2016年11月28日 星期一

阮朝日,阮美姝 (-2016)、『台湾の礎を築いた日本人たち』,駱文森,吳滄瑜,蔡英文


「我的一生早已問心無愧,我的生命一如爸爸媽媽為我取的名字:『美姝』--…
PEOPLENEWS.TW

駱桑是令人尊敬的新聞界前輩!
2014:

陳銘城 阮美姝總是那麼優雅地為228歷史努力.請小英珍惜這些長輩的夢想.讓扭曲的歷史得到真相.

駱文森 吳滄瑜____日本語文教育家 台灣政界 學者許多名人曾在他的教室學過日語



 目前無此書的詳細資料 

『台湾の礎を築いた日本人たち』 緒方英樹氏著

2013/11/18 
日本統治時代の台湾で港湾、鉄道、道路、上下水道など基本的なインフラを整備するため、日本の各分野から集められた優れた技術者たちが尽力した。



阮美姝談228︰預謀整肅媒體

二二八事件罹難者阮朝日的女兒阮美姝畢生投入二二八研究,盼發掘歷史真相。 (記者陳慧萍攝)
陳儀呈報「首犯」 新聞界佔一半
〔記 者陳慧萍/台北報導〕二二八事件對台灣影響深遠,罹難者《台灣新生報》總經理阮朝日的女兒阮美姝調查發現,當年台灣行政長官陳儀呈報給蔣介石的二十名「首 要人犯」中,新聞界至少佔了一半,顯示國民黨政府有意趁亂整肅媒體、阻斷人民喉舌;她將舉辦「一九四七年消失的新聞界菁英」展示會,提醒台灣人民勿忘歷 史。
牽連上百名媒體人 新聞界大浩劫
畢生致力蒐集二二八史 料、今年已高齡八十六歲的阮美姝接受專訪指出,二二八查緝私菸事件發生後短短十天內,台灣主要各大報社領導人、編輯接連被當局逮捕,多人從此一去不回。據 她調查統計,當時受到牽連的媒體人數,可能高達一百人之譜,堪稱一場新聞界大浩劫;這些專業人士與二二八事件沒有直接關聯,卻被政府趁亂大規模整肅,「這 根本是有預謀的行動!」
20日起辦展示 提醒人民勿忘歷史
阮美姝將自十一月二十日起,於台北長春路自宅舉辦「一九四七年消失的新聞界菁英」展示會,以各種歷史文件,揭開政府以武力剷除菁英、造成言論浩劫的真相;她說,展覽目前規劃到明年二月底止,期待能吸引更多人主動了解、關注這段歷史。
阮 美姝說,過去二二八研究主要以地域劃分,但她在訪談過程中,驚覺許多罹難者同時具有媒體人身分,例如台大文學院長林茂生身兼《民報》社長、台灣行政官署教 育處副處長宋斐如亦是《人民導報》創辦人兼社長;她進一步追蹤發現,當時報社菁英不是失蹤、槍決,就是流亡海外,這一切顯非巧合。
經過多年 努力,阮美姝終於等到政府公布檔案,證實新聞界人士被當局列為首要整肅對象;根據陳儀在一九四七年三月十三日呈報給蔣介石的「首要人犯姓名調查表」,第一 批二十人名單中,高達十人與新聞界有關,除了林茂生、宋斐如外,《台灣青年》創辦人陳炘、《大明報》發行人艾璐生、《台灣新生報》編輯吳金鍊,以及她父親 阮朝日等人,都被當局列為「奸偽要角」、「陰謀叛亂首要」。
阮美姝拿出珍藏多年、二二八事件發生前夕的台灣報紙指出,當時台灣社會民生凋 敝,米價高漲、路有餓莩,《人民導報》、《民報》等媒體均勇於揭發社會真相,以批判性言論監督政府,早已被當局視為眼中釘;陳儀上呈的報告,更是直截了當 寫明,這些媒體人的「罪跡」,就是「利用報紙抨擊政府施政」、「竭力暴露施政弱點」、「煽動人心不滿」。
阮美姝說,她父親與新生報編輯吳金 鍊同在一九四七年三月十二日被逮捕,報社重要幹部如林界、邱金山、蘇憲章等人也莫名消失,但報社營運竟完全沒受影響;一星期後,當局就派陸軍少將毛恩章接 任她父親的職位,報社從此掌握在官方手中。整個過程安排縝密,好像早就預知會有這天,讓她不得不認為,二二八事件或許是擦槍走火,但台灣菁英被逮捕是早已 策劃的陰謀。
消滅知識界菁英 為白色恐怖奠基
阮美姝沉痛地表示,政府的行動就是要將台灣的知識菁英、言論自由消滅殆盡,為白色恐怖統治奠下基礎;二二八事件對台灣影響深遠,這些媒體人勇敢為人民發聲,竟遭到政府無情屠殺,令人痛心不已。
與新聞界緣份深厚的阮美姝回憶,她從小就跟著爸爸在報社進進出出,放學後常到報社寫功課,聽記者叔叔伯伯談天說地,可以說是報社長大的女兒;爸爸被逮捕的緣由,更與報社無法切斷,讓她覺得有責任為歷史留下紀錄。




维基百科,自由的百科全书
阮朝日1900年1947年),台灣屏東林邊人,出身當地世家。曾任台灣新生報總經理1947年二二八事件中被國民黨政府殺害。

[編輯] 生平

出生在高雄州東港郡林邊庄竹仔腳。1918年3月畢業於台灣總督府國語學校(今師範學校),1922年3月東京高輪(Takanawa)中學畢業,1926年福島高等商業學校畢業。
1926年經營「長福商事株事會社」、「屏東信託株事會社」。1927年與鳳山街望族林水德的千金林素結婚。1932年3月轉任台灣新民報。該報幾經改名,1945年改為台灣新生報,阮任該報總經理
1946年組織海外青年復員促進委員會,救援被日軍徵用流落在海外的台籍青年。
1947年二二八事件爆發。長女阮美姝初嫁,3月初因氣喘臥病在床,3月12日上午,同吳金鍊被5名國民黨政府情治人員帶走後,從此失蹤,後來方才得知已被處死
其女阮美姝在三立電視台製作節目「228走過一甲子」訪問中,提及母親,阮朝日的遺孀林素女士因為丈夫的失縱,多次有自殺的念頭,最後要求子女在她晚上入睡時將手綁起,避免她服藥自殺。
阮美姝近年來四處收集228事件的資料,試圖還原二二八事件真相,並製作了二二八事件的第一支記錄片。

[編輯] 資料來源

  • 《屏東縣人物誌》.阮朝日篇

维基百科,自由的百科全书
阮朝日228紀念館,為台灣第一座私人二二八紀念館,於2002年3月23日在屏東縣林邊鄉竹林村阮氏宗親會館成立了。2003年8月1日阮朝日228紀念館也正式掛牌成為文建會的地方文化館。紀念館的展示內容以 阮美姝個人由國內、大陸、美、日蒐集的第一手二二八資料為主,包括許多二二八事件受難者珍貴資料及相片,也是許多二二八家屬們的真實情感,並以保存真實的台灣歷史及全民二二八事件教育為目標,希冀台灣人不能忘記這段台灣史。
2006年6月30日,阮朝日228紀念館關閉在林邊的館舍,將館內文物分為四部份,台北台灣神學院台南麻豆真理大學分別獲得部分的展示資料,阮朝日的史料由 阮美姝保管,其他阮美書所蒐集的二二八事件第一手史料由阮美姝的接班人施國政保管。

朴槿惠 (2): 願意辭職;Park says she will resign after lawmakers act;為「干政門」共犯


【國際】朴槿惠宣布:願意辭職
閨蜜干政醜聞爆發以來,南韓檢方與在野黨接連採取行動,朴槿惠猶如腹背受敵,已於29日下午2點30分宣佈願意辭職,並要求國會確保政權轉移時的社會安全問題。

South Korean President Park says she will resign after lawmakers act

REUTERS

NOV 29, 2016


SEOUL – South Korean President Park Geun-hye on Tuesday asked parliament to find a way for her to give up power and decide when she should step down amid an influence-peddling scandal, but the opposition said she was just trying to avoid impeachment.

Park, 64, had apologized twice previously but until now resisted mounting public calls to quit, even as lawmakers readied to mount impeachment proceedings.

“I will leave to parliament everything about my future including shortening of my term,” she said in a brief televised speech.

“I will step down from my position according to the law once a way is formed to pass on the administration in a stable manner that will also minimize political unrest and vacuum after ruling and opposition parties’ discussion.”

The main opposition Minjoo Party rejected Park’s offer, calling it a ploy to escape being impeached, the Yonhap news agency said.

Park Kwang-on, a Democratic Party lawmaker, said it looked like she was trying to delay proceedings.

“She is handing the ball to parliament, when she could simply step down,” he said.

“She is asking the parliament to pick a date for her to resign, which she knows would lead to a discussion on when to hold the presidential election and delay everything.”

Shin Yul, a professor of political science at Myongji University, agreed.

“She doesn’t want the parliament to impeach her and she doesn’t think that the parliament can soon reach an agreement, so she is making things complicated and trying to shift some of her blame to the parliament,” he said.

Some lawmakers from Park’s own conservative Saenuri Party had asked her to resign under an agreement that would allow her to leave office with some dignity.

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans rallied for the fifth weekend in a row, calling for Park’s resignation. Organizers said the crowd totaled 1.5 million, while the police estimated the crowd at 260,000.

No South Korean president has failed to complete a term since the current democratic system was implemented in 1987. If Park is impeached or resigns, an election would be held in 60 days to nominate a president to serve a five-year term.




南韓總統朴槿惠深陷「閨蜜」親信崔順實醜聞風暴,日前在青瓦台對國民道歉,並表明願意接受檢察機關調查。(AP) 括在野黨6位潛在總統候選人在內的8名在野黨大老,20日在國會召開緊急會議,共同呼籲國會和三大在野黨討論啟動彈劾朴槿惠總統的程序。南韓檢方20日正式起訴涉及「親信門」醜聞風暴的3名朴槿惠親信,並指稱朴槿惠「涉嫌共謀作案」。 20日當天,共同民主黨前黨魁文在寅、國民之黨前黨魁安哲秀、首爾市長朴元淳、忠清南道知事安熙正、共同民主黨議員金富謙、城南市市長李在明、國民之黨前黨魁千正培、正義黨黨魁沈相奵出席會議,達成協議,指出朴槿惠犯罪事實明確且重大,已構成彈劾事由


















南韓總統朴槿惠「犯罪事實明確且重大」在野黨8大老呼籲國會啟動彈劾-風傳媒


括在野黨6位潛在總統候選人在內的8名在野黨大老,20日在國會召開緊急會議,共同呼籲國會和…


STORM.MG







The New York Times Chinese -Traditional 紐約時報中文網


朴槿惠成為韓國首位被檢方指控為共犯的在任總統。

















韓國檢方指控朴槿惠為「干政門」共犯


檢方對朴槿惠密友崔順實提出多項刑事指控,同時確認朴為共犯;後者成為首位被控為共犯的在任總統,威信再遭削弱。韓國民眾舉行大規模抗議活動,要求她辭職或接受彈劾。


CN.NYTSTYLE.COM

2016年11月27日 星期日

小燈泡、王婉諭女士 Claire Wang「希望在經歷了這樣的過程,在能力所及,有什麼是我們能做的,能讓這個社會更好一些...」

6 days ago - 總統府日前公布「司法改革國是會議籌備委員會」委員名單共17人,今年3月內湖殺童案的被害人母親王婉諭也入列,她在臉書抒發心境與盼望,北市 ...


報載:
『蘇永欽表示,司改有很多要做的,但蔡總統邀請王婉諭,「方向是錯的」,「她能告訴你什麼?」蘇永欽強調,非專業人無法解決問題,司改一定要從人民的角度看問題,不是隨便找一個名氣大的人來就好,她來沒用,「會也是白開」。』
同溫層的法律人,很多人都說,這是自己打臉。
奇怪了,我並不覺得這些話有自我打臉啊。反倒是邏輯一致啊。我嘗試翻譯一下蘇教授的發言。
首先司改的問題是個專業的問題,必須由專業人士來談,談的時候要留意應從人民的角度來看問題,而不是躲在象牙塔內看問題。找個有名氣的民間人士與會,想要藉此就算是參考的民意,這是緣木求魚,她什麼法律都不懂,那麼讓她來與會,也只是讓她來白開會而已。所以啊,司改只能由有民意視野的專家來做,這樣才是對的。
你看看,這哪有自我打臉啊。只不過,這個意見好像和「當年」的觀審有點自我打臉吧。觀審就是要讓死老百姓來白開會的啊。




~~~~~~
報導者 The Reporter
【拒絕廢死/反廢死的二元對立,他們選擇艱難的道路】

4歲女童小燈泡遇害後,在社會一片驚惶與怒罵聲中,小燈泡媽媽相對理性的文字讓人心疼又敬佩,卻也因為「非典型」受害者的表現,引發許多的不解甚至質疑,更被蔡正元稱為「值得研究的心理疾病案例」。

為人父母,他們並非不心痛,只是憤怒與死刑都無法換回孩子的生命。「我們爭取的、表達的,不是為了要獲得特別的對待,而是希望在經歷了這樣的過程,在能力所及,有什麼是我們能做的,能讓這個社會更好一些...」

‪#‎王景玉‬ ‪#‎小燈泡‬ ‪#‎報導者‬ ‪#‎廢死‬ #報導者



星星上的小燈泡,照向通往理解的漫長歧路/報導者
在7月第二次開庭前夕,《報導者》記者走進小燈泡父母內湖的家中,面對面傾聽、嘗試了解是什麼樣的生命經驗,支撐他們面對巨大傷痛,並期待在事件之外,促進社會進一步對話與思考的契機。

TWREPORTER.ORG|作者:報導者 THE REPORTER





Claire Wang
我真的不想有人藉著我們的故事,討論支持死刑或廢除死刑,這一課我之前沒想透,現在我依然沒想透.....如果你同情我們,你可憐我們,你關心我們,請至少過個一週十天的,等我們處理完情緒,你們再去討論,好嗎?
對我,這不是一個社會案件,對我,這只是『我的寶貝發生意外走了』,我真的想要好好的、靜靜的處理這些後事



小燈泡的媽媽生生世世抱著小燈泡。
Claire Wang
19 小時前
還好,我昨天、前天、幾乎每一天,我都好好緊緊的抱著你,跟你說,我超愛你的!

給王女士的一封信:
敬愛的王女士
昨晚,在電視機前,看見您的堅強,您的勇氣。在這樣悲傷的時刻,您有條不紊地說出自己的想法,並且要大家記得,社會依然有善良美好的一面時,我相信,很多人都紅了眼眶。
我的心情很悲傷。不過,我知道,此時此刻,任何人說自己感同身受,都無法安慰您。因為這種事,除非親身經歷,否則很難體會那種悲傷有多深。
今天,每一個送孩子上學的爸媽,都緊緊牽著孩子的手,彷彿每放開一秒鐘,孩子就會陷入巨大的危機當中。我感到不捨,更感到責任。
您的呼籲,我都聽見了。我們的社會出了問題,我們的社會也受了傷。我不會只有心痛與不捨,我也不會只有憤怒。憤怒之後該做什麼,我已經有我的答案。
我們的社會安全網,有很多破洞。我的責任,就是讓每一個可能掉出這張網外的邊緣人,都可以被這張網接住,接受公平的教育,擁有穩定的工作,過著正常的生活。
我會用盡全力,把這些洞補起來,並且,在反毒,兒少安全,警力,心理健康和精神醫療這些面向上加倍努力。這是我會去幫您,以及幫所有臺灣家庭完成的艱鉅任務。
冒昧寫這封信給您,希望不會產生您的困擾。我知道您不想被打擾,所以我暫時不會去拜訪您。這封信,您也不用回覆我,專心把家裡的事情照料好。有任何需要,我們都會在您身邊。
這世界有很多不完美,但在不完美當中,依然保持著對善與美的信念,就是人性當中最光輝的一面。您做到了,其他的事,就讓我們替您達成。
敬祝 平安
蔡英文

彭定康 Chris Patten is wrong... (2):法治乃香港自由基石 當權者亦要守法;「善治:民為貴」

HKFP_Voices: "Our jaded knight's reappearance was just what these peons needed to reaffirm their darkest fears, or that the dragon will definitely take away the mouldy carrot of half-baked democracy if we complain too much or, heaven forbid, become brave enough to fight for something more," write Richard Scotford.

Chris Patten - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten

Christopher Francis Patten, Baron Patten of Barnes, CH, PC (born 12 May 1944) is a Crossbench member of the British House of Lords and a former British ...
Early life · ‎Member of Parliament · ‎Governor of Hong Kong · ‎After Hong Kong

彭定康又提及認為香港要保持低税率,並讓市場自由發揮。但同時要改善社會福利、醫療、教育等問題。他笑言自己曾被批評是共産主義者,「很明顯我是有香港特色的共產主義」。
論壇直播:http://bit.ly/2gJ0kUw

前港督彭定康今日出席論壇,談及香港管治問題。他強調法治的香港自由的基石,又警告如果民主欠缺軟硬...
THESTANDNEWS.COM


彭定康「善治:民為貴」演講辭 中英文版全文
2016/11/26 — 13:54

彭定康
彭定康
前港督彭定康早上出席由前政務司長陳方安生有份創辦的公民實踐培育基金主辦的「公民實踐論壇」,主題為「香港管治:禮崩樂壞?」他演講題目為「善治:民為貴」,以下為演講辭中英文版全文。
【文:彭定康】
我在香港生活的五年是我人生中最快樂的日子。在那段期間,我體會到孔子的智慧與人們的日常生活息息相關。我在1992年來港,當時我差不多50歲,在此之前,我從沒讀過《論語》。這於我不單是一個錯誤,而且引以為恥。自此之後,我重覆參考《論語》,學習當中的精湛智慧和道德教誨。
今天,我首先想引述孔子與弟子的對話,看他怎樣一針見血道出良好管治的精髓。
子貢問政。子曰:「足食,足兵,民信之矣。」子貢曰:「必不得已而去,于斯三者何先?」 曰:「去兵。」 子貢曰:「必不得已而去,于斯二者何先?」 曰:「去食。自古皆有死,民無信不立。」
「民」指的當然是公民,他們比總統、總理、君主、黨委書記及總督,都來得重要。公民創造良好管治,也受惠於良好管治。讓我解釋我的意思。
當你上網搜尋「良好管治」,你會找到大量關於這題目的書本、研究和報告。談論這課題的人明顯比真正參與管治的人多!這不僅是一個關乎國家或地方政府的課題,它亦涵蓋國際和商業機構、公民社會和大多數其他性質的組織。不過,好政府的很多特質有廣泛的共同適用性。無論是國家或省級的政府、公共或私營機構,最好也具備這些特質。而這些特質當中,一個放之四海皆準的,是問責性。
第二,良好管治並沒有一個可以區分出來而獨特的西方模式、非洲模式或亞洲模式。良好管治就像人權,全球適用。這個論點在一九九零年代受到挑戰,有人認為在亞洲與所謂西方之間存在着文化衝突:西方政府和社會可能認為值得擁有的優良特質對於亞洲並不那麼重要。當然,在一九九七/九八年亞洲金融風暴之後,這個說法已經大幅貶值。儘管好些亞洲政治家和思想家,例如諾貝爾和平獎得主南韓總統金大中、諾貝爾經濟學獎獲獎人沈恩和被可恥地粗暴監禁的馬來西亞政治領袖安華反對,新加坡國父李光耀和他的親信卻為這個關於亞洲價值的論點撐台。我今日暫且不談李先生等人擁抱這論點的或有因由,我只想說明這種主張的荒謬之處。
試想,中亞專政政權、全球最大民主政體印度和北韓石器時代極權主義究竟顯示了甚麼樣的,共同的亞洲管治價值?即使為了便利政治分析,我們把範圍收窄至東亞,我們依然看到各種各樣的政府模式:由新加坡的引導式民主(客氣點說),到中國帶有資本主義特色的列寧主義、到南韓、台灣和日本的民主,和香港對民主的訴求。難道香港的儒家思想真的比上海或北京少? 我看不大可能罷。
話雖如此,我不相信有完美的政府模式,更不用說一個完美的西方世界,可以就這樣推出來,安裝在任何地方凡的政治模式。我熟悉的大多數民主體制中,公民和選民都明白他們制度中的弱點。在美國和西歐肯定如此。不過,即使沒有完美的模式,有些版本運作起來比較優勝,也有一系列互相協同的安排,實行起來就比個別安排造成更大的效果。例如,在有言論自由、法治和監管得宜的地方,貪污不太可能變得猖獗。
經濟持續成功與良好的政治安排之間明顯有着緊密的連繫。經濟政策具包容性,讓人人有機會擁有財產並共同創富的社會,在政治體制同樣具包容性的地方就更有機會發展起來。如果只有少數擁有特權的精英壟斷所有經濟機會,這些精英也必盡力捍衛滋生出這種不公平的政治安排。例如,在俄羅斯,寥寥可數的特權階級寡頭政治執政者或前蘇聯國家安全委員會官員牢牢控制着國家的經濟。假如你想有公開鮮明的政治競爭,就得挑戰這個經濟模式。根據以往經驗,這個模式的結果是不斷惡化的經濟衰退。
盤點一下以上這些交錯的課題,良好管治的社會的特徵大概會是那些?
在意大利古城錫耶納的社區會堂裏,掛着三幅文藝復興藝術家洛倫澤蒂的偉大畫作。中間的一幅畫的是「好政府的託喻」:畫中「公義」(當然是女人的化身)指向擬人化的「智慧」手中持着的公義天秤。兩旁的畫作則描繪了「好的管治」與「壞的管治」。兩者之間的分別是甚麼?這分別首先來自法治。國際大律師公會理事會在二零零五年寫道:「法治是文明社會的基石。它確立了一個對所有人平等、讓所有人都可以引用的透明程序。它確保一方面讓人自由,另一方面讓人獲得保護的原則得以遵從。」
普通法的「法治」並非只是依法管治而已。正如亞里士多德力陳:「法律的守護者本身也遵守法律。」受權力管治的要守法,當權者自己也要守法。
我還記得一次和魯平主任的對話。魯主任是個文明的人,說一口流利英語。我嘗試向他解釋「法治」和依法而治的分別。我提到當我出任英國內閣環境大臣時,我的決定經常在法院受到挑戰,有時更被推翻。(英國政府就脫歐一事現正面對類似情況。)結果是我要改變我的政策而非法院。我覺得魯主任認為我在編造故事。
法治的完整性來自獨立的司法和法院制度。這是公平審訊和程序公義的保証。在實施地方政府通過的法例時,同時確保國家機關根據國際法履行義務。獨立的司法系統對公民權利的保障和提供的保護涵蓋良好管治社會的多方面。例如,它保護基本人權;它禁止酷刑;它確保得到公平審訊的權利;它確保思想、良心、信仰、表達和集會的自由;它保障財產。法治是良好管治社會的基石,法治就是讓當地獨立的司法系統內的獨立法院裁定罪責,黨政機關不得過問。舉例說,貪污行為可以由警方或國家代理人調查,但是否有人貪污違法則由法院定奪。
我一直相信法治是香港的自由、穩定和福祉最重要的保證。我對於在此維護法治的法官、大律師和律師,懷着極大的敬仰。他們站在前線,確保香港在一份國際有約束力的條約裏得到許諾的自由,得到維護。法治對香港的自由和繁榮至為重要。
第二點我想談的,是世界銀行在分析各地的良好管治時,慎而重之稱為「民眾的聲音與問責性」的特徵。我相信世行所指的,是我們大多數人認為的民主。世行明顯是要避免被指在提倡某一形式的民主。畢竟,民主的模式很多:立法機關有單院的、雙院的、行政主導的,也有部分直選的、部分間選的。讓我清楚說明我心目中,可以讓公民發聲、參與管治和使當權者通過公開有效方式問責的制度,應該包含的必要成分。
首先是選舉制度。無論是選舉立法機關或主要官員,選舉制度都應該公平,公民在投票時應人人平等。每張選票的票值應該均等。除了當地憲法的規定之外,投票過程應該公開,並不受任何限制。舉例說,作為英國國會的議員───上、下議院有着同樣的規定───我必須宣誓效忠女皇。拒絕宣誓的民選議員不得就任,以往的例子有北愛爾蘭的新芬黨。這對我來說並非不合理。但是,如在伊朗那樣,只有由另一權力機構(這裏說的是宗教機構)核准的人才可參選,我就認為不自由,也不公平。選舉安排應由當地的立法機關在憲法中訂明。如果想民選的立法機關有公信力,並能保證有正當的問責性,就必須能夠換掉主掌行政的負責人;除非選民可以通過直選另行任免。不能或大抵不能改變任何事情的選舉是一場鬧劇。真正的民主制度,政府必然更替。
我們可以一直討論,怎樣才算是公平。我懷疑這在很多方面有點像大象───難以描述,但一看就明白。
不過,我都想說說關於民主的三點體會。
民主而多元化的社會不能單靠選舉產生。除非有着整套軟件硬件配合,否則民主可變成大多數人專政的民粹優越主義。既然法治是良好管治社會的核心,社會中的大多數不應乘機把法院填滿他們的支持者,以鞏固自身的地位。成熟的民主會認識到考慮少數人的意見的重要性,而不是嘗試踐踏這些意見。反過來說,民主中的少數也要承認選舉中有贏有輸的後果。我想,今日的英國和香港,都可以從中得到教訓。
民主政府並不易為。就像千千萬萬其他人一樣,我純粹認為沒有比這更好的選擇。民主政府加上出色負責的領導能讓社會接受大家始終要作出艱難的決定,而不需要採取純粹高壓的措施。如果公民可以自行決定生活和工作的地方、子女的教育、用錢和儲蓄的方式,但對於其他影響他們生活的選擇不能發聲,我會覺得十分奇怪。這也是當我在一九七九年,以新晉國會議員的身份首次來港時,我大力支持區議會直選的部分原因。我回到英國後也就此寫了文章。

我想就「議會民主」再說兩點。首先,這是比通過公投實施的所謂直接民主更好,更先進的決策方式。我們正開始為英國公投脫歐付出代價。這個決定早應通過議會作出;甚或如有需要,應通過大選,讓人民作最終抉擇。第二,當民眾壓力就某項政策或政府的政績升溫時,民主當可為政府提供安全閥的角色。我們目睹這情況在印度經常發生;所以儘管信仰和種族紛陳,印度始終團結一致。
政府效益在世界銀行的清單排行第三。我一直相信,當政府通過民主程序受到緊密監察時,它就越能勝任。在英國,反對黨幹得越好,越是似模似樣時,執政黨的表現就越優秀。
當然,效益也取決於管理運作的公務員隊伍的質素。我在英國、歐洲和香港曾經與幾個不同的官僚系統共事。毫無疑問,在和我一起工作過的公務員隊伍中,最能勝任的是九零年代香港的公務員隊伍。我希望它的活力和士氣依舊。
三個主因造就了香港九零年代的公共服務紀錄。首先,那是個一流的隊伍: 待遇好、自動自覺、有智慧、以服務公眾為榮。這種承擔完全沒有受到政治考慮干擾。舉例說,公務員的聘任和升遷完全視乎功過。第二,他們的操守不容置疑。貪污絕無僅有,規模肯定比歐洲和亞洲多國少很多。第三,政府指派的工作,公務員都認真全力完成。這就是說,當你把香港與生俱來的企業家精神,與公務員立志超額完成差事的決心配對起來,基建工程用上的時間,就比在任何其他地方都要少。
我在上世紀八十年代末當英國環境大臣(聽起來好像中世紀那麼遙遠),那時政府就於希斯魯機場興建一座新客運大樓,已討論了好一段時間。我在一九九二年來港。到達後的首星期,霍德爵士帶我看挖泥船倒泥,開始興建赤臘角機場。雖然過程中經歷了些談判障礙,但我在一九九七年離港時,機場已實質上完成。我回到倫敦,發現人們還在討論那座新的,但還是無蹤無影的客運大樓。我希望香港公務員仍保留着這些質素。
第四個區分良好管治社會的特徵是政治穩定和沒有暴力。幾個因素起着作用:一是優良、廉潔、透明和得到人民尊重的警務工作;另一是持續繁榮,而且隨之而來的得益大致上公平分配。我不是社會主義者。我相信妥為監管的市場是創造和分配資源的最好方法。但我也相信政府本身有着保護弱小和幫助強者取得更大成就的重要角色。美國一些共和黨人以前常這樣說笑,他們認為英語裏最令人憂慮的一句說話是:「我來自政府;我來幫助你。」這種講法愚昧得驚人,它漠視了政府在促進經濟和政治穩定的角式;也對政績優良的多屆美國政府不大公允。在這方面,艾森豪威爾執政時的共和黨政府就幹得很不錯。
新加坡實行的社會改造工程毫無疑問是成功的。但我一直相信香港應避免這樣做。我認為讓市場和低稅率自由發揮更適合香港。當然我也極之贊成應該動用經濟增長的得益,改善福利、醫療、教育和房屋。也因此,一些來自北方的批評,曾指責我是共產主義者!很明顯,我是有香港特色的共產主義者。
當政府對人民的訴求感覺敏銳,政治穩定也就更有可能。其中一個方法,是明白到他們是公民,有他們的權利和責任。證諸世界各地的歷史,不乏關於敏銳地處理政治訴求的經驗,及如果處理不當,政府怎樣很容易把溫和推向極端。如果你把人民當作負責的公民看待,他們就更可能對自己的行為負責,而健全的公民社會組織就當上他們與政府之間的中介人。他們應該有自由舉行非暴力示威;有自由說出和寫出他們的要求;有自由選擇宗教信仰。他們的教會應不受到政府控制;他們的大學應該自我管治和擁有自主。
這一點值得細說。我曾任香港和英國數間大學校監,現時是牛津大學校監,對這一點感受很深。牛津大學最近獲排名全球大學之首,也得感謝大學裏為數不少的中國(包括香港)學生和教授。大學不是國家的代理人───它並不是一個政府部門───大學也絕不是商界的附屬品,刺激着生產總值。大學是多元化和自由的強大支柱。香港彈丸之地,能有兩所非凡的大學全球排名首五十、三所全球排名首百名之內,成就非凡,值得香港人引以為傲。當中部分原因,當然是香港的大學享有國際條約和本地法例賦予的自由和自主。大學享有自由和學術自治,但不等如大學不需通過適當方式,為其獲批的公帑問責。我們在牛津也要這樣做。但我們享有也行使學術自由,就如蘇格拉底所言:「論證無界限。」我們做喜歡做的研究;我們探討學問、尋根究底;我們用我們視為最佳的教學模式教授學生;我們自行挑選教學和行政人員;我們基於學生的能力收生。我們可以自由就任何事情發聲,不用理會政府喜歡與否。以這種模式運作的大學不斷拓展知識的領域,惠及整個社會,惠及全人類。我肯定你們在香港,當然也明白你們享有自由的大學,是這偉大城市皇冠中的瑰寶。
我也想談談另外兩種特質。首先是監管質素;比方說,應該以透明和公平的方式監管商界。這樣,私營部門的機構本身必須展示高透明度,並遵從私營部門管治的最佳標準。我肯定中國的官員知悉有這麼一個得到學術研究証實的看法,就是外界認為印度的公司比中國的公司管治得更好;因為印度公司的董事局不受政治干預,公司也更能符合國際標準。中國必須正視這個問題,否則必會拖累中國在國際間的經濟表現。這不會對任何人有好處。世界需要繁榮興盛的中國。
良好管治的最後一個特徵是控制貪污。這不僅是立法,或設置制度打擊這個政治經濟弊病的問題。貪污直達政治的核心,明顯與自由為敵。自由的傳媒揭發貪污罪行和罪犯,亦因此獨裁和極權政府要壓制傳媒和其現代科技表親───互聯網。各種形式的傳媒壯大公民,對付貪污。貪污其實增加守法公民的負擔,對社會它是個侵蝕和破壞的元素。如果政治權力決定資產所有權,便沒有人能夠行使權力剷除貪污腐敗。貪污舞弊於是傳遍整個政府架構。
在我以上描述的各種管治模式中,其核心皆為公民。公民就是管治模式的健康和完整性的驗証。公民享有自由、權利和責任,尤其是睦鄰的責任。他們有自由與人爭辯、同意別人、寫作、在廣場的演說台發言、攻讀和享受自己選擇的學科、決定自己的工作和事業、與任何人談論政治又不怕別人無意中聽到、以法律解決問題因為有信心會得到公平公正的對待、閱讀和收聽真實新聞知道世界發生甚麼事、當政府咎由自取時戲謔它、到他國旅遊、到教會去或到馬場去、以自己的方式表達他們對公民身份和愛國的看法。有一份文件涵蓋了這些自由社會的各方面。那是一份已存放在聯合國約三十年的條約。它叫做《中英聯合聲明》。

Good Governance: Strong Citizens
One of the many pleasant lessons that I learned during the five years that I lived in Hong Kong – the happiest years of my life - was the ubiquitous relevance and wisdom of Confucius. I had not read the Analects before I came here, aged almost fifty, in 1992. That was worse than a mistake, it was a shame. Since then, I have turned back to the Analects again and again. They contain sound wisdom and moral counsel.
I want to begin today with an exchange with the Master that goes right to the heart of the issue of good governance. Tsu-Kung ask him what constitutes good government. The Master replied, “Enough food, enough weapons, and the confidence of the people”. Tsu-Kung goes on to ask, “Suppose you definitely had no alternative but to give up one of these three, which would you relinquish first?” The Master said, “Weapons”. Tsu-Kung goes on, “Suppose you definitely had no alternative but to give up one of the surviving two, which would you relinquish first?” The Master said, “Food. From of old, death has come to all men, but a people without confidence in its rulers will not stand.” Such people, greater than presidents, premiers, monarchs, party secretaries and governors, are of course citizens. And it is citizens who are both the beneficiaries and the creators of good governance. Let me explain what I mean.
When you look up good governance on the Internet, you are offered a huge selection of books, studies and reports on the subject. There are plainly far more analyses of what it is than there are practitioners! The subject goes wider than the question of national or local government. It covers international and corporate bodies, civil society and most other types of institution. But many of the attributes of good government have a broad common relevance. They are invariably desirable features of both a national or provincial government and of public and private corporations. Accountability, for example, is relevant everywhere.
Secondly, there are not separate and distinct Western, African or Asian models. Just as human rights are universal, so too is good governance. This argument was challenged in the 1990s – a proposition subsequently much devalued by the Asian financial crash of 1997-98 – by the contention that there was a civilizational clash between Asia, and the so-called West. As a result, it was suggested, what might be desirable in a western government and society did not matter so much in Asia. Despite the opposition of Asian politicians and thinkers like the Korean Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Kim Dae-Jung, the Nobel Economics Laureate, Amartya Sen, and the disgracefully incarcerated Malaysian political leader Anwar Ibrahim, the argument about Asian values was given some intellectual heft by the father of the Singapore City state, Lee Kuan Yew, and his acolytes. The probable reasons for their embrace of this argument are subjects for another day; for the moment I will only mention the absurdity of the overall proposition. So let us consider for a moment what values of governance embrace dictatorship in Central Asia, the largest democracy in the world in India, and Stone Age totalitarianism in North Korea? Even if you narrow the field, for political convenience, and look at East Asia alone, you have to contend with totally different sorts of government from (to be polite) guided democracy in Singapore, to Leninism with some capitalist characteristics in China, to democracies in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, and to aspirations for democracy in Hong Kong. But is Hong Kong really less Confucian than Shanghai or Beijing? Rather unlikely I should have thought.
That said, I do not believe that there is a perfect model of government, let alone a perfect Western world, which can be wheeled out and installed anywhere and everywhere. In most of the democracies that I know best, citizens and voters know very well the weaknesses in their own systems. That is certainly true in America and Western Europe. So while there is no perfect model, there are certain versions that work better than others, and there is also a self-reinforcing series of arrangements that create an impact greater than separate influences. For example, corruption is less likely to be endemic when there is a free press, a strong regulatory system and the rule of law.
There is also plainly a powerful connection between sustainable economic success and good political arrangements Societies where economic policies are inclusive, allowing everyone the chance of ownership and a share in creating prosperity, are more likely to flourish where politics too are inclusive. Where a privileged elite has a monopolicy of economic opportunity, it will defend the political arrangements that have spawned this inequity. In Russia, for example you cannot allow open and clear political competition without challenging ownership of the economy’s commanding heights by a few favoured oligarchs or ex-KGB officials. The result has been and will be accelerating economic degradation.
So taking account of these cross-cutting issues what are likely to be individual features of a well-governed community?
In what is in effect Siena’s town hall, there are three great paintings by the Renaissance artist, Lorenzetti. At the centre, there is the Allegory of Good Government, showing Justice (in the shape of course of a woman) pointing to the scales of justice held by the personification of Wisdom. On either side of this painting, there are two others showing, respectively, the effects of good and bad governance. What makes the difference between the one and other? Above all, it is the rule of law that does that. In the words of the Council of the International Bar Association in 2005:
“The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilised society. It establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that both liberate and protect”.
The rule of law is different from rule by law. As Aristotle argued, “even the guardians of the law are obeying the laws.” The ruled are subject to the law as well as those whom they are entitled to rule.
I recall a conversation with the late Director, Lu Ping, a civilised man who spoke excellent English. I was trying to explain the difference between the rule of laws and rule by law. I noted that when I had been a British Cabinet Minister, Secretary of State for the Environment, my decisions had been regularly challenged and occasionally overturned, in the courts. (Something similar has just happened to the British government over Brexit). I had had to change my policies as a result. I think that Director Lu thought I was making it up.
The integrity of the rule of law depends on an independent judiciary and court system. It guarantees fair trial and due process. It applies domestically agreed laws and ensures compliance by the state with its obligations under international law. The rights which it guarantees and the protections which it offers to citizens cover many of the features of a well-governed society. It protects, for example, fundamental human rights; it prohibits torture; it ensures the rights to a fair trial, to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression and assembly; it protects property. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a good and well-governed society, in which guilt and innocence are determined by an independent judiciary in independent courts not by political apparatchiks. To take a relevant example, a corrupt act may be investigated by the police and by agents of the state, but whether or not the law has been broken is determined by a court.
I have always believed that the most important guarantee of Hong Kong’s freedom, stability and well-being is the rule of law. I have considerable admiration for the judges, barristers and solicitors who have stood up for it here. They are in the front-line in ensuring that the freedoms which Hong Kong was promised in an international and binding treaty are preserved. The rule of law is fundamental to Hong Kong’s freedom and prosperity.
The second feature on which I should like to comment is called (rather circumspectly by the World Bank in their analysis of good governance around the world), voice and accountability. I think what the Bank have in mind is what most of us would call democracy. They obviously wished to avoid being thought to recommend a particular sort of democracy; there are, after all, many models from which to choose. There are single and bi-cameral legislatures; there are executive led legislatures; there are legislatures which are partly elected and partly selected. So let me be clear about what seem to me to be essential ingredients of any system which gives citizens a voice in the way their community is run and applies an open and effective way of holding those who run it to account.
First, the system of election – whether for a legislature or for an executive - should be fair, giving equity at the ballot box to citizens. Some votes should not count more than others. The choice of candidates should be open without restrictions that go beyond the requirements of a local constitution. For example, as a member of the Westminster Parliament – it is true for both chambers – I have to make an oath of affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. Elected members who refuse to do this, like members of the Northern Ireland Sinn Fein party, cannot take their seats. That does not seem to me unreasonable. But to insist, as happens in Iran for instance, that only those approved by another (in this case confessional) authority can be considered for elected office would not seem to me either free or fair. The electoral arrangements should be determined within the constitution by the local legislature itself. To be credible and ensure proper accountability, an elected legislature should be able to get rid of its executive, unless that choice is in the hands of the electorate through direct election. Elections that cannot change anything, or not very much, are a farce. In real democracies governments change.
You could go on and on about what exactly constitutes fairness. I suspect that in many respects it is a little like the elephant – difficult to describe but you know it when you see it.
But I just want to make three other points about democracy.
A democratic, plural society is not created simply by holding an election. Democracy can turn into populist majoritarianism unless it comes complete with much more soft-ware and hard-ware, some of which I will mention. Since the rule of law is at the heart of a well-governed community, a majority should not try to buttress its position by stacking the courts with its supporters. A mature democracy will recognise the importance of taking account of the opinions of the minority and not trying to trample over them. For its part, the minority in a democracy will recognise the consequence of both winning and losing elections. I think there are lessons in this for both Britain and Hong Kong today.
Democratic government is not easy. Like millions of others I simply think that it is better than any alternative. With good and responsible leadership it enables communities to come to accept the need to take tough decisions without authoritarian measures. When we allow citizens to decide where they live and work, what schooling their children have, how they save and spend, it seems to me odd to try to deny them a say in the other choices that effect their lives. That is one of the reasons why, when I first came to Hong Kong as a young MP in 1979, I argued for the introduction of democratic elections for District Councils and wrote about this when I got back to Britain.
Two other things I would say about parliamentary democracy. First, it is a much better, more sophisticated way of taking decisions than so-called direct democracy through referendums. We are starting to pay the price in Britain for holding a referendum on our membership of the EU, a decision which should have been taken through parliament and if necessary with the ultimate choice being made through a General Election. Second, democracy does provide a government with safety valves when popular pressure builds up about a policy issue or about the government’s own record. We have seen that regularly in India, which has held together despite such extraordinary diversity of religion and ethnicity.
Government effectiveness was third in the World Bank’s list. I have always believe that governments are likely to be more competent when they are subjected to close invigilation through the democratic process. In Britain, the government is better when there is a good and credible opposition to it.
Of course, effectiveness also depends on the quality of the civil service which manages its operations. I have worked with several different bureaucracies – in the United Kingdom and Europe as well as Hong Kong. Without any question the most competent civil service that I worked with was that in Hong Kong in the 1990s. I hope it has not lost any of its vitality and morale since then.
There were three principal reasons for Hong Kong’s public service record in the 1990s. First, there was a first rate team, well-paid, strongly motivated, intelligent and with a sense of the value and honour of working for the public good. This commitment was in no way disturbed by political considerations. Civil Servants were, for instance, appointed and promoted entirely on merit. Second, their integrity was unquestioned. Corruption was negligible, certainly on a much lower scale than in many European countries as well as Asian ones. Third, there was a real commitment to complete the task assigned by government. This means for example that when you put together Hong Kong’s natural entrepreneurialism with the determination of civil servants to complete, preferably ahead of time, the tasks allotted to them, infrastructure projects were finished in much less time than would have been taken elsewhere.
When I was the British Environment minister in the late 1980s (it sounds like the Middle Ages) the government had been talking for some time about building a new terminal at Heathrow airport. I came to Hong Kong in 1992. In my first week here Sir David Ford took me to see the dredgers dumping soil to begin the building of Chek Lap Kok. By the time I left in 1997 it was virtually finished despite the verbal and negotiating impediments that the process had to overcome. I returned to London to discover that people were still talking about building that new but still non-existent terminal. I hope that Hong Kong has not lost any of these qualities of public service.
A fourth distinction of a well-governed community is political stability and lack of violence. Several factors come into play. Good, clean, visible and respected policing is one. Another is growing prosperity, the proceeds of which seem to be fairly distributed. I am not a Socialist. I believe in properly regulated markets as the best way of creating and distributing resources. But I also believe that government itself has an important role in protecting the weak and helping the strong to prosper. Some Republicans in the United States used to use a joke that the most worrying words in English were: “I’m from the government; I’m here to help”. This was a spectacularly foolish way of down- playing the role of government in promoting economic and political stability, and was contrary to much of what the most successful administrations, including Republican ones like Eisenhower’s, have actually done.
Here in Hong Kong I always believed that we should avoid the sort of social engineering practised in Singapore where it undoubtedly worked. I thought we were better served by allowing the market and low taxes to work their magic. But I also felt strongly that we should use some of the proceeds of growth to improve welfare, health, education and housing. As a result some of my critics in the north denounced me as a communist! Clearly I was a communist with Hong Kong characteristics.
Political stability is also more likely when a government is sensitive to the aspirations of its people. Recognising them as citizens, with rights and responsibilities, is one way of doing that. There is a shed-load of evidence throughout history around the world about how to manage political aspirations sensitively and how, on the other hand, if you fail to do this you can easily turn moderation into extremism. If you treat people as responsible citizens, they are more likely to behave responsibly, with vigorous civil society institutions as intermediaries between them and the government. They should be free to demonstrate without violence; free to say and write what they want; free to worship as they please. Their churches should be free of government control; their universities should be self-governing and autonomous.
It is worth saying a word more about this, a subject on which I feel strongly as the past chancellor of several universities here and in Britain and the present Chancellor of Oxford, recently placed at the top of the world rankings doubtless in part thanks to the number of Chinese (including Hong Kong) students and professors we have. Universities are not agents of the state – departments of government as it were – nor are they simply adjuncts to the corporate sector, fuelling GDP growth. They are liberal pillars of pluralism and freedom. It should be a matter of huge pride in this community that Hong Kong, with a small population, has two great universities in the world’s top fifty; three in the world’s top 100. This is a remarkable achievement. It is partly of course a result of the universities having the freedom and autonomy they were promised by international treaty and local laws. University freedom and academic self-governance does not mean that universities can avoid accounting through appropriate machinery for any public funds they receive. We have to do that at my own university in Oxford. But we have and we exercise academic freedom – as Socrates wrote “we follow the argument where it leads”. We undertake research on what we want; we take our enquiries as far as we wish; we teach as we deem best; we select our own academics and administrators; we choose our own pupils on their ability. We are free to speak out on anything and everything, regardless of whether the Government likes what we say. It is in universities operating like this that the frontiers of knowledge are advanced for the good of our own societies and of humanity as a whole. I am sure that here in Hong Kong you recognise that your universities, with their own freedoms, are jewels in this great city’s crown.
There are two other qualities to which I would like to refer. First of them is regulatory quality; the way, for instance, in which commerce is regulated needs to be transparent and fair. This should demand of private sector corporations themselves a high degree of transparency and compliance with the best standards of private sector corporate governance. I am sure that officials in China are aware that there is a general view, borne out by much academic research, that Indian companies are thought to be better governed than those in China, with no political interference in their boards and greater compliance in meeting international standards. Unless the issue is properly addressed, it will become a drag on China’s international economic performance. That is in no-one’s interest. The world needs a China that thrives and prospers.
The final mark of good governance is the control of corruption. This is not just a question of making laws and establishing institutions to fight this political and economic disease. Corruption goes right to the heart of politics and, rather obviously, freedom. A free press exposes corruption and the corrupt. That is one reason why authoritarian and totalitarian governments want to suppress the media and its modern technological cousins in the internet. The media in all its forms strengthens the citizen against corruption, which is a tax on the law abiding and a corrosive and destructive element in society. If political power determines ownership of assets, it is impossible to exercise the authority to root out corruption. Corruption becomes endemic to the whole system of government.
The governance I have tried to describe has at its heart the citizen. Citizens are the test of its health and integrity. They have liberties, privileges and responsibilities, not least the responsibilities of good neighbourliness. They have the freedom to argue as well as to agree, to write, to speak out from a soapbox in the public square, to follow and enjoy education in whatever subject they choose, to decide on their jobs and careers, to talk about politics to whoever they want without worrying about who might over-hear, to go to law in the confidence of fair and just treatment, to read and hear real news about what is happening in the world, to make fun of the government when it deserves it, to travel to other countries, to go to their church or to go racing, to express their own views of citizenship and patriotism in their own way. There is a document that covers all of those aspects of a free society. It is a treaty, lodged at the United Nations. It has been there for about 30 years. It is called the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

網誌存檔