Students demand KMT to give up totalitarianism

[English translation follows the Chinese version and was published in Taipei Times.]

政府不可逃避對人民的義務（傅偉哲）

2009年12月18日蘋果日報

放大圖片

ECFA是重大政策，政府有責任向人民說清楚。圖為民眾持「ECFA要公投」標語抗議。

台大、台師大與台科大三校學生會於14日上午聯合召開記者會，邀請行政院長吳敦義26、27日出席台大論壇，說明兩岸經濟合作架構協議（Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement，ECFA）政策。在遭吳敦義院長婉拒後，16日上午與新加入的陽明大學學生會、輔仁大學學代會及台灣醫學生聯合會前往行政院呈遞聖誕 卡，持續邀請吳揆暨其閣員前往台大。

吳揆應總體性說明

我們認為，ECFA是國家重大政策，但是這個政策的形成過程並不民主，政府沒有公開資訊，也沒有跟大家充分溝通，而且受政策影響的人民也沒有討論乃至於決定的機會。
台大學生會所舉辦的「ECFA發╱罰到大學生？」論壇邀請政府官員、學者以及民間團體參加，確保各方意見充分呈現；也設計分組討論，讓青年公民思辨。27日結束時，將共同形成「共識報告」，所有參與者一起決定是否同意簽訂ECFA。
我們希望所有重要的政策形成、決定過程都是民主的，所以參考審議式民主的精神設計論壇；也希望政府在實際制定政策時，能夠比擬我們對待重大政策的態度，以符合民主原則。
吳敦義院長擔任行政團隊首長，不應該只對代表人民的國會負責，而不對人民負責。況且ECFA是一個影響深遠的政策，閣揆也有義務向人民作總體性說 明，不可以「專業」為由，推給經濟部單一部門。事實上，如果ECFA是一個連閣揆都沒有能力說明的政策，人民又如何相信閣揆率領的行政團隊有能力執行，乃 至於真正解決台灣的經濟問題？
我們除了邀請吳揆作總體說明之外，我們還希望邀請陸委會主委賴幸媛、青輔會主委王昱婷、內政部長江宜樺三位前來。和中國簽訂協議，陸委會難道沒有負責說明的必要？青年失業率將突破16％，薪資水準年年下滑，ECFA對年輕人究竟有沒有幫助？而馬總統簽訂的人權公約不只是條文而已，內政部長應該證明ECFA能夠落實如工作權等等人權保障。

讓人民作最後決定

任何重大政策的簽訂都將影響年輕世代的未來。當政者不僅應該對人民負責，尤其對未來承接台灣發展的青年公民負有更高的說明義務。我們希望吳揆暨其閣員向人民負責：ECFA政策制定須符合民主原則，請充分揭露資訊、創造討論空間，並且讓人民作最後的決定！

作者為台灣大學學生會會長，本文為台灣大學、陽明大學、台北大學、台灣科技大學、台灣師範大學、輔仁大學、世新大學等大學學生自治團體及台灣醫學生聯合會共同意見

Government answerable to the youth about ECFA

By Fu Weiche 傅偉哲

Saturday, Dec 26, 2009, Page 8 On Dec. 14, student associations from National Taiwan University (NTU), National Taiwan Normal University and National Taiwan University of Science and Technology invited Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) to attend a forum at NTU this weekend to explain government policy on the proposed cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).

The ECFA proposal is a major national policy, but it has been drawn up in an undemocratic way. The public has not been informed about the content of the policy because the government has failed to communicate adequately. It will affect the lives of Taiwanese, but they have had no chance to discuss it, still less make decisions.

The forum is being organized by the NTU Student Association under the title “ECFA — Boon or Bust for College Students?” Organizers invited government officials, academics and civic groups. Discussion workshops will be held for young citizens to inquire deeper into the issues. When the forum concludes tomorrow, participants will draw up a consensus report in which all participants will decide whether they agree to signing an ECFA.

All important policies should be formed and decided through a democratic process, which is why this forum has been organized in the spirit of deliberative democracy. Hopefully the government will take a similar attitude when deciding on policies, in accordance with democratic principles.

As chief of the country’s executive team, Wu should be answerable not just to the legislature, which represents the public, but to the public as a whole. All the more so given that the ECFA proposal is a policy with far-reaching implications. Consequently, the premier is duty-bound to give the public a proper and thorough explanation. He should not pass this responsibility on to the Ministry of Finance alone on the grounds that “they are the experts.”

If even the premier can’t explain the ECFA policy, how can the public have faith in the ability of the executive team he leads to carry it out, or indeed to find effective solutions for Taiwan’s economic problems?

We would also like to invite Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛), National Youth Commission Minister Wang Yu-ting (王昱婷) and Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) to attend the forum. If an accord is to be signed with China, surely the council has a responsibility to explain it. Youth unemployment will soon top 16 percent, and wages keep falling every year. Will an ECFA be of any help to the young?

The two international human rights covenants recently signed into law by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) are more than just a list of articles — the interior minister should demonstrate how an ECFA would serve to protect the right to work and other human rights.

Any major policy that is signed will have a bearing on the future of the younger generation. Those in government should be answerable to the public, and above all they are duty-bound to explain their policies to the young citizens who in future will carry on the task of Taiwan’s development. We hope Wu and members of his Cabinet will live up to this responsibility. The ECFA policy must be decided in a democratic way. Please reveal all the information, make space for discussion and let the public have the final say!



Fu Weiche is president of the NTU Student Association. The opinions stated in this article represent the views of autonomous student bodies at NTU, National Yang Ming University, National Taipei University, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, National Taiwan Normal University, Fu Jen Catholic University and Shih Hsin University, and of the Federation of Medical Students in Taiwan.

TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG

What Taiwan voters must do with no cost, little effort and tremendous good for the nation

I would like to urge voters to do one simple thing:

When a candidate asks for your support, ask her/him some important questions such as, whether she would fight for people's birthright of referendum.

Seeing how lavishly Chinese KMT used taxpayers money to protect a Chinese envoy, wine him, dine him, entertain him, and strip away citizens human rights while doing so, I would challenge KMT candidates to justify their party's action. I would want to know whether my KMT candidate supports KMT's goal of turning Taiwan into Tibet, but others might have even more pressing questions. Election time is a great time to ask questions. Often, KMT people simply ignore citizens' questions. At best, you get a Ma Ying-Jeou style non-answer: 謝謝指教. Out of a respect for your vote, they might answer your questions now.

What if they ignore your questions even now? Simple. Just don't vote for them!

黨內民調全落後 立委補選國民黨將大敗？

2009-12-24 新聞速報 【中時電子報／綜合報導】

金溥聰擔任黨秘書長後，雖然連續兩個「五問蔡英文」的主動攻擊，讓不少支持者相當讚賞，但根據媒體報導，國民黨內的民調卻顯示，明年元月九日三席立委補選，目前國民黨候選人全部落後，可能一席都搶不下來，這將讓金溥聰第一戰就面臨難堪的局面。

據了解，元月九日的桃園、台中、台東三立委補選，國民黨內部民調相當不樂觀；從國民黨提名桃園縣立委補選候選人陳麗玲對民進黨的郭榮宗、台中縣國民黨候選 人余文欽對民進黨簡肇棟，到台東縣國民黨候選人鄺麗貞對綠營的賴坤成，民調方面，藍軍全都輸給綠營，而且差距還相當不小，即使用盡全力，要在僅餘的十來天 中反敗為勝，也是高難度挑戰。

而這樣的民調結果，令新上任的黨秘書長金溥聰開始焦慮，除了密集下鄉走訪，跨越文傳會親自指揮，還將手上最強的王牌推出，讓馬英九總統趕拍廣告，期望這張「總統牌」能夠靈驗，可以想見金溥聰對這「回鍋第一戰」背負著絕對不能輸的壓力。

但儘管如此，藍營三名候選人和對手的差距依舊很大，力挽狂瀾的機率不高，故金溥聰也已經著眼下一波二月27日的四席立委補選，決定全面改用黨中央徵召，強力推出實力與聲望俱佳的候選人，以免立法院繼續被綠營蠶食鯨吞。

Demand, and not beg for, what is rightly ours

Taiwanese should demand, not beg for, what is rightly ours such as fairness, justice and human rights. Look at these numbers of unfairness and injustice, as of today:

• 蔡丁貴教授 等2008年10月25日立法院開始靜坐 to request a real referendum law, 距今 244 天
• 李慶安2008年3月12日遭踢爆雙重國籍, 距今 471 天
• 貓纜2008年10月1日Stonewall investigation , 距今 268 天
• 柯建銘2008年8月9日控告馬英九叛國, 距今 321 天
• It has been 227 days since President Chen Shui-Bian was put in jail on Nov 11, 2008

To watch the last number grow, visit Demand immediate release of former President Chen.

Taiwanese keep on begging for their referendum rights and KMT keeps on saying no, ever since it came to Taiwan 60 years ago. We keep on begging for the most basic of a judicial system: fairness, and KMT ignores and stonewalls us. We beg that it treats 馬英九 and 李慶安 the same way it treats 陳水扁, 謝清志, 蘇治芬, 蘇治芬... It responds with open lies like this: 北院：司法獨立不受影響. There is no shame or scruple for KMT to say anything contradicting to facts and defying logic and common sense. KMT has been free to do anything and has not been held accountable to people.

Starting now, stop begging and demand what is rightly ours. Make KMT accountable to people it rules!

蔡英文、李遠哲連署要求放扁 北院：司法獨立不受影響

更新日期:2009/06/25 18:15 呂采千

民進黨25日公開一份包括前中研院院長李遠哲等10名學者連署的聲明書，希望改革羈押制度、落實司法人權並停止羈押前總統陳水扁。對此，台北地院發言人黃俊明強調，法官依法獨立審理案件，司法的獨立性不受外界影響。

民進黨主席蔡英文25 日偕同律師顧立雄、黃瑞明召開記者會，指出羈押陳水扁的合理性及正當性已不存在，現行羈押制度已嚴重傷害司法人權，若現在不改革，未來就會後悔。她強調， 扁案已成為社會對立焦點，反而更能讓司法產生改革的動力。蔡英文：『(原音)這個事情我也跟李遠哲院長反覆討論過，我們要喚起這個社會對(司法)這個事情 的覺醒，產生一個推力。我們的司法制度，尤其是在羈押制度上要有重大的變革，而且我們要很快的來行動。』

民進黨也公開一份「改革羈押制度、 落實司法人權、停止羈押陳前總統」的聲明書，獲得包括李遠哲、蔡英文、中研院院士陳建仁、中研院研究員瞿海源、蕭新煌等10位學者簽名響應。聲明書中指 出，陳水扁未約束家人行為、財務公私不分，並且匯錢到海外，令選民失望，但保障陳水扁的司法人權仍是社會共同價值。民進黨除了將拿著這份連署聲明書拜會總 統府、司法院及法務部，並發動一人一信，寫信給馬英九總統外，還會向各國駐台使節表達聲援陳水扁司法人權的主張。

對於民進黨的行動，台北地院發言人黃俊明表示，法官是獨立審判，不受外界影響。黃俊明『(原音)法官依憲法第80條規定獨立審判，他獨立審判是對任何人，包括法院及其他人員，他們不會告訴我們這時要做什麼，這是不需要的。』

Freedom House: Taiwan lacks transparency

Taiwan’s democratic test continues

By Christopher Walker Sarah Cook

Tuesday, Feb 17, 2009

Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.

Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-­governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.

Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.

First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.

In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”

Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.

These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.

The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.

The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public.

The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.

Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.

Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.

The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.

Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.

Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.

Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.

--
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.

Taiwanese are slaves of their servants

Taiwanese elected legislators who then denied them basic rights including a proper referendum law. Taiwanese, at the mercy of the KMT controlled Legislative Yuan, had been given a referendum law, after long and hard struggle. The referendum law was so crafted that nothing could ever pass. It is known as a bird-cage referendum law.

The KMT legislators (the servants) also deny citizens the rights to know what they are doing in their meetings. 公民監督國會聯盟:

立法院法制局為議事上網公開草擬「立法院會議錄影錄音管理規則修正案」及「立法院網際網路多媒體隨選視訊系統使用及管理要點制定案」，規定會議實況 的影音訊號，不得作為任何形式的商業廣告，或具選舉、政治目的之使用；國民黨團要求作成附帶決議，要求特種委員會（包括程序委員會、修憲委員會等）之會議 實況暫不上網公開。

國民黨團書記長張碩文表示，黨團對此「不會退讓」。

負責參與相關規範協商的民進黨籍立委涂醒哲表示，他希望立法院議事能儘速透明化，讓全民監督立委問政，但國民黨團提出的相關限制非常不合理，他提出三項訴求包括，一、務必減少影音視訊在使用上的限制，二、議事全面透明，程序委員會必須納入，三、儘速通過相關規範並執行。

In theory, legislators are citizens' servants. In reality, citizens are legislators' slaves. Masters lose rights to decide their future because their servants won't allow it. They cannot even know what their servants are doing, again because their servants just won't allow it.

Demand fairness and transparency in Taiwan

Why? Because the society is grossly insensitive to unfairness; the practice of double standards are rampant and too often ignored and tolerated. What is the cause of such insensitivity? KMT! The KMT's regime uses the judicial system and news media as tools to instill fears in people and to brainwash them, as has been practiced in Nazi Germany and Communist China. In contrast, in a civilized society, judicial system and news media are there to safeguard justice.

KMT's regime not only is non-transparent, it

• deliberately hides what it does, for example, the four agreements just signed with CCP
• stonewalls people's request for information and for investigations into KMT's wrongdoings, such as Ma's Mao-Kon Gondola, Ma and Diane Lee's US citizenship.

Fairness is so fundamental that

• Taiwanese must unite to demand fairness
• Taiwanese must unite to condemn unfairness and particularly the biggest source of unfairness from KMT's regime