)，我們有監聽譯文一堆，你就用這樣就對啦(手又再比一次)，像道具! 他像道具一樣就是監聽譯文，這算哪門子啊! (敲桌)，這太過份了吧，我們是民選的首長，現在不要說咱是一個縣長或咱是一個民進黨員，就算台灣老百姓他們也不該這樣子，我是說我這件事要凸顯以後你們地檢署要聲押，你要聲押一個人要有充份的把握還有你要有充份的証據，還有你一定要尊重當事人，我覺得太過……像我們這種人被他們踩在腳底下(歎氣)……這樣我用一世人……
我已經參與政治三十冬，我三十冬裡面……三十冬裡面……啊!我是一個拒絕接受行賄的人，一個拒絕接受行賄的人，人家一直要拿錢給我們，咱一直不跟人家拿，現在反過來變成這樣……
勇伯（按：李進勇，蘇治芬偵訊時之陪同律師，曾任基隆市長、法務部政次）問我為何要拒絕交保，我告訴他我為什麼敢進來被它收押，我跟他說的很白，我要抗議這種……對抗宰制的工具，我不願意成為被宰制的工具，所以我要行使我的抵抗權，我也跟他說，你不用擔心啦，有就是有沒有就是沒有，已經做到這樣了啊…這麼的窮，做縣長是越做越窮，交保金六佰萬，不然你有多少錢(問勇伯)? (縣長仿勇伯語氣：撿撿有佰凸萬)，審判長對我說做一個縣長選一個舉花幾仟萬，怎麼可能沒錢，我說你不知道我們的選舉原本就是很多民眾的支持和寄付。
我不願意成為一個被宰制的工具，邱義仁被收押，我以一個三十幾年的朋友的交情，讓我思考很多，讓我對目前偵查的過當，然後對一個台灣民主幾十年應該被尊重的人物，沒有得到應該有的待遇，讓我真的覺得很悲哀，所以就是從邱義仁的事件到這個，我應該要用另外一種方法，去跟台灣人說，我參與政治一世人，如果到最後地檢署以這種方式來對待我的話，應該有所反擊，我用我的身體來表達。
我有一句話：「如果我有污錢，我寧願被槍弊，如果我有污錢，我寧願被槍弊」，打拚成這樣只是想要樹立一個典範而已，不然參與政治是要做什麼。要跟台灣人說，一個應該受社會上尊重的人，敬重的人，像這種重大貪污，又六佰萬交保，是要去哪裡拿六佰萬?它把我們當成是誰?當成國民黨的政治人物嗎?
縣政的部份，交給李副縣長，你跟應元說一下，有關縣政的部份，讓他扛這個重擔，跟他謝一個多謝。
我想跟縣府的同仁說，我跟你們在一起三年，雖然我曾經疾言厲色過，但是在公務上我謹守份際，尊重公務人員，從來不曾要求過公務人員蓋過一顆你們不想蓋的章，那如果同仁們知道，你們相信我的清白，那就請你們用msn或email告訴我的孩子………我比較放心不下我的孩子。
（蘇治芬 口述 幕僚於雲二監 整理記錄 2008.11.06 09:30）
註：蘇治芬遭拘提迄今52小時…未進食
《蘇治芬聲明2008/11/05》
押人取供，未訊先決
蘇治芬拒交保絕食抗議政治粗暴介入司法
11月4日凌晨6點，雲林檢調單位在未經約談調查的情況下，大舉搜索雲林縣政府縣長室及縣長官邸，並以莫須有之罪名拘提本人，歷經十多小時之疲勞訊問，11月5 日凌晨3點雲林地方法院裁定600萬元交保。經嚴肅考慮，本人決定放棄保釋，以示抗議，其理由如下：
1、 雲林地檢署未經任何約談行動即大陣仗的拘提、搜索動作，嚴重違反程序正義及比例原則，並於偵訊過程中於當事人未全部到案的情況下，即逕自於早上十點對外發布不實之新聞稿，聲稱四人已全部到案偵訊完畢並將提出聲押，顯見是預設立場未訊先決。
2、 檢方在未掌握任何不利本人之具體證據的情況下，僅因廠商之羈押日期將屆，即輕率拘提並聲押一縣之長，可見是押人取供，無限上綱，難怪其聲押遭到地院駁回，而且地院亦認為本人絕無串證逃亡之虞，可見檢方先前之大動作純屬多餘。
3、 雲林地檢署一連串背離常理，匪夷所思的行動，已經逾越法制應有之常規，本人認為這是清白抹黑、人格謀殺，是政治粗暴介入司法。尤其特別選在陳雲林來台，中南部縣市動員北上嗆聲之際進行這樣的司法突襲，其動機更是啟人疑竇。
4、 貪污的刑法一定要有積極證據才構成偵辦要件，但檢察官在對我連番疲勞訊問時，本人及律師一再要求檢察官依法提示證據，讓我說明，但檢察官完全提示不出來。
蘇治芬自從政以來，一向清廉自持，為人行事雲林鄉親可為共鑑，如今遭此不白之冤，本人在此對雲林地檢署提出最嚴正的抗議；對於地方法院交保的裁定，本人亦不能接受。既無證據顯示本人涉案，當然只有無保開釋，才能還本人之清白。為表達抗議，本人已開始絕食，感謝雲林鄉親對治芬的聲援和支持，我以生命向大家保證，你們的縣長絕對是清白的，我也要呼籲縣府員工同仁們，不要受此事件影響，各自堅守崗位，在副縣長和各單位首長領導下繼續服務縣民，做我們該做的事。
04/11 2008 TUE 10:12 FAX
（按：上所顯示為雲林縣政府收到地檢署傳真時間）
（雲林地檢署）新聞稿（的疑點）
一、
1蘇治芬係現任雲林縣縣長，雲林縣工商發展投資策進會主任委員；陳勇兆則係林縣工商發展投資（按：漏「策」）進會總幹事；葉安耕係明信營造股份有限公司董事長，葉安耕前曾因法定抵押權問題與銀行涉訟，經蘇治芬之母蘇洪月嬌之施壓幫忙，得以順利解決，葉安耕因此感念蘇洪月嬌，於歷次選舉均出錢出力幫忙，蘇洪月嬌去世後，葉安耕轉而成為蘇治芬之大樁腳，在治芬競選縣長時，出力甚多，二人情誼匪淺（按：以上這些文字，比較像敵對陣營的競選文宣吧？！）；林文優、張晉彰、洪植一（按：漏「、」頓號）黃鴻斌四人為璟美科技股份有限公司（以下簡稱璟美公司）股東；黃揮原係現任雲林縣環保局長，鄭木聰係雲林縣環保局業務承辦員。
2 璟美公司為興建垃圾掩埋場，總投入之資金高達近7000萬元，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等四人之資金壓力甚大，且一旦未能取得操作許可，所有之投資將成泡沫，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等四人因此非常心急，遂請與蘇治芬熟識之葉安耕幫忙設法，葉安耕遂表示「可以拿500萬出來，讓我去講講看。」葉安耕旋前往縣長室拜見蘇治芬，在縣長室，葉安耕向蘇治芬表示「璟美公司的操作許可證，如果可以就核發給他們，這樣他們才可以順利營運，我工程款才能順利兌現領到錢，改天如果你選舉，他們也會幫忙贊助（金錢）。」以此暗示蘇治芬璟美公司股東願意行賄之信息。95年9月間某日，葉安耕在斗六市中華路長興冰店將璟美公司所簽發之10張支票（面額共500萬）交給蘇治芬，蘇治芬看完後將支票交還給葉安（按：漏「耕」字）保管。（按：新聞稿發出之際，檢察官還在對蘇進行疲勞訊問，葉某也可能同遭類似對待。即使葉安耕片面作出供詞，沒有對質，如何證實真偽？）
4（按：漏小標「3」）96年4月30日，葉安耕提示上開支票獲得兌現，同年6月起至97年1月間止，蘇治芬指派陳勇兆分三次前往明信公司，找葉安耕領取上開款項。（按：陳勇兆在新聞稿發出時，因舅喪向縣府請假，當日根本未被傳喚出庭。疑點同上。）
二、
1林文優、黃鴻彬（按：與前之「斌」有異）、高朝國、張晉彰、林尚永基於行賄公務員之犯意聯絡，於91年11月28日（按：當時蘇治芬尚未上任，縣長為張榮味）自璟美公司元大銀斗信分行帳號0183213427800提領150萬元後，由高朝國於翌日將其中之50萬元親自送往鄭木聰位於斗六市大同路住處（其中100萬元則交付給當時之環保局長顏嘉賢），希望鄭木聰在審查璟美公司所請之設置許可證時能予以放水，免作環境影響評估，以便能儘速取得設置許可，鄭木聰基於違背職務收受賄賂之犯意，收受該50萬元，使璟美公司得以免作環境影響評估，並於92年10月3日順利取得設置許可。
2 92年10月3日（按：當時蘇治芬尚未上任，縣長為張榮味）璟美公司取得設置許可後，開始進行下一階段之程序，即公文「跑件」，公文除了要照會雲林縣政府相關局處室，包括地政局、環保局、農業局、工務局等，以取得地目變更、建築執照、使用執照等，為求速度能更快一點，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等基於行賄犯意聯絡，於92年10月3日後某日，由張晉彰代表將10萬元親自送至鄭木聰位於斗六市大同路住處，鄭木聰基於不違背職務收受賄賂之犯意，亦欣然接受上開10萬元。
三、璟美公司原向雲林縣政府申請設置垃圾掩埋場操作許可證時，係以申請每日處理之數量195公噸、每月5850公噸而取得免作環境影響評估，許可興建垃圾掩埋場，並於取得垃圾掩埋場使用執照後，自95年4月25 日申請核可試運轉後即違法超收垃圾量，本案操作許可證核發期限雖係至100年8月31日止，惟許可證上註記「有效期限屆滿前，掩埋場容積已飽和時，應立即停止營業」，林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌等人為能繼續違法超收垃圾以謀取更多不法利益，希望環保局長張揮原能在垃圾場高層（高層的高度愈高，垃圾就堆的愈多）、空氣及水的檢能放水（按：漏標點符號）經林文優、張晉彰、洪植一、黃鴻斌四人商議後決定，基於行賄的犯意聯絡，推由林文優於97年7月17日，親自前往彰化市建寶里介壽南路14 巷45號住處，將50萬元親交給黃揮原收受，黃揮原亦未推辭基於違背職務收受賄賂之犯意而予以收受。
四、本署檢察官於97年11月04日指揮法務部調查局中部機動組、雲林縣調查站持法院核發之搜索，兵分12路，搜索雲林縣政府、官邸、雲林縣環保局等12處所，並帶回縣長蘇治芬、陳勇兆、黃揮原、鄭木聰等四人，訊問後，以上開四人犯嫌重大，所犯為重罪及有串證之虞，向法院聲請羈押。（按：字級與格式為地檢署原新聞稿之字級及格式）（按：陳勇兆根本未被傳喚出庭。地檢署新聞稿完全捏造事實，憑空杜撰。）
疑點一：新聞稿指承辦人鄭木聰91、92年即陸續受賄，當時縣長為張榮味，蘇治芬根本尚未就任，檢調偵辦時完全未傳喚張榮味及其任內的環保署長，是否選擇性辦案？（蘇治芬就任雲林縣縣長時間為94年12月底）
疑點二：蘇治芬4日清晨遭帶走，拘押時間長達13小時直至隔日凌晨，明顯違法。
疑點三：既然蘇被偵訊直到5日凌晨3點，地檢署卻在4日上午10點，距離拘押蘇治芬不到3小時內，立即發佈罪證確鑿、「訊後聲押」的新聞？
疑點四：工策會總幹事陳勇兆11月4日當天因舅喪本來就向縣府請假，根本沒有出席偵查庭，何來「帶回縣長蘇治芬、陳勇兆、黃揮原、鄭木聰等四人」？陳員又如何被「訊問」及因「犯嫌重大，所犯為重罪及有串證之虞」被檢察官向法院聲押？
疑點五：陳勇兆後續於5、6兩日三度到地檢署，且多次上宣傳車聲援蘇治芬，地檢署如罪證確鑿，且認有串證之虞，連新聞稿都發佈了，為何未採取任何動作？
疑點六：雲林地檢署對外宣稱罪證明確，既然如此，便不需再偵查，沒有串證之虞，何須聲押？
疑點七：偵查不公開是司法常識，但本案不論地檢署的發言人或新聞稿，所談的全是跟案情偵查有關的內容，對當事人又無法提示具體事實，卻對社會及媒體無矢放話，完全違背偵查不公開的原則及無罪推定的精神。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)