王清峰必须面对的羞辱

王清峰必须面对的羞辱
2009/03/04 12:40
绿点

王清峰是律师，更是人权律师。她长期从事人道救援及协助工作，包括成立「妇女救援基金会」、「百合中途之家」、「慰安妇申诉专线」。921地震後，她也投入灾後重建工作。

但是，诚如赖幸媛被马英九网罗，作为出卖台湾的傀儡，王清峰可是被马英九网罗，作为政治迫害的傀儡。为何如此？

怎麽不会这样？海外20多位学者与作家联名的第三封致马英九英文公开信(注)就35500;，他们针对台湾整个司法的腐蚀(the erosion of judicial system in Taiwan)，公开对王清峰部长表示担忧，但是王清峰的回覆却否认司法程序是遭到破坏以致偏离正义(the judicial process is flawed and partial)。

在这第三封公开信中，20多位学者与作家列举，以美国自由之家和国际特赦组织的呼吁，说明政府尚未就中国特使陈云林访问台湾期间警察侵犯基本自由加以改进；以孔杰荣的批评和美联社的报导，讨伐中国党员和立法委员政治性干涉前总统陈水扁案件；引用美联社报导王业立(Wang Yeh-lih)教授针对在扁案上违反侦察原则的指控，非常忧虑唯有检察官办公室才能大规模　露这种内容和性质的内幕。

马英九会听进这20多位学者与作家的呼吁，重建台湾整个司法的信用(to restore the credibility of the judicial system in Taiwan)？

截至目前为止，马英九还没有重建司法的动作。王清峰主掌法务部，对於「司法的腐蚀」负有行政责任。如果马英九要重建司法，他必须以撤换王清峰开始。他会撤换宿有人权美誉的傀儡？

如果马英九忙於政治迫害，无心司法改革，宿有人权美誉的王清峰会自动请辞？

人权美誉？以私人喜好的角度观之，王清峰在过去的表现上，不愧是人权工作者。然而，以公务责任的角度观之，除非她负有上头交待的政治任务，否则无法解释她在扁案上一再违反人权的发言。

针对检察官与法官以表演的方式嘲讽陈水扁遭到收押的情况，王清峰居然说我们只是把民众的一些看法表演出来而已。她难道要踩在陈水扁的基本人权上，致陈水扁於死地才过瘾？

针对扁办考虑召开国际记者会，将扁案诉诸国际的做法，王清峰却认为抹黑自己的国家，对国人没有好处。她难道不认为人权无国界，国际知悉台湾「司法的腐蚀」就是抹黑自己的国家？

针对「台中地方法院法官张升星批评，高院两度撤销羁押陈水扁的原裁定这等荒谬而无聊的司法程序，就是台湾社会的乱源」说，王清峰不思改进，却扯谈「要当个全力以赴的法务部过客。」

既然身为部长的王清峰无力根除「台湾社会的乱源」，马英九留她，也是看重她的大用，她必须面对无心且无力改革台湾司法的羞辱。

在土城看守所的庭院内，有一条给拘押人也给访客欣赏的标语∶「法律之内，人人自由(Within the law, everyone is free)」。不！这条标语是用来羞辱拘押人与访客。难道土城看守所内所有拘押人都是有罪？

这条「法律之内，人人自由」标语，不仅遭到司法迫害、政治迫害的拘押人必须承受的羞辱，也是王清峰自愿或他迫而受困在法务部长上必须承受的羞辱。既然在迫害当急的环境中，「法律之内，人人自由」不能从土城看守所内移走，在王清峰办公室门外也应该立下「法律之内，人人自由」这条标语，天真祈盼她终能悔悟，能「承认司法【真的】有问题(to acknowledge that there 【even】 is a problem【原文是不情愿承认甚至有问题】)」(同注)。

注∶《Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3》
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/01/21/2003434326

Wednesday, Jan 21, 2009
DEAR PRESIDENT MA

We the undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, consider ourselves long-time supporters of a democratic Taiwan. We write to express our concern regarding the erosion of the judicial system in Taiwan during the past few months.

On two previous occasions we have publicly expressed our concerns to Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), but the minister’s responses are troubling in their persistent failure to acknowledge that there even is a problem, and in their attitude of denial that the judicial process is flawed and partial. We trust that our raising our concerns with you as president will be treated as advice from international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation.

First we may mention the fact that your administration has not yet acted upon recommendations — made both by Freedom House and Amnesty International — to conduct an independent inquiry into the events surrounding the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陈云林), and in particular the police behavior and infringements on basic freedoms. The establishment of a scrupulously neutral commission is essential if there is to be a fair and objective conclusion on the disturbances that occurred during the Chen Yunlin visit.

Second, we are concerned about the legal proceedings in the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陈水扁). The switch of the case from a three-panel court that released him on his own cognizance on Dec. 13 to a court that subsequently re-incarcerated him on Dec. 25 — both Christmas Day and Constitution Day — seems to have resulted from political pressure from KMT members of the Legislative Yuan. In his commentary in the South China Morning Post of Jan. 8, 2009, professor Jerome Cohen presented details of such political interference in the judicial system, while The Associated Press on Jan. 4 also gave incisive insights in the process that took place.

Third, we are deeply concerned by the widespread pattern of leaks to the media regarding ongoing cases — leaks which because of their content and nature can only have come from the prosecutors’ offices. As was reported by The Associated Press on Jan. 4, 2009, prominent observers in Taiwan such as professor Wang Yeh-lih of National Taiwan University charge that these leaks come from prosecutors who “consistently violated the principle of guarding the details of investigations during the Chen case.”

This pattern of behavior displays a distinct bias in the judicial system and a disregard for fair and impartial processes.

The lack of attention to professional judicial standards reached a new low with the skit by several prosecutors who satirized those whom they are prosecuting. We are disturbed by Minister Wang’s defending this as “just for fun.”

Press agencies quote the minister as saying: “It was just a play to help everybody relax. There’s no reason to take it too seriously.”

In our view the actions by the prosecutors and the comment by Minister Wang display a lack of judicial professionalism and political neutrality.

We reiterate that any cases of alleged corruption must be investigated, and that if the defendants are found guilty in a scrupulously impartial process, they should receive just punishment after trial. We thus emphasize that the political neutrality of the judicial system is a fundamental element in a democracy. The examples mentioned above indicate that the investigative process has been conducted and sensationalized to the extent that both the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence have been seriously jeopardized. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.

In addition to the harm done to the personas of those accused, the international image of Taiwan has suffered. A president of a country bears political responsibility for the conduct of his subordinates’ actions, and we therefore urge immediate and decisive action to correct the severe flaws in the process that are staining the national honor, perhaps irreparably.

Taiwan’s judicial system must be not only above suspicion but even above the appearance of suspicion of partiality and political bias. We appeal to you, Mr President, to restore the credibility of the judicial system in Taiwan and ensure that your government and its judiciary and parliamentary institutions safeguard the full democracy, human rights and freedom of expression, for which the Taiwanese people have worked so hard during the past two decades.

Respectfully yours,

Nat Bellocchi,
former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan

Coen Blaauw
Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC

St233;phane Corcuff
Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon, France

Gordon G. Chang
author, “The Coming Collapse of China”

David Curtis Wright
Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary

June Teufel Dreyer
Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Florida

Edward Friedman
Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Mark Harrison
Senior Lecturer, Head of the Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

Bruce Jacobs
Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Richard C. Kagan
Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St Paul Minnesota. Author, “Taiwan’s Statesman, Lee Teng-hui and Democracy in Asia” and other works on Taiwan

Jerome F. Keating
Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, “Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan’s complex history” and other works on Taiwan’s history

Hon. David Kilgour
former Member Parliament and Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, Canada

Victor H. Mair
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania

Donald Rodgers
Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas

Terence Russell
Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba, Canada

Christian Schafferer
Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, Chair Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, Editor “Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia”

Michael Stainton
York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada

Peter Tague
Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington DC

John J. Tkacik Jr
former Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC

Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

Vincent Wei-cheng Wang
Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia

Gerrit van der Wees
Editor Taiwan Communique, Washington DC

Stephen Yates
President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs

Terri Giles
Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles

Daniel Lynch
Associate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California

This story has been viewed 2569 times.

所有跟帖： 

• "普世价值"认为阿扁是清白的,洗钱是爱台,对其追查是卖台,侵犯人权 -惨绿- ♂ (0 bytes) () 03/08/2009 postreply 06:22:15