謝長廷:肯亞遣送案突顯的問題. Problems Revealed by the Kenya-China Deportation.

前行政院長、影子政府召集人謝長廷今(12)日主持廣播節目「有影上大聲—長仔限時批」時,針對台灣民眾於肯亞涉電信詐騙案,遭強行遣送中國一事表示,這並不一定如一般揣測是中方對新任政府的施壓,倒凸顯了馬政府「一中各表」政策的矛盾和侷限。

法務部代表今天表示,因被害人都在大陸,就結果地理論來講,中方是有管轄權的。但謝長廷指出,若中方具有管轄權,為什麼馬英九總統要發出嚴正抗議?為什麼我國駐南非代表仍要追至機場?這就顯示了政府部會間政策的矛盾性。

此案件肯亞已經判決無罪,且法院也已經發出禁制令不准遣返,結果仍然被遣返大陸,這才是最大的問題。

謝長廷指出,如果中方介入此案的理由,是因為根據「兩岸同屬一個中國」原則,台灣民眾也算是中國民眾,所以中方具有管轄權。但若依照馬英九的「一中各表」主張,受害的中國民眾也應該算是我方民眾,那我方也應該具有管轄權才對。可見兩岸的政策和實務上有很大的落差。

此外針對有輿論表示,中方近期的不友善舉動,是針對新任總統蔡英文的施壓。謝長廷表示沒有證據可以這樣推論,畢竟蔡英文也還未上任。他強調此案牽涉外交關係,時間也許會拖到下任,所以現任政府應與新政府共同合作、解決問題,倒是有其需要。

謝長廷表示,兩岸之間有特殊關係,因此雙方有簽署《兩岸共同打擊犯罪與司法協議》,有時我方要配合中方的罪犯處理、有時中方應將罪犯交由我方處理,此案在2014年已有23人被逮捕,法院的禁制令也並非這兩天才申請,外交部是否有掌握狀況、持續追蹤關心?政府是否有透過兩岸機制去瞭解、處理和交涉才是重點。否則對於政府管轄權及民眾的人權都是傷害。

 

Former Premier Frank Hsieh stated on his radio show on 12th April that the deportation of the Taiwanese suspected of fraud to China may not be a result of China applying pressure on the incoming administration but highlights the contradictions and limitations of the Ma administration’s notion of ‘One China, different interpretations’.

The representative from the Ministry of Justice stated that because victims were all in China, according to the geography, China did have jurisdiction. Hsieh pointed out that if China has jurisdiction, then why did President Ma protest? Why did our Representative in South Africa have to follow them [by car] to the airport? This shows the confusion and contradictions among different government ministries and departments.

The biggest problem lies in the fact that the Kenyan court has already found these individuals not guilty and the order prohibited deportation but the outcome was deportation to Mainland China.

Frank Hsieh pointed out that if China’s intervention and their claim of jurisdiction was on the basis that both sides belong to One China and the Taiwanese are counted as the Chinese, then we should have equal jurisdiction and treat those Chinese victims in the same way as our citizens according to Ma Ying-jeou’s notion of ‘One China, different interpretations’. This shows the huge discrepancy between the cross-strait policy and the reality.

In terms of press speculation that China’s unfriendly behaviour is aimed to apply pressure on President Elect Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh does not think there is evidence to support such inference as after all, Tsai Ing-wen has not taken office. Hsieh emphasised that this case involves foreign relations and may continue into the next administration. Therefore, the current and the incoming administrations needs to collaborate to solve the problem.

Hsieh stated that as there is a special relationship across the strait, the two sides have signed the Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement which sometimes requires us to support each other in the handling of suspects and criminals and sometimes requires China to extradite suspects or fugitives to us. This case has already resulted in 23 arrests in 2014 and the injunction did not just turn up yesterday. Has the Foreign Office has always been on top of the case? The point is whether our government has effectively understood, intervened and negotiated through the cross-strait mechanism. If not, it definitely impinges on our government’s jurisdiction and our human rights.

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 Cross-strait relations 兩岸關係, Foreign relations 外交, Press releases 新聞稿。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