謝長廷: 228應以轉型正義的的大脈絡來思考,重點是追究元凶責任. 228 should be considered in transitional justice framework. The key is to establish truth and hold abusers responsible.

前行政院院長、影子政府召集人謝長廷今(1)日主持廣播節目「有影上大聲-長仔限時批」時,針對228當天,總統蔡英文在二二八紀念會上承諾,威權時代的檔案要進一步研究整理及公開,並召開228真相和解委員會來解密威權時期的政治檔案。民進黨團將推動制定「政治檔案法」,以還原歷史真相。謝長廷認為,轉型正義是非常困難的事,不妥善處理只會付出更大的代價,多年來台灣民主化都是分期付款,代價較小,但時間拉很長。謝長廷在1993年曾領銜提出賠償條例草案,馬英九為當時法務部長,堅持以「補償」為底線,不再讓步。但補償就表示政府沒錯,例如徵收土地補償,「賠償」才是認錯,對被害者意義差很大,當時他雖據理力爭但無效,一直拖到2005年擔任行政院長時,才正式改正為賠償。歷史事件的平反與追究,是相當不容易的,不過只要堅持,正義有時雖會遲到,但最終還是會到,只是這個過程拖得很長,社會很難真正的和解。

謝長廷表示,正如同追討黨產是轉型正義的一部份,追求228的責任與真相也是台灣民主化中轉型正義的過程,因此,在討論228的時候,應該是以轉型正義的的大脈絡來思考,重點是追究元凶的責任,藉由檔案的解密還原真相,而不是在死傷人數、本省籍與外省籍的死傷比較等枝微末節上做文章,如次一來就會模糊焦點,失去轉型正義的歷史意義。

謝長廷指出,台灣的政權輪替是依照民主程序,而不是經過戰爭或武裝革命,因此在轉型正義過程中也會和平的進行,目的是真相與和解,不會如同德國追究納粹的罪行一樣鋪天蓋地的追殺,更不會因此成為分裂族群的爭議。且追求戒嚴時期的真相與責任,和處理黨產一樣,其實是為了國民黨的「原罪」解套,讓台灣回歸正常的政黨競爭,國民黨人士不應抗拒,228轉型正義的過程和曲折,可以做為處理國民黨轉型正義的參考。

針對赴美訪問的中國外交部長王毅日前在華府智庫發表演說,在未提及九二共識的說法下,提出希望台灣新的執政者願意接受他們自己的憲法所規定的大陸和台灣同屬一個中國。此言引起國內外各界普遍討論,一般認為王毅並非一時興起或失言,其背後應有特殊意義,謝長廷指出,他不認為王毅的談話代表大陸的基本立場有何鬆動。但民進黨執政後,雙方若糾纏在九二共識有無的堅持上,勢必走向僵局,如能由憲法切入,至少有新的求同點,對維持台海和平應是正面的。此外,謝長廷也認為,從前他主張以「對內憲法共識,對外,則用憲法各表」,就是認為用憲法來處理兩岸關係,會更有法治基礎也更為穩定。

 

On 28th February, President-Elect Tsai Ing-wen promised to establish the 228 Truth Commission to investigate and declassify all the files in the martial law era. The DPP caucus will draft the Politial Archive Act in order to establish historical truth. Hsieh believes that transitional justice is very difficul but the price of not handling it appropriately will be even higher. Over the past few decades, Taiwan’s democratisation has been like ‘paying in installment’. The immediate payment is smaller but the process is long and drawn out. Hsieh led the draft bill for state compensation and admission of liability (賠償). Ma Ying-jeou was the Minister of Justice at the time and insisted on compensation without accepting responsibility (補償). This made a lot of difference for the victims. It was not until 2005 when Hsieh was Premier the amendment in relation to the attribution of responsibility was adopted. Redress for and investigation into historical incidents are very difficult. If we persist, justice will prevail, albeit a bit later than expected. However, the long and protracted process makes it difficult for the society to reconcile.

Like recovering improper assets, investigating 228 and establishing the truth is part of the transitional justice in Taiwan’s democratisation. Therefore, 228 should be considered and discussed in this context and reconstruct the truth through declassifying the files rather than getting fixated on the number of deaths and injuries or the comparison those figures between the Taiwanese and the Mainlanders. This would blur the focus and loses the historical significance of transititional justice.

Taiwan’s changes of governments have occurred democratically rather than through a civil war or armed revolution. Therefore, transitional justice will also be peaceful, with truth seeking and reconciliation as the main aims. It will not be as overwhelming as the process for the Nazis. It will not become a controversy that divides ethnic groups. Therefore, truth seeking and party asset recovery will both lift the KMT from their ‘sins’ and set Taiwan on the course of more normal party politics. The KMT therefore should not resist the cause.

In terms of what the PRC Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, stated in his speech in Washington DC, without mentioning the 1992 Consensus, he wished for Taiwan’s new government to accept the part of their own Constitution stipulating that the Mainland and Taiwan both belong to one China. This statement started widespread discussion, as most people would not believe that Wang Yi was being impulsive or mis-spoke. Hsieh points out that he does not believe Wang’s statement represents any change of Mainland China’s fundamental stance. However, after the DPP gets into the government, if both sides are entangled in their respective instance on whether the 1992 Consensus exists, it will lead to a gridlock. Besides, Hsieh has always believed that handing the cross-strait relations under the Constitution would provide a more solid legal basis and more stablity. That was why his proposal was for Taiwan to form internal consensus based on the Constitution (憲法共識) and build external relations on the basis that each side has its own constitution (憲法各表).

廣告

About Frank Hsieh

Former Premier, Former Kaohsiung Mayor 前行政院長、前高雄市長
本篇發表於 Commentary 時事評論, Cross-strait relations 兩岸關係, Culture & history 文史, Facebook文章(中文), Press releases 新聞稿, Transitional justice 轉型正義。將永久鏈結加入書籤。

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s