21

State Violence and Human Rights in Taiwan under "The China-Obedience(종중, Ma Ying-Jeou) Administration"

CHU, Li ShiCommissioner, Kaohsiung City Government Human Rights Committee

First of all, I'd like to express my highest regard for former president Kim Dae-jung. The level of great respect Koreans have for him is evident by the fact that this international convention center is named after him in his honor. This is not my first time here at the KDJ Convention Center, but this time around the feeling is particularly poignant given the recent passing of Asia's last autocratic dictator — former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, two months ago; a comparison between him and Km Dae-jung works only to accentuate the latter's greatness.

12 hours after Lee Kuan Yew passed away on March 23, I dug out an article by Kim Dae-jung that was published in Foreign Affairs in December, 1994, titled "Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values." I was the one back then who translated the article into Chinese, and included it in the appendix of the Chinese-edition of the "Mass Participatory Economy" published in February, 1998.

To my great surprise, less than a day after I posted an excerpt of that article on my Facebook page, it was "shared" and reposted by more than 300 netizen, among whom about twenty percent send me Facebook friend requests. The article, rebutting Lee Kuan Yew's claim that "western democracy is inapplicable in Asian societies," was one of the few Chinese translated pieces of Kim Dae-jung's work that not only was eye-opening for readers in Chinese-speaking world such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, but also presented them with view that's finally different from the usual eulogy which main-steam Chinese media outlets often heap on Lee Kuan Yew. This voice of criticism, coming from an opposition political figure in Korea that shares the Confucian cultures and has a successful democratization, is particularly convincing with Chinese-language readers.

I was the only one in the Chinese-speaking circle who dug out Kim Dae-jung's old article and present it. It's regrettable that from Korean websites, I could only find one report by a Polinews reporter, an in-depth analysis that made a comparison among Lee Kuan Yew, Park Chung-hee and Kim Dae-jung. Following Lee Kuan Yew's passing, not only were there no reports on Kim Dae-jung's criticism of Lee Kuan Yew by mainstream Korean media outlets, there were also no relevant comments from members of liberal democrats in Korea. Amid my disappointment, I can't help but wonder whether, under a conservative administration, the public no longer recognizes South Korea as a democratic country? And therefore wipe clean

22

Kim Dae-jung's contribution and achievements? Such is very unfair to Mr. Kim Dae-jung.

On the other hand, Japanese media outlet Weekly Toyo Keizai, after noting my Facebook post, its deputy editor-in-chief Keisuke Fukuda published an article that made an in-depth comparison of three Asian leaders — namely Kim Dae-jung, Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Teng-hui. In the piece titled "Lee Kuan Yew who stirred up a debate with his interpretation of 'Asian values'," the author cited Kim Dae-jung's words in noting that "Asia has a rich heritage of democracy-oriented philosophies and traditions, and that Asia has already made great strides toward democratization and possesses the necessary conditions to develop democracy even beyond the level of the West." The article then concluded with Lee Teng-hui's statement that "Lee Kuan Yew's interpretation of the 'Asian values' was greatly influenced by feudal Chinese thoughts, which, upon leaving Singapore, would not be accepted by people elsewhere in Asia.“

This comparison made by the Japanese media highlights the wisdom and greatness of Kim Dae-jung and Lee Teng-hui, it also proves that Korea and Taiwan, both of Confucius cultures, can 100 percent implement the western democracy and free electoral system, and that there's no reason that Singapore and China cannot.

Late renowned US political scientist Samuel Huntington had also once said that the democratic system implemented by Lee Teng-hui in Taiwan will live on after him but the system built by Lee Kuan Yew will disappear once he is gone. Per Lee Kuan Yew's comment, "history will be the judge" of Huntington's statement.

As a matter of fact, as today we look back on the Era of “Developmental Autocracy” we went through, history has already made its judgment and ascertained that "the Lee Dynasty/Chiang Dynasty/Park Chung-hee" were of dictatorial authoritarian rule, whereas "Lee Teng-hui/Kim Dae-jung" made democratic achievements that earned Taiwan and Korean world recognition.

Yet, the irony is that the road to democracy is not a straight path but one full with twists and turns; Taiwan and Korea, after undertaking liberal democratic regime for twenty years and ten years respectively, are both experiencing a regression of democracy following the comeback of conservative administration. The regression of democracy in Korea under the conservative administration saw incidents such as the National Intelligence Service's violation of administrative neutrality in 2012 in the presidential election, the man-made error in the sinking of ferry the Sewol in 2014, and the forceful dismissal of political parties. All these anti-democratic cases need not further elaboration from me here as I believe Korean friends know about all these clearer than I do. What I would like to share with you here is that Taiwan, in the past seven years, is also going through a comeback of conservative administration, and that despite his approval rating dipping to the low of mere 9 percent, the

23

Ma Ying-jeou administration continues to go against the public opinion, stand opposed to the people and infringe people's human rights. 1. The Wild Strawberry Movement

The Ma Ying-jeou administration took on a pro-China stance soon as Ma assumed the presidency in May 2008. Half a year later on November 3 during the Taiwan visit made by China's top official for Taiwan affairs Chen Yunlin, the Ma government, in welcoming the Chinese envoy, employed numerous measures to protect him from being in a close contact with Taiwanese protesters. During Chen Yunlin's stay in Taiwan, the police, under the pretense of security concern, resorted to various means such as dispelling, restricting and arresting of people who voiced different opinions as well as confiscating their belongings. The most ridiculous among them all were incidents of police boorishly snatched away the Republic of China flags from people's hands and confiscated them. In other words, people were not allowed to wave their national flags in their own story. In order not to incur the wrath of his guest, Ma Ying-jeou employed almost every mean to throttle people's basic freedom and human rights.

The Ma government's various encroachment of human rights prompted sit-in protest by university students, professors and members of the general public. Starting November 6 till January the following year, thousands of protesters, via online social media platforms, echoed the students' call by either staging sit-in or holding demonstrations in front of the Executive Yuan, at the Liberty Square or on campus nationwide in protest of the government's "abuse of administrative power, encroachment on human rights and the constitutional violation of the Assembly and Parade Act." The protesters also demanded "an open apology from President Ma Ying-jeou, and resignation from National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun." The series of protests came to be known as the "Wild Strawberry Student Movement" — the largest scale of student protesting movement in 18 years since the 1990, also known as the "1106 protest against the Assembly and Parade Act and fight for human rights.“

Although no death was reported throughout the protests lodged by students and the general public, the bloodshed resulted from police's abuse of power came as a great shock to the young generation born after Taiwan's democratization, and had left with them a great impact. Because until then, they have not witnessed state violence that trampled on freedom, democracy and basic human rights to such a coarse level. One biggest problem exposed in the process was the Assembly and Parade Act that required advance permission from the authorities to hold assembly and parade, placed restriction on protesting areas, and provided police with the authority to order protesters to dispel and/or be faced with administrative punishment. All these provisions are outdated and unfit for this era of democracy, and yet the Ma government keeps on employing this dated law to oppress people's freedom of expression

24

in the era of democracy.

As a result of the series of protests, Ma Ying-jeou, in less than one year after assuming office, has lost people's trust and that his popularity had also since plummeted. In light of his low approval rating, Ma attempted to turn his poor governance around by instead forcibly working to strengthen cross-strait economic ties. In 2009, the Taiwan government proposed to China to sign the Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement; on June 29, 2010 in Chongqing, China, both sides inked the first agreement and began subsequent negotiations on issues such as cross-strait cargo services, cross-strait service trade, cross-strait investment guarantee agreement and cross-strait trade dispute resolution agreement.

These agreements, tantamount to the free-trade agreements (FTA), however did not undergo decade-long discussion, negotiation, amendment and communications with the public and the legislature and obtain majority consensus before signing as Korea had done with the US and China in their inking of the FTAs. From Ma Ying-jeou's presidential campaign in early 2008 mentioning the ECFA to the actual signing of the cross-strait agreement, it took less than two-and-a-half years to complete. Such radical China-leaning action led to more resentment toward Ma from members of the general public who received no economic gains from the inking of the cross-strait agreement. Supporting Ma from behind are the ones stand to benefit from the agreement, a handful of businessmen who conduct business and made investment in China, the so-called members of the "cross-strait political-business crony group." 2. Anti-media Monopoly Movement

Amid public skepticism over Ma Ying-jeou's pro-China stance, in 2012 the Wang Wang Group, a Taiwanese company that made fortune by selling rice crackers in China, acquired the financially struggling China Times Group with NT$ 22 billion. The fact the China-based Taiwanese company was able to conduct the media buyout with such an enormous cash has led many in the Taiwan pubic to suspect a financial support of Beijing's State Council from behind to make the deal even possible.

After becoming the new owner of the media group, Want Want China Times Group chairman Tsai Eng-meng, in an interview with the Washington Post, said that the crackdown on the protests at Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 was "no massacre." Tsai's claim was more brazen than China's mouthpiece People's Daily and enraged many Chinese democracy activists. Tsai's remarks also shocked many Taiwanese intellectuals, whom in return issued statements and called for boycott of the China Times as they suspected the possibility of the government of the People's Republic of China interfering with Taiwan's democracy via Taiwanese conglomerates such as the Want Want China Times Group.

Subsequently on July 31 the same year, student groups including ones at the National Taiwan

25

University and the National Tsing Hua University formed an organization named the Youth Alliance Against Media Monsters. Nearly 700 students called upon by the organization gathered in front of the CtiTV, part of the Want Want China Times Group, and protest over the Want Want China Times Group's unfair reportage. The protesters, chanting slogan that said "I am a student, I am against the Want Want China Times Group," formally pledged their participation in the Anti-media monopoly movement.

The Anti-media monopoly movement, also known as "the Anti-media monster movement," was a joint student and social movement launched in 2012. The 901 Anti-media Monopoly Alliance and the Youth Alliance Against Media Monsters — made up by student groups from various universities and colleagues nationwide — were the main organizations behind the movement. Their appeals included opposition to the Want Want China Times Group's purchase cable television services, the Want Want China Times Group's buyout of the Next Media Group and a demand for a legislation of a media anti-monopolization act. Among the main appeals also included the safeguarding of Taiwan's freedom of press, opposition against media monopoly, and prevention of Taiwanese media outlets from being controlled by Chinese capital and Taiwanese conglomerates.

On September 1, Taiwan's Reporters' Day, nearly 100 civic groups took to the street under the lead of the Association of Taiwan Journalists in protest against media monopoly. The protest marked a rare joint alliance between social and student movements, given the participation of civic groups as well as the Youth Alliance Against Media Monster. More than 20,000 people took part in the demonstration, the largest protest in Taiwan's history that aimed at one single media outlet, which was also the first time where media issue was at the center of civic movement in Taiwan. The demonstration ended in peace, with no incident of clash nor bloodshed. This Chinese-capital media outlet has awakened Taiwanese people's alertness that, without the import of China's People's Daily, there's already Beijing's proxy in Taiwan. If it wasn't for the Ma Ying-jeou administration's pro-China stance, Chinese penetration of Taiwan would not be able to make infiltration into Taiwan's media.

Korean friends can think about it and imagine the scenario if North Korea were to have its capital made inroads in South Korea and conducted a buyout of the mainstream newspapers such as the Chosun Ilbo to become its Nodong Sinmun (Workers' Daily) and therefore its mouthpiece in South Korea. Will South Korean friends find this acceptable? It's be like The Fifth Column during the Spanish Civil War. The fact is, not only the Taiwanese media, but all arenas in the Taiwan society have been infiltrated. The pro-China Ma Ying-jeou government created this sense of distorted values among the people in Taiwan in which they can't tell enemy apart from their own; as for people serving in the Taiwanese military, they have also been compounded by a feeling that they do not know who and what they are fighting for.

26

3. Human rights abuses in the military

This was a case of death of an army corporal in Taiwan. Hung Chung-chiu was initially scheduled to be discharged from the military on July 6, 2013. He however died on July 4. The case drew public attention because the cause of his death was a result of military scandal in which he allegedly suffered agonizing pain from accumulated “inhumane physical punishments” that led to his death. In an administrative investigation report published by the Ministry of National Defense on July 15, it named the army's 542nd Brigade and the 269th Brigade of negligence in the process of keeping Hung Chung-chiu in confinement.

At the end of June before Hung Chung-chiu was to be discharged after completing his year-long compulsory military, he was accused of violating rules pertaining to military information security for bringing a camera-equipped cell phone and an MP3 player onto his base. After the case went under review by the military's disciplinary and evaluation committee, Hung Chung-chiu was transferred to the 269th Brigade for a confinement as a punishment. Hung Chung-chiu, 98-kilo in weight, underwent physical drill in extreme hot weather on July 3 and the following day died of heat exhaustion after excessive punishment.

The case drew great public attention because it involved the issues of human rights in the military and the jurisdiction of the Military Prosecutor General's Office. It also prompted the launch of the activist group Citizen 1985 which went on and staged two mass demonstrations demanding the military reveal the truth about Hung Chung-chiu's death and calling for the government to push for better protection of human rights in the military. Because of the protests, Code of Court Martial Procedure was amended three days later that allow service personnel to be tried in civilian courts in peace time rather than by court-martial.

The "White T-shirt" movement launched by the Citizen 1985 was a social movement erupted following the death of Hung Chung-chiu in the military. Two demonstrations were staged, one was a march held on July 20, and the other was a mass protest held on August 3, 2013. The protesters, were known as the “white shirts," because they all wore white T-shirt in the protests demanding the military reveal the truth about Hung Chung-chiu’s death. People who took part in the protests did not have affiliation with any particular groups, as both times the demonstrations were organized through online social media platforms such as the Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) in universities and the Facebook where people attended the protests on their own initiative. A total of 250,000 people participated in the protests, the largest scale of social movement in Taiwan's history where members of the general public came forward to take part in the demonstration on their own initiative. This demonstration, where protesters came together via online communication, had also been called as Taiwan's version of the "Jasmine Revolution."

In the past, except for the Double Ten National Day where military display were staged,

27

there weren't such a crowd seen in front of the Presidential Office, let alone a mass demonstration in which more than 90 percent of participants were twenty-something young people. The case of violence in the military instilled a profound bitterness between the Ma Ying-jeou administration and the young generation. Despite so, Ma Ying-jeou still feels good about himself and is totally unaware of how he is already on the path of becoming a Lame Duck —and all these occurred just within one years of his re-election. The young generation, born after Taiwan's democratization (1998), possesses an innate sense of democratic values. They cannot tolerate the state violence that makes them lost their lives while doing their compulsory military service. This fear drives the young people to the street and say "No" to the Ma government. 4. 318 Sunflower Movement

The Sunflower Movement, also known as the 318 Student Movement or the Occupying Legislature Incident, refers to the occupying of the legislature from March 18, 2014 to April 10, 2014 by Taiwanese university students and members of the non-governmental organizations. It stemmed from the meeting of the legislative Internal Administrative Committee in the afternoon on March 17, 2014. During the meeting, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chang Ching-chung rammed through review of the controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in mere 30 seconds, prompting indignation from group of university and graduate students. The students held an evening rally titled "Night of Safeguarding Democracy" on March 18 at 6 pm in protest of the reckless and flippant manner in which legislative review was conducted; about 9 pm about 400 students broke through police's blockage and occupied the Legislative Yuan's main chamber.

Within the following 26 hours, some 10,000 people, mostly students, gathered outside the Legislative Yuan in support of the occupation. Among the main students leaders in the occupying-legislature action were members of the Black Island Youth Alliance, including graduate student of political science at National Taiwan University Lin Fei-fan, graduate student in sociology at National Tsing Hua University Chen Wei-ting, Dennis Wei and Shih Hsin University graduate student Chen Ting-hao. Supporters who gathered outside the Legislative Yuan included members of the Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Service Agreement, the Citizen 1985 and various social movement groups.

After the occupation of the legislature, the National Police Agency urgently dispatched police force to the Legislative Yuan. The police however were unable to enter the main chamber due to chairs and various furniture that the student protesters used to block the entrances to the chamber. In an attempt to force the students out of the venue, the police resorted to numerous methods such as locking down internet access inside the chamber to block the students from issuing information to the outside world, shutting down electricity and turning off the air-conditioning inside the chamber as well as closing down the toilets. But all to no

28

avail. As standoff between the student protesters and police ensured, sporadic physical scuffles took place that resulted in some being injured.

At 7 pm on March 23, another group of students stormed to the nearby Executive Yuan compound and broke into the building, where they staged a sit-in protest for about five hours before being forcibly dispelled by the police at around midnight. Police violence and brutality in the process resulted in many injured, and the whole country was in shock as images of inured having their faces covered with blood while a few other passed out were broadcast via online live feed. The bloodshed happened because of directive issued by then-premier Jiang Yi-huah, formerly a political science professor at National Taiwan University, to disperse the protesters from the Executive Yuan compound. Since then, Jiang, who self-labeled a liberal academic, had his image shuttered in the opinion of the students; the university students' anti-government will was further fortified in view of the police's use of violence against the student protesters.

The protesters subsequently called for members of the public to stage a sit-in on the Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office on March 30. On that day, 500,000 black-clad protesters swarmed in the areas around the Presidential Office and the Legislative Yuan, all located within the Boai Special District (which has a high concentration of government buildings). On April 6, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng visited the students at the legislature's main chamber and promised he would not convene negotiation of all legislative caucuses on the issue of cross-strait service trade agreement until a legislation on the monitoring of cross-strait agreements is enacted. The students felt Wang Jin-pyng's goodwill and announced on the evening of April 7 that the protesters would clear out of the legislative chamber at 6 pm on April 10.

This event marked the first time in Taiwan's history that the legislature's chamber was occupied by members of the public. Throughout the process via live stream video and broadcast, Taiwan's young generation also wowed the world with their display of courage and independence in partaking civic engagement.

This grand-scale protest was the largest student movement since the Wild Lily Student Movement in 1990. The inspiration for social movement among the core leaders of the Sunflower movement originated from the Wild Strawberries Movement in 2008, as well as the Gwangju Democratization Movement, from which they learnt of Korean's fighting spirit. (Some of the student leaders in the Sunflower Movement had also watched the film ”May 18 (화려한 휴가)” that depicted the Gwangju Uprising , as well as heard of my speech on "how Koreans rectified their past.")

Sunflower became the symbolic representative of this student movement because a flower shop-owner delivered 1,300 flowers to the students during the protest in support of their

29

appeals. Sunflower symbolizes positivity and brightness , which echoed the students' wish that the protest could "shine light" on the government's "black-box," or opaque, handing of the cross-strait service trade agreement; the flower also represented the expectation the students had for Taiwan that it could be like the sunflower, turns to follow the sun. These young people indeed achieved a new alternative kind of "Taiwan miracle," for the fact that the Sunflower student movement started out with no sufficient preparation nor organization, yet the student protesters were able to occupy the legislature's chamber for 24 days, with orderly operation throughout this period.

The awakening of this new generation stemmed from the sense of strong uncertainly they felt about their future. The young people of this "democratic generation" were stunned by the state violence against the student protesters during the 324 protest that resulted in bloodshed and injuries of many. Meanwhile the Sunflower student movement also shocked the whole Taiwan, one that captivated the young generation, and touched the hearts of the many of the elder generation. It was an education for all, from which members of the public realized not only why they needed to oppose to the cross-strait service trade pact, but also became aware of the Ma government's lack of alertness in the face of China's threats. Due to the Sunflower Movement, the people become conscious of the notion that "one must safeguard one's own country." When 500,000 people swamped to the streets, it was no longer a mere student movement, but a "Save Taiwan Movement" engaged by all members in the Taiwan public.

Although the 2014 Sunflower Movement stemmed from people's opposition to the government's "black-box" handling of the cross-strait service trade pact, it in fact also manifested the public's collective anger of the Ma government' China-leaning policy. 90 percent of the people in Taiwan favor independence and/or maintaining statue quo; yet from the Chen Yunlin Incident (oppression of national flags) in 2008, the signing of the ECFA (one-China market) in 2010, to the proposed cross-strait service trade agreement ("a black-box" operation) in 2014, the nation's statue quo is in fact constantly being damaged all the while fast propelling toward the direction of unification (with China). It was fortunate that there came about the Sunflower student movement to put a brake to the matter. As Columbia University political science professor Andrew Nathan noted, "China's 'united front' tactic to bring Taiwan under its fold suffered a great setback because of the student movement."

Different from the movements in the past, the Sunflower student movement won the support of the general public. Even people of the middle-class rank came forward in support of the students and cared not that the action of occupying the legislature was in itself an illegal act; many, on the other hand, took pride that their children participated in the movement. The support from the middle-class for the student movement this time around suggested they, too, felt a sense of crisis in term of the nation's future; meanwhile, they had also been awed by the level of maturity and competency displayed by the student movement leaders.

30

The danger of the proposed cross-strait service trade pact lies in the fact that it seeks to construct a "one-China market," through which allowed for an economy unification to pave way for an eventual goal of political unification. As the KMT held the majority in the legislature, a dependence on effort to take the matter from inside the system no longer was enough to stop the nation from falling further into the pit. The students therefore were forced to take the action of occupying the legislature in order to draw public's attention to the danger faced by the country.

In a speech made on the Ketagalan Boulevard during the March 30 protest, Lin Fei-fan said: "Our action defines a new Taiwan-China relations. We want to tell the government that Taiwan's future belongs to its 23 million people. Taiwan's future should be decided by us [Taiwanese people.]" In Taiwan, the most ridiculous thing is that China has always wanted to annex Taiwan (under what it called an unification), and that the president of Taiwan also keeps on wanting to push for an "eventual unification," whereas 90 percent of the people in Taiwan oppose to unification. Ma Ying-jeou however is oblivion to that public opinion; few politician also dare not to publicly proclaim that "I support Taiwan independence."

Lin Fei-fan was born in 1988 and Chen Wei-ting was born in 1990; both belong to the "Democratic Generation" during which the Martial Law had been lifted (Taiwan began democratization in 1988 after the death of Chiang Ching-kuo), and that the environment they grew up was fear-free. Taiwan's education had already undergone reform when they began schooling. The educational reform in Taiwan in the 1990s freed the children from the toxic KMT-trend of thoughts that was otherwise omnipresent during the Martial Law era. The Sunflower student movement could be said as one that showed forth the result of the nation's education reform these past twenty years. New education cultivated brand-new Taiwanese, and they will be the ones propelling Taiwan's progress forward in the coming twenty years. However, the anti-reform conservative power has not stopped. Per Lin Fei-fan's remarks, the 318 student movement is just the beginning, there are bigger challenges ahead. But Taiwanese have confidence in this "Sunflower Generation," the future belongs to them and they will lead Taiwan forward.

In the wake of the Sunflower Movement, some have these praises for the young people:

"Thanks to the Sunflower, Taiwan was able to safeguard its development!Thanks to the Sunflower, Taiwan was able to avoid being controlled by Ma Ying-jeou's personal great-China ideology!Thanks to the Sunflower, Taiwanese people were able to snatch back the control from the hands of the cross-strait "privileged bunch" and be the masters of their own lives!Thanks to the Sunflower, Taiwanese people were able to keep their free and democratic living style, and that Taiwan's future remains in the decision

31

of its 23 million people, free from Beijing authority's bullying!"

People partaking in Taiwan's Sunflower student movement, like the young people in the Arab Spring Uprising, have been termed "an angry generation." They not only stunned Asia, but also allowed for the world to see that the young generation in Taiwan wished not to unify with China nor become China's dependency, let alone to surrender to China under Ma Ying-jeou's lead. These young people stepped forward because they were angry that they saw no future nor hope in sight. Ordinary people in Taiwan do not feel economic growth nor benefit from it; the young people are faced with the situation where employment opportunity is getting harder all the while the wage is getting lower; the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wilder and that they could never be able to buy property because of the high housing price. They took part in the protest to vent their grievance.

Ma makes one-man decision-making at the expense of the country, in which his administration also abuses administrative power, shuns legislative supervision and proceeds poorly thought-out policy that lacks careful assessments. This decision-making style of the Ma government was once again in pathetic display this year in its handling of the country's application to be the founding member of China's proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Departing from the international norm of submitting a letter of intent, Ma Ying-jeou instead had the Mainland Affairs Council submitted the letter of intent to China's Taiwan Affairs Office, an action that tantamount to openly admitting that Taiwan is part of China, and overnight destroyed Taiwan's sovereignty and dignity which Taiwanese people have strived so hard to uphold. As a result, on March 31 around 9:30 pm, members of the groups such as the Black Island Youth Alliance, without prior notice, staged a protest in front of the Presidential Office, demanding the government to cease its self-degrading behavior, be transparent in its policy-making and refuse economic integration with China until there is a public consensus on the matter.

5. The 1129 electoral defeat

From the 250,000 people who took part in the demonstration over the Hung Chung-chiu case to the 500,000 people partaking in march during the Sunflower student movement, the KMT eventually was bruised in the nine-in-one local election on November 29, 2014. Among the important mayoral election for the nation's six special municipalities, the KMT lost five. In other words, the voters in Taiwan taught the Ma Ying-jeou administration a lesson with their ballots, and making President Ma Ying-jeou a lamb duck way ahead of the schedule. Ma has since the elections made less public appearance, and a number of his close aids and important Cabinet members have also since resigned. No one wanted to work under a "dictatorial president [of civilian background''] who is incompetent, unpopular and handles issues in arbitrary manner.

32

There was an episode to the KMT's electoral defeat. One week before the Election Day, the KMT introduced an "anti-Korea commercial," which accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of stalling the nation's development. The TV commercial described that South Korea — which has just reached a consensus with China on a free-trade agreement — was glad that the DPP boycotting the passage of ECFA in the legislature. This commercial backfired however and was frowned upon by many young people (all things Korean have been popular among the young generation in Taiwan because of the "Korean Wave" phenomenon). As such, the KMT had lost quite a number of votes in the election. This shabby TV commercial suggested there were no talents within the KMT that it was at its wit's end to produce such a commercial and made itself an international laughing stock

Conclusion

Up to this point, people may now have an idea as to why the Ma Ying-jeou administration is in such an embarrassing and embattling state. It could be said that it's Ma's own making that he brings on himself to this situation.

Koreans use the term "종북" to describe "pro-North Korea" people and groups. In Taiwan and else Chinese-speaking circles however, we don't use the word "종". Instead, we use "pro-"(親,친) or "leaning"(傾,경) to describe a country or a government administration's tendency. For example, "pro-Japan(親日,친일)" (a term also used by Koreans), and "China-leaning(傾中,경중)" (as in the case of the Ma Ying-jeou administration in Taiwan).

From this Korean term "종북," I've learnt that it is also applicable to the Ma Ying-jeou government, and therefore I called it a "China-obedience (종중) administration. Reason beings that he is "a Chinese in Taiwan" (an overseas Chinese living in Taiwan); he cannot identify with the land of Taiwan, and further more, he has been padding himself on the back for being "pro-China," "China-leaning" and "currying favor with China." His administration's policy is simply "종중" (willingly to become a China subsidiary).

Korean friends may find it hard to imagine how could a " China-obedience(종중) government" rule over Taiwan? This is just like if there emerges a "North Korea- obedience(종북) government" in South Korea in which the latter willingly becomes a subsidiary of the North Korean regime. In the past, no matter how the far-right extremists attacked the Kim Dae-jung or the Roh Moo-hyun administrations, they could at most only be described as "North Korea-friendly (우북)" and "pro-North Korea (친북)" administrations, and not the point of being called " North Korea- obedience(종북) administrations." The Ma Ying-jeou administration in Taiwan today however, is purely and simply a " China-obedience(종중)" administration.

A president directly elected by the people and yet does not see himself as a president of a

33

"country" but instead willingly regards himself as a subsidiary to the neighboring big country and takes himself as a local government to that big country. In other words, if today the North Korea is as big as China, would " North Korea- obedience(종북) administration" appear in South Korea? Of course this is just an "if" question, a hypothetical supposition. Taiwan should not be put in comparison with South Korea because they have different national conditions and different geopolitical stances.

However, what we can not deny is the fact that, in the 70 years after World War II, Korea and Taiwan are the only two countries in Asia that achieved successful democratization. This is our greatest contribution to the world and the mankind. It turns out, countries from "the circle of Confucius culture" can, too, implement 100 percent western democracy, capitalism and free electoral system. Since Taiwan and South Korea can do it, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore and Xi Jinping's China have no excuse not to; the only difference lies in whether they have in possession with them democratic disposition.

The Sunflower student movement also has an influence over Macau's "Macau Conscience" besieging-the-legislature movement in late May, 2015; it also influenced the "Occupy Central" campaign and the "Umbrella Movement" in Hong Kong that took place from September 26, 2014 to December, 15, 2014. The emergence of Asia's "Enraged Generation" is poised to usher in a new phase in Asia; changes are underway in the Chinese Characters-culture societies in places such as Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong, and even Korea (the protests in the wake of the sinking of the Sewol ferry), and that it'd only be a matter of time for changes to start taking place in Singapore and China. Besides, it is to Taiwanese people's belief that, a president who employed state violence against his own people and sold out national sovereignty and dignity will eventually face a trial by the people. Let's all wait and see!

35

台灣「從中（馬英九）政權」下的國家暴力與人權　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

　　　　　　　發表人：朱立熙　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　台灣「知韓苑」創辦人、高雄市人權委員

首先，讓我在此對金大中前大統領表達最高的敬意。我們坐在這個以他的名字命名的

國際會議中心裡¶ }會，就可以想見韓國人對他是多麼尊敬。這不是我第一次來到 KDJ 國際會議中心，但

今年再來，感受卻特別深刻，尤其在亞洲最後一位獨裁強人、新加坡前總理兩個月前

剛辭世之際，與李光耀相比，更顯² {了金大中的偉大。在李光耀於三月二十三日辭世的十二小時之後，我找出金大中先生在 1994 年 12

月發表在"Foreign Affairs"的一篇文章，”¨Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values"。當年我是把這篇文章翻譯成中文的人，並且把它收錄在 1998 年 2 月在台灣翻譯出版

的「大中經濟論」（Mass Participatory Economy）中文版的附錄之中。我把這篇文章摘錄一部分貼在我的臉書上，不到一天之間被三百多網友轉貼，其

中有兩成不» {識的網友要求加入成為我的臉友，讓我大感意外。這篇反駁李光耀所言「西方民主制

度不適用於亞洲」的文章，因為是金大中的文章被翻譯成中文的極少數一篇，不僅讓

台灣、香港、新加坡等中文世界的讀者大¶ }眼界，也讓他們終於可以讀到完全不同於中文主流媒體對李光耀歌¥ \頌德的聲音。而批判李光耀的聲音，來自於一個同為「儒家文化圈」的亞洲民主化成¥ \的韓國反對派政治人物，對中文讀者具有相當大的說服力， 在華文圈，我是唯一把金大中這篇舊作找出來發表的人。然而很可惜的是，在韓國網

路上，我只找到一篇報導是 Polinews 一個記者寫的，他做了李光耀、朴正熙與金大中

的比較，是相當有深度的分析。其他的韓國主流媒體都沒有在李光耀死後就金大中對

李光耀的批判有所報導，連韓國自由進步派的知識分子也沒有反應，讓我在失望之餘

不僅懷疑，難道在保守政權之下，大家都不承» {南韓是自由民主國家？所以把金大中的¥ \績都一筆抹消了？這對金大中先生實在太不公平了。 反而是日本媒體「東洋經濟週刊」看了我的貼文之後，由副編輯長福田惠介寫了一篇

金大中、李光耀、李登輝這三位亞洲領袖的深入比較報導：「以『亞洲價值』掀起論

戰的李光耀」。他引用金大中的主張，「以儒教為首，亞洲本來就有與民主共通的思

想，也有深度毫不輸給西方的民主哲學傳統」；並以李登輝所說做結論，「李光耀所

談的亞洲價值是受到中國封建思想的影響，只要離¶ }新加坡，亞洲其他地方的人就不會被接受。」

36

　　日本媒體這樣的比較，凸顯了金大中與李登輝的智慧與偉大，也證明「儒家文化圈」的韓國與台灣，可以百分之一百落實西方的民主與自由選舉制度，新加坡與中國沒有

理由做不到。　　此外，已故的美國知名的學者杭廷頓（Samuel Huntington）曾說過，「李登輝過世的話，台灣民主還能留下來，但是李光耀過世，制

度無法留下」，這樣的論點，相信如李光耀所言，不久之後「歷史會給出評價」。 事實上，今天再來回顧我們都曾經走過的「¶ }發獨裁」的時代，歷史的評價其實已經確定，也就是「李氏王朝／蔣氏王朝／朴正熙

」是獨裁，「李登輝／金大中」締造的民主成就，則讓台灣與韓國得到舉世的肯定。 然而，很諷刺的是，民主並不是一條直路，它是迂迴曲折的，台灣與韓國經歷了各二

十年與十年的民主歲月之後，都因保守政權的復辟，而走了民主的倒退路。韓國在保

守政權下的民主倒退路，諸如，2012 年國情院違反政治中立介入總統大選、2014 年的

「世越號沈船慘劇」的人禍，以及強制解散政黨等，這些反民主的事件相信韓國朋友

都比我清楚，不需要我多所說明。我在此想跟大家介紹，台灣在過去七年之間，同樣

是復辟的保守政權，馬英九政府又是怎麼倒行逆施，讓他的聲望跌落到只剩 9%之際，他還繼續拂逆民意，以國家暴力侵害人權與台灣人民為敵。

一、野草莓學運

　　2008 年 5 月上任的馬英九政權，一上任之後就¶ }始走「親中路線」。半年後的 11 月 3 日，中國對台事務最高官員陳雲林來台灣訪問

時，為了迎接與保護這位北京天朝派來的特使，設下了無數的防衛措施，以防止抗議

的台灣人民對他有近身的接觸。陳雲林訪台進行第二次高階會談，警察藉維安之名，以粗暴的驅離、沒收、禁制、拘捕等手段，對付表達不同意見的民眾。其中，最荒唐

的是，民眾在路邊手持中華民國國旗抗議，竟然被警察以粗暴手段沒收。也就是說，在自己的國家裏，連自己的國旗都不能拿。馬英九擔心觸怒上賓，幾乎用盡一切手段

來扼殺人民的基本自由與人權。 馬政府對基本人權之種種侵犯，觸發全台灣的大學生、教授及社會人士發動靜坐抗議

運動。學生透過網路串連，號召數千名民眾自 11 月 6 日至隔年 1 月於行政院前、自由

廣場、全台各地及校園，以靜坐及示威遊行方式抗議「行政濫權、侵犯人權、集遊法

違憲」，並要求「馬英九總統公¶ }道歉、警政署長王卓鈞下台」。這就是「野草莓學生運動」。是 1990 年之後 18 年來

最大規模的學生抗爭運動，又稱為「1106 爭取人權、反集遊法靜坐示威」。

37

　　在學生與民眾的抗爭過 µ {中，雖然沒有人死亡，但是警察濫用暴力，造成多次流血事件，對出生於民主化之後

的大學生世代，可說是莫大的衝擊與驚嚇，他們從來沒有見過國家暴力對自由、民主

與基本人權的蹂躪，可以到這麼粗暴的境地。而這中間暴露的最大問題，就是台灣的

「集會遊行法」規定的³ \可制、管制區、解散命令、行政處罰等，都已經過時而且不符合民主時代的需求。也

就是說，馬政府一再以惡法舊法來壓制民主時代人民的表² {自由。 這次抗爭運動，讓馬英九上任不到一年，就與人民為敵也失去了人民的信任，讓他的

聲望從此大幅下跌。馬英九在人氣低迷之際，卻強行以兩岸經濟關係的強化，試圖扭

轉施政的劣勢。於是由台灣政府於 2009 年向中國提出簽署《海峽兩岸經濟合作架構協

議》(Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework

Agreement)；後於 2010 年 6 月 29 日在重慶簽訂第一次協議，後續貨品貿易、服務貿易

、投資保障及爭端解決協議協商自此展¶ }。

這個相當於 FTA 的協定，並不像韓國與美國、中國簽署 FTA 之前，至少經過十年以上

的討論、協商、修正，再與國會、民意的溝通，建立多數的共識之後才正式簽訂。兩

岸的 ECFA 從馬英九於 2008 年年初競選總統的政綱中提出，到當選後簽訂不過兩年半

。如此激進對中傾斜的做法，讓沒有感受到或得到任何經濟利益的一般民眾，對他更

加反感。而在背後強力支持他的，只是少數在中國投資與經商的企業家，受惠的就是

這些被稱為「兩岸政商集團」的成員而已。

38

二、反媒體壟斷

馬英九政府的親中路線讓人民充滿疑懼之際，2012 年一家在中國賣米果賺大錢的旺旺

集團，以台幣 220 億元收購了經營不善的「中時媒體集團」。這家台商能拿出這麼多²

{金買下一個媒體集團，讓全民懷疑如果不是北京的國務院在背後的財力支援，是絕不

可能的事。

新買主接收後，旺中集團主席蔡衍明接受《華盛頓郵報》專訪時表示，在 1989 年六四

天安門大屠殺事件「並沒有人死亡」。這樣的說詞，比中國官方的人民日報更人民日

報，不僅激怒了中國民運人士，也讓台灣的知識分子大為震驚，於是紛紛發表聲明呼

籲抵制中時。他們»

{為，中華人民共和國政府可能透過旺旺集團等台灣財團，來干預台灣的民主。

　　

接著，在 7 月 31 日，包括台大、清大等 30 餘個學生社團，在網路上組成反媒體巨獸

青年聯盟。號召約 700 名學生聚集在中天電視台前，抗議中時集團新聞報導不公，表

達對旺中集團的不滿，遊行口號為「我是學生，我反旺中」，正式宣»

}加入反媒體壟斷運動。

　　

反媒體壟斷運動，又稱反媒體巨獸運動，為 2012 年在台灣發起的學生與社會運動，90

1 反媒體壟斷聯盟與由台灣各大學院校學生組成的反媒體巨獸青年聯盟為推動此運動的

主要團體。反對旺中併購有線電視系統案、反對壹傳媒併購案，要求制定反媒體壟斷

法。他們以維護台灣新聞自由、反對媒體壟斷、防止中資與台灣財團控制台灣媒體為

主要訴求。

　　

9 月 1 日也就是台灣的「記者節」，近百個民間社團在「台灣新聞記者協會」的主導下

，發動反媒體壟斷大遊行。這些民間社團，組成 901 反媒體壟斷聯盟，共同推動反媒

體壟斷運動。反媒體巨獸青年聯盟也參與其中，形成學運與社運結盟的形式，這是歷

年來所僅見。這次大遊行，總參與人數超過二萬人，是台灣史上針對特定新聞媒體所

發動的最大一次遊行活動，也創下媒體議題成台灣公民抗爭運動首例的示威。沒有衝

突也沒有流血，以和平理性收場。但是這家中資媒體，讓台灣人民覺醒，中國的人民

日報不必進口到台灣，就已經有代言人在台灣替北京發聲。如果不是馬英九政權的親

中國路線，中國對台灣的侵入，不可能連新聞媒體都被滲透進來了。

　　

韓國朋友不妨想想，如果北韓的資金進入南韓，並且買下主流報紙的「朝鮮日報」（C

hosun

Ilbo），做為「勞動新聞」一樣在南韓的傳聲筒，韓國朋友可以接受嗎？這種形同西班

39

牙內戰時的「第五縱隊」（The Fifth

Column），不只在台灣媒體而已，事實上已經滲透到台灣社會各領域了。親中的馬英

九政府，造成台灣人的敵我不分，連台灣的軍隊也因「不知為何而戰」而陷入價值錯

亂的危機。

三、軍中人權蹂躪事件

　　這是台灣發生的陸軍士兵死亡案件。義務役士官洪仲丘原預定於 2013 年 7 月 6 日退伍

，卻在 7 月 4 日死亡，由於死因疑似遭欺凌、虐待，或其他軍事醜聞而引發社會輿論

關注。國防部在 7 月 15 日公布的行政調查報告（「陸軍六軍團湖口裝甲五四二旅洪仲

丘下士禁閉室悔過期間死亡案」），指陸軍第六軍團及裝甲五四二旅、機械步兵二六

九旅都有違失，禁閉 µ {序出² {瑕疵。

　　洪仲丘在 6 月底退伍前夕，因攜帶具備拍照¥

\能之行動電話和 MP3 隨身碟進入軍營，被指控違反軍隊資訊安全保密規定。洪仲丘懲

處案經士官獎懲評議委員會（士評會），被移送二六九旅高山頂營區，實施禁閉室「

悔過」處分。7 月 3 日在室外溫度達紅旗警戒，體重 98 公斤、身高體重指數過高時，

禁閉單位仍執行操練，造成洪仲丘中暑、熱衰竭，引發彌散性血管內凝血而死。

　　

此案涉及軍中人權，及軍事檢察署是否具有管轄權等議題，引起臺灣社會高度關注，

並促成「公民 1985 行動聯盟」的「公民教召運動」、「八月雪運動」等兩次抗議活動

（合稱白衫軍運動），要求軍隊社會化，最後促成軍事審判法於三日內修法，在承平

（非經總統宣戰）時期，將軍人審判從軍法體系全面移至民間司法單位。

　　

由公民 1985 行動聯盟發起的白衫軍運動，是洪仲丘在軍中被凌虐致死事件發生後引爆

的社會運動，分為兩次遊行活動，第一次為 7 月 20 日的「公民教召」遊行，第二次為

2013 年 8 月 3 日的「萬人送仲丘」晚會（八月雪運動）。「白衫軍」的名稱，是公民 1

985 行動聯盟號召眾人穿「白衣」，要求「真相大白」的概括性稱呼，實際上運動參與

者並無組織性。兩次過 µ

{完全由公民自主發起、自動參與，主要透過網際網路（特別是大學的 BBS 與 Faceboo

k 等社交網站）串連，一共有二十五萬人參與，是臺灣史上最大規模由公民自發的社會

運動。這場由網友網路串聯發起的新型抗爭，被譽為臺灣版的「茉莉花革命」。

過去在台灣總統府前面，除了國慶日¾

\兵遊行之外，從未見過如此大規模的群眾示威，而且九成以上是二十多歲的年輕人。

軍隊的暴力事件，讓馬英九政府與年輕世代結下了深厚的仇隙。但是馬英九仍然「自

我感覺¨ }好」，完全不知道他已經漸漸走上 Lame

Duck 的道路，而這時候才是他當選連任的一年之際。出生於台灣民主化（1988）之後

40

的年輕世代，與生俱來的自由民主觀念，讓他們無法容忍國家暴力會讓他們在服義務

兵役時喪失自己的生命，這種恐懼感逼使年輕人走上街頭向馬政府大聲說「不」！

四、318 太陽花學運

太陽花學運，又稱 318 學運、佔領國會事件等，是 2014 年 3 月 18 日至 4 月 10 日間，

臺灣的大學生與 NGO 共同發起佔領國會的抗事件。起因於 3 月 17 日下午內政委員會

中，執政的國民黨立法委員張慶忠以 30 秒時間草率宣布完成《海峽兩岸服務貿易協議

》的審查，引發一群大學與研究所學生的反對，並於 18 日 18 時在立法院外舉行「守

護民主之夜」晚會，抗議輕率的審查 µ {序；之後有 400 多名學生於晚間 21 時突¯

}警方的封鎖線佔領立法院議場。

在 26 個小時內便有以學生為主的 1 萬多名民眾，聚集在立法院外表達支持。參與佔領

立法院議場行動者，主要學生領導人為「黑色島國青年°

}線」的成員，包括國立臺灣大學政治研究所研究生林飛帆，國立清華大學社會研究所

研究生陳為廷、魏揚、世新大學社發所研究生陳廷豪等人。外圍的支持群眾則由「反

黑箱服貿民主°

}線」、「公民 1985 行動聯盟」（前述主導洪仲丘事件二十五萬人抗爭的團體）與各

個社會運動團體所動員。

　　

議場遭到佔領後，警政署緊急調動警力前往立法院支援，抗議學生則用座椅堵住議場

門口以防止遭到警方攻入；警方多次嘗試攻堅並切斷議會網路，阻斷對外發布消息，

切斷議會電源，佔據廁所，關閉議會空調，意圖驅趕議場內部的學生，但都沒有成¥

\，其間雙方發生肢體衝突並且有數人受傷，之後雙方處於對峙態勢。

　　3 月 23 日晚間 19 時，另一批大學生衝至鄰近的行政院大樓，¯

}窗而入，佔據靜坐示威五個多小時後，24 日零時起陸續遭警方強制驅離。警察以暴力

鎮壓學生，造成多人受傷，血流滿面或休克而被扶持離¶ }²

{場的畫面，經由網路直播，震撼了全國。流血事件的發生，是由當時的行政院長、台

大政治系教授出身的江宜樺下令鎮壓所導致。江宜樺自我標榜的自由主義學者形象，

在學生心目中完全¯ }滅，大學生反政府的意志於是更加強烈。

　　

隨後，抗議者號召全台民眾於 3 月 30 日到總統府前的凱達格蘭大道靜坐、遊行。五十

萬穿黑衫的抗議者湧入總統府四周的博愛特區及立法院周邊。4 月 6 日，立法院長王金

平赴議場探視學生，承諾兩岸協議監督條例草案完成立法前，不會召集兩岸服務貿易

協議相關的黨團協商會議。學生感受到王金平的善意後，抗議者於 7 日晚間宣布將於 1

41

0 日晚上 6 時退出議場。這次事件是台灣歷史上，國會議場首次遭到占領。透過網路媒

體轉播² {場實況，震撼了國際，也讓世人對台灣新世代的自主性與勇氣，刮目相看。

　　

這次大規模的抗爭，是 1990 年野百合學運之後的大型學生運動。而核心領導人物的社

運啟蒙來自於 2008 年的野草莓運動，也從韓國光¦

{民主化運動，學到了韓國人的抗爭精神（這幾位學運領袖都看過光¦

{事件的電影「華麗的假期」，也聽過我的演講：「韓國人如何清算過去」）。

由於一名花商送了一千三百朵向日葵聲援學生，因此向日葵便成為此次學運的象徵物

。向日葵有向光性，代表陽光，又稱太陽花，學生希望這次抗爭能照亮黑箱服貿，也

期盼台灣未來能如太陽花一般，迎向太陽。這次太陽花學運沒有充分的準備，也沒有

組織，卻能有系統、有秩序地運作，佔領國會長達 24 天，這些年輕人確實創造了新的

另類「台灣奇蹟」。　　

一個新世代的覺醒，導因於他們對前途的強烈不安全感。324 國家暴力對第一次上街抗

爭的學生施暴，造成多人受傷流血事件，震撼了這些「民主化世代」。太陽花學運震

撼了整個台灣。年輕一代為之瘋狂，上一代也深受感動。這是一場全民教育，大家不

但因而瞭解為何要反服貿，更警覺到馬政權原來對於中國的威脅竟然完全不設防，全

民意識到「自己的國家必須靠自己救」。當五十萬人湧上街頭時，學運已經不再只是

學運，而是全民的保台運動了。　　2014 年的太陽花學運，導火線雖然是反對服貿協議的黑箱作業，卻是人民對馬政府傾

中政策的集體憤怒。台灣有九成民意主張獨立或維持² {狀，但從 2008 陳雲林事件（打壓國旗）到 2010 簽訂 ECFA（一中市場）到 2014 服

貿協議（黑箱作業），² {狀不斷地被¯ }壞，並快速朝向統一進展。好在有太陽花學運出來踩了剎車。美國哥倫比亞大學的黎

安友（Andrew Nathan）教授說，「學運使中國以經促統的統戰策略遭到嚴重挫敗」。　　跟過去的運動最不同的是，太陽花學運贏得了全民的支持。連中產階級也站出來挺學

生，他們不在乎佔領國會是違法行為，甚至以自己的子女也參與為榮。中產階級對這

次學運的支持，主要當然是因為對國家前途的危機感，而且學運領袖表² {的能力與成熟度，也令他們刮目相看。　　服貿協議的危險在於：它是要建構「一中市場」，透過經濟統一來達成政治統一。國

民黨掌握國會多數，靠體制內的管道，已經不足以阻擋國家之淪亡。逼使學生只能發

動佔領議場，喚醒全民注意國家的危機。　　林飛帆 3 月 30 日的凱道演講說，「我們的行動，對台灣與中國的關係做了新的定義。

42

我們告訴政府，台灣的未來屬於 2300 萬台灣人民，台灣的未來應該由我們自己決定。」台灣最荒謬的是，中國一直想要併吞（名為「統一」）台灣，但是台灣總統卻要推

動「終極統一」，有九成的民意反對統一，大家卻避免討論統獨，馬英九更視若無睹

，政治人物也很少敢公¶ }說「我主張台灣獨立」。 林飛帆生於 1988 年，陳為廷 1990 年，他們是解除戒嚴之後的民主化世代（台灣在 1988 年蔣經國死後¶ }始民主化），生活與成長在無需恐懼，不必說謊的環境。他們¶ }始上學時，教育改革已經啟動。台灣從 1990 年代啟動的教育改革，解放戒嚴時期國

民黨的思想教育對孩子的壓抑與毒害。太陽花學運，可以說是對二十年教改的成果驗

收。新的教育，養成了嶄新的台灣人，今後二十年台灣的進步必將由他們推動。 然而

，反改革的保守勢力並未停止反撲。林飛帆說，318 學運只是序曲，更大的挑戰還在

後頭。但台灣人對太陽花世代有信心，未來屬於他們，他們一定能帶領台灣繼續前進

。 後來有人這樣讚美這些年輕人：　　「感謝太陽花，台灣才能保住發展的命脈！

　　　感謝太陽花，台灣才能免於被馬英九個人的大中國意識形態強橫宰制！

　　　感謝太陽花，台灣人民才能從兩岸政商權貴手中，爭回命運的主導權！

　　　感謝太陽花，台灣人民才能保有民主自由生活方式，保有台灣前途由兩

　　　千三百萬人共同決定，不必橫遭北京當局的霸凌！」

　　

台灣的太陽花學運世代，跟阿拉伯之春的年輕人一樣被稱為「憤怒的一代」，他們不

僅震撼了亞洲，也讓全世界都看到了台灣新世代不願與中國統一，不願成為中國

附庸，更不願跟著馬英九一起向中國投降。年輕人會憤而站出來，是因為他們看

不到未來，看不到希望。台灣的經濟讓一般人民沒有感受到成長與實惠，年輕人就業

機會越來越難，薪資越來越低，高房價讓他們永遠買不起住屋，貧富差距越來越大，

才以抗爭行動來發洩他們的不滿。

　　

馬英九政權沒有經過完整規劃與慎重評估，一意孤行的濫用行政權、逃避國會的監督

，以「一人決策、賠上全國」。直到 2015 年參加亞投行的決策還是一樣，意向同意書

未依照國際應有的 µ {序提出申請，馬英九卻要陸委會交付中國的國台辦，等於在國際上公¶ }承» {台灣是屬於中國的一部分，將台灣人民努力捍衛的主權及尊嚴一夕之間摧毀。於是在

今年 3 月 31 日黑色島國青年°

}線等團體成員在晚間 9 點半突襲總統府抗議，訴求拒絕主權矮化、提出實質評估、µ

{序公¶ }透明，凝聚社會共識、民意基礎不足，停止與中國的政經整併。

五、1129 選舉慘敗

從洪仲丘事件 25 萬人的抗爭，到太陽花學運的 50 萬人抗爭，所導致的結果，就是國

43

民黨政權在 2014 年 11 月 29 日九項地方選舉中的慘敗，其中最重要的六都市長選舉，

國民黨失去了五都。全台灣的選民用選票給了馬英九政權狠狠地教訓，讓馬英九總統

提早成為跛¸ }鴨。選後至今，馬英九已經很少公¶

}露面，他身邊的親信與重要閣員也相繼求去，因為沒有人願意在無能、不得人心又獨

斷獨行的「文人獨裁總統」手下替他做事。

　　

國民黨之所以慘敗，還有一段插曲。國民黨在選前最後一週，推出了一個「反韓」的

廣告，目的是為了打擊民進黨。廣告中訴求說，都是民進黨在國會杯葛 ECFA 的通過

，而最高興的就是韓國，韓國一直在竊笑著。這個廣告反而製造了反效果，讓年輕世

代的選民大為反感（台灣的年輕世代都因為韓流而哈韓），因而替國民黨流失了無法

計數的選票。由這個拙劣的廣告，也可看出國民黨內確實已經沒有人才，才會黔驢技

窮地做出這種貽笑國際的廣告了。

44

結語

至此，大家都應該可以了解，為什麼馬英九政權會落到如此窘困的境地了。他可說是

咎由自取。　　韓國人用「從北」（扈從或順從）這樣的語彙來形容「親北韓」的人物或團體。在台

灣與其他的華文圈，我們並不用「從」這樣的字眼。我們只用「親」或「傾」來套用

在某個國家或政權之前。例如：「親日」（韓國也用這個語彙）、「傾中」（例如² {在台灣的馬英九政府）等。　　從韓文「從北」這個詞彙，讓我學到可以應用在馬英九政權，而稱之為「從中」政權

。因為他是在「台灣的中國人」（住在台灣的華僑），他不只對台灣這塊土地沒有» {同，一直以「親中」、「傾中」、「媚中」為能事，他的政府的政策更是「從中」（自甘從屬於中國）。 韓國朋友們可能無法想像，一個「從中政權」何以能夠統治台灣？這就如同南韓出² {了一個「從北政權」，自己甘於從屬於北韓政權。過去的金大中、盧武鉉政權，不論

極右派如何攻擊他們，他們只能算是「友北」、「親北」政權，還不到「從北」。但

是今天台灣的馬政權，不折不扣就是一個「從中」政權。　　一個由人民直選產生的總統，卻不承» {自己是一個「國家」的總統，而甘於從屬於旁邊的大國，承» {自己只是那個大國的一個地方政府。換句話說，如果今天北韓大如中國，南韓會出² {「從北政權」嗎？當然這只是個假設性、虛構性的想像，國情不同、地緣政治不同，台灣與南韓不應該拿來類比。　　不過，我們都不能否» {的一個事實是：二次世界大戰之後七十年間，亞洲民主化成¥ \的國家只有韓國與台灣。這是我們對人類與世界最偉大的貢獻：原來「儒家文化圈」的國家是可以 100%落實西方民主主義、資本主義與自由選舉制度。既然台灣與南韓都

可以做到，李光耀的新加坡與習近平的中國沒有理由做不到，差別只在於他們是否具

備民主素養而已。　　太陽花學運後來影響了 2015 年 5 月下旬澳門的「澳門¨ }心」包圍立法會的抗爭運動；也影響了 2014. 9. 26.~12. 15. 香港人七十九天的佔中雨傘運動，爭取特首真普選的抗爭。亞洲憤怒的新世代的崛起

，必然為亞洲揭¶ }一個截然不同的新時代面貌，漢字文化圈的台灣、澳門、香港，乃至於韓國（世越號

慘案後的抗爭）都已經¶ }始變貌，新加坡與中國的變化也不會太久。而且，台灣人都相信，一個對內以國家暴

力與人民為敵的元首，對外 出賣國家主權與尊嚴的總統，最後一定會受到人民的公審

，大家可以拭目以待！