2015-11-05

聲明/強烈反對馬習會突襲台灣民主憲政(中英文對照版)

Ma and Xi Summit Ambushes Taiwan Democracy and Constitution


【臺灣守護民主平台 聲明稿】2015.11.05

Taiwan Democracy Watch / press release


總統府突然於11月3日週二深夜證實,馬英九總統將於11月7日週六赴新加坡,與中國國家主席習近平會面。此消息曝光後,輿論譁然、政壇震驚,更引起全體國人的惶惶不安。

The President’s Office of Taiwan verified a report in the middle of the night on Tuesday that President Ma Ying-jeou will be leaving for Singapore to meet with Xi Jinping, the President of China. The disclosure of the news shook the political arena and boiled the public opinion, leaving the nation in highly insecure mood.

我們認為,這一個突如其來的馬習會,不但不是兩岸關係歷史性的破冰,反而是台灣民主憲政的危機,甚至可能危及兩岸關係的長期發展。我們的思考與主張如下:
The surprise summit not only will fail to serve as an ice-breaking point in history, on the contrary, it will cause constitutional crisis in Taiwan. The summit could even endanger the long term development of cross-strait relation. Our positions and claims are as followed:

(一) 兩岸關係長期以來是攸關台灣國家生存與安全的重要議題,也是台灣內部亟待溝通尋求共識的敏感議題。但馬政府在大選前的突襲式馬習會,不僅造成台灣的民主憲政危機,也會造成台灣內部衝突,嚴重傷害民主互信與團結的基礎。

(1) Cross-strait relation has been a critical issue that ties with Taiwan’s survival and national security. It’s also a sensitive topic that requires communication in order to seek consensus within Taiwan. The ambush style of this summit between Ma and Xi right before the presidential election not only causes democratic constitutional crisis, it also creates internal conflicts within Taiwan, corroding the foundation of trust and solidarity established in the democratic society.

(二) 依照憲法規定,總統「對外代表國家」,因此即使前往或過境非邦交國,仍是以總統身分代表國家,絕不可能把「國家」地位掩埋,而以毫無憲政制度根據的「領導人」身分出訪。中國與新加坡有正式外交關係,習近平前往新加坡,無論如何其「中國國家主席」身分,都受到國際法(條約)的確認與保障。所謂「兩岸領導人」說法,實質上就僅僅是對馬英九「國家總統」身分的否認,因此這場會面,自始就不可能是「對等」與「尊嚴」。馬英九的此等出訪安排,已經違反了其擔任總統的誓詞,也已經違憲。

(2) According to the Constitution, the President represents the country. Even if the President is traveling to or transiting in a country without diplomatic tie, he/she still represents the country. It’s impossible to bury the country’s status and visit with just the title of a “leader”, which has no constitutional basis. The official diplomatic relation between China and Singapore ensures the confirmation and protection of Xi as Chinese President under international law (treaty) when Xi travels to Singapore. The expression of “cross-strait leaders” is only used to deny the status of Ma Ying-Jeou as the President of an independent state. Therefore the meeting has never been able to be held on the basis of equality and dignity since the very beginning. Ma’s plan to visit has violated both the Presidential oath and Constitution.

(三) 本次習近平前往新加坡的國是訪問,主要的背景是為了紀念中國與新加坡建交25週年。中星建交雖然並非星與中華民國之斷交(因為我國與新加坡從未正式建交),但是中國對台灣有主權宣稱,否定台灣/中華民國之主權,在國際政治與國際法上(包括各種民間組織)完全排除雙重承認。在這種狀況下,中華民國總統竟然前往參與帶有中星建交意涵的紀念活動,等於實質上「接受」了中國對台主權宣稱以及其對台灣的外交封殺,這種行為不但違憲,更有涉及外患罪的嫌疑。試問馬總統:你在到處插滿「五星旗」與新加坡國旗的場合,與習近平會面,你覺得維護了國家尊嚴,可以被平等對待嗎?

(3) The main purpose of Xi Jinping’s visit to Singapore is to attend the celebration of the 25 years of bilateral ties between the two countries. Singapore’s bilateral tie with China does not equate the severance of the diplomatic relation with the Republic of China (because the ROC has never formally established dipolomatic tie with Singapore). However, China’s claims sovereignty over Taiwan denies the sovereignty of Taiwan (ROC). Under the principles of international politics and international laws (including civil organizations), double recognition is absolutely excluded. In this context, the President of the Republic of China attending the memorial event marking the bilateral tie between China and Singapore is no different from accepting China’s sovereignty claim over Taiwan and its diplomatic obstruction on Taiwan. The action of President Ma is not only unconstitutional, it might even involve offenses against the external security of the State. In what way does President Ma consider meeting with Xi in a place decorated with Chinese and Singaporean national flags an act of maintaining dignity of the State? Is it possible to be treated equal?

(四) 馬習會雖然宣稱不會發表共同聲明,不會簽署任何協議,但是既然其目標為「鞏固兩岸和平、維持台海現狀」,其內容必然涉及有關國防、軍事、主權等高度國安事項,因此從憲法角度,涉及憲法第63條,應該由立法院決議的「重要事項」。因此我們認為比較合理的程序,應該先由立法院邀請總統到院國情報告,由立法院決議「同意」之後,馬英九才能前往。本次顯然程序上已無可能,因此在憲政制度上,我們認為馬英九「不能」進行馬習會。

(4) It was claimed that no joint statement will be issued and no agreements will be signed at the summit. However, since the goal of the meeting is to “secure the cross-strait peace and maintain the status quo”, the topics of discussion must have involved high level national security such as national defense, military affairs, and sovereignty. From the perspective of Constitution, these topics are the important affairs the article 63 of the Constitution referrs. A reasonable procedure would be for the congress to invite the President to report the affairs that will be discussed. After the congress agreed, Ma then has the permission to attend the meeting. Since it is virtually impossible to implement this procedure before this upcoming meeting, we conclude that Ma's meeting with Xi is in violation of our constitutional commandments.

(五) 如果對於前述提到的憲政程序有所爭議,因為已經涉及立法委員行使職權,適用憲法之疑義,我們認為民主進步黨應該結合其他在野黨立委,依法向大法官聲請釋憲。且因為有時間壓力,因此應該同時聲請大法官做出「暫時處分」,發出禁制令,禁止馬英九總統進行此次會面。大法官亦可藉此釐清相關的憲法爭議。

(5) If the procedures mentioned above is opposed and its constitutionality is challenged, we think that the largest opposition party DPP should assume the responsibility of filing a petition for constitution interpretation along with legislators from other opposition parties to the Justices of the Constitutional Court. Due to the time pressure, petition for preliminary injunctions should also be filed for the Justice to issue injunction, prohibiting President Ma from carrying out this meeting. The Justices could also use this opportunity to clarify relevant controversies.

(六) 馬總統於11月4日派遣行政院長毛治國至立法院向院長與在野黨說明,下午陸委會召開記者會公開說明。馬總統亦將於五日早上召開記者會,並表示將於返國後至立法院報告。總統府自稱此為「事前」「事後」均受國會監督,絕非黑箱作業。我們認為,這是對於國會監督的莫大誤解。在此過程中,毛治國僅是總統府派到立院院的「信差」,院長的接見(以及台聯的出席)僅是「被告知訊息」。各場記者會也只是「向全民報告」,並非「向國會」報告,立法委員更無法行使憲法賦予的「質詢權」。馬習會後才預備到立法院國情報告,等於事後告知,完全無法改變已發生的馬習會密室會議內容。這樣短促且均屬「單向告知」性質的程序,何來國會監督之有?甚至連國民黨的立委都對這個狀況相當不滿。

(6) President Ma sent Prime Minister Mao Chi-Kuo to the congress to report to the President of Congress and the opposition parties. In the afternoon, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) held a press conference to explain to the public. President Ma also held a press conference in the morning of Nov. 5. Furthermore, he promised to report to the congress upon returning to Taiwan if needed. The President’s office claimed the meeting has been under the supervision of the congress and it was not arranged under the table. We consider it a severe misunderstanding of the congressional supervision. During this process, Mao was only acting as a messenger to the congress sent by the President’s office. The Congress President and the opposition party were merely passively being informed of the situation. The press conferences were only reporting to the public, not to the congress. Let alone the legislators not being able to carry out their interrogating power given by the constitution. How would there be any congressional supervision if the reporting is taking place after the summit? Reporting afterwards does not change the discussion in the secret meeting. The procedure of the short one way informing. Even the legislators from the same party (KMT) of the President are are upset by this situation.

(七) 陸委會引用了來路不明、方法不清的民調指出,有極高比例民眾支持兩岸領導人會面,此等說法相當模糊。姑且不論馬總統近來的民調支持度與信賴度都非常低,最近中研院「中國效應主題研究小組」所做的有關318運動的嚴謹學術實證研究指出,民眾之所以支持太陽花的主要理由之一,正是民眾不信任馬政府處理兩岸關係的能力,以及認為馬政府立場太過傾中。我們認為,一個民意支持度與信賴度如此低,且又將在七個月後卸任的總統,完全不具備可以與中國國家主席會面商談的民主正當性。

(7) MAC cited a survey that used unclear methods and questionable information sources to point out that an extremely high percentage of citizens support the meeting of leaders from Taiwan and China. This is a vague expression. The results of extremely low approval rate and reliability of President Ma in recent polls. Furthermore, the Chinese effect research team in Academia Sinica that studies congressional occupation social movement against the Cross-Straits Service Trade Agreement has pointed out that the reasons why citizens support the movement is because the lack of trust in the capacity of dealing with cross-strait relation and Ma’s pro-China position. In our opinion, the low approval rate President who’s about to step down in seven months lacks the democratic legitimacy of meeting with President of China for discussion.

(八) 雖然宣稱不會發表共同聲明,不會簽署任何協議,但是在“鞏固兩岸和平、維持台海現狀”的目標設定下,馬英九與習近平大可以「相互同意」或「達成共識」的方式,「各自陳述」兩岸必須以一中原則或框架為基礎,並以此基礎在近期內「積極推動」各種政治談判議程,包括互設辦事處、繼續簽署經貿協議、建立軍事互信機制、協商和平協議等等。這一類的「共識」或類似的「口頭表述」,將會對台灣的自由民主憲政秩序,以及台灣人民的未來福祉,造成無法回復的重大傷害。

(8) Despite making the claims of not making join statement and not signing any agreements, under the goals of securing cross-strait peace and maintaining the status quo, Ma and Xi could have “separately state” the foundation of one China policy or framework through mutual agreement or reaching consense. They could use the foundation to “actively promote” all political negotiation agenda, including establishing offices, continue signing trade agreements, and establish military mutual trust mechanism, and negotiate peace agreement. This type of consensus or similar oral expression will severely damage the democratic constitutional order and Taiwanese people’s welfare.

(九) 我們認為,台海應該和平,但應該建立在自由與人權保障的普世價值之上;兩岸應該和解,但應各自依循憲政民主的原則進行和解;中華民國政府的總統應該與中華人民共和國政府的國家主席會面,尋求和解,謀取和平,但馬總統卻不該在其民主正當性已嚴重不足的情況下,憑其個人政治意志,將絕對少數人所支持的政治框架(一中各表、一國兩區),獨裁地圈限台灣人民的現在與未來。

(9) Taiwan Strait should maintain its peace, but the foundation of the peace should be laid on the protection of such universal values as freedom and human rights. Reconciliation should be taking place across the strait, but two sides of the strait should each proceed according to the democratic principles of constitutionalism. The President of the Republic of China and the President of the People’s Republic of China should meet to seek reconciliation and peace, but President Ma, when he has been in great deficit of democratic legitimacy, should not impose on Taiwanese people his personal preference only to push for a political framework that is supported by an absolute minority (One China for which each side has its own interpretation and one country two areas), dictating the present and future of Taiwanese people.

基於以上理由,我們堅決反對進行這一場「馬習會」,在此也呼籲全體台灣人民、各個公民社會團體以及政黨,也都能支持我們的主張。

We strongly oppose the meeting between Ma and Xi based on the above reasons. We call on the Taiwanese people, civil organizations, and political parties to support our claims.

聲明團體:臺灣守護民主平台 Taiwan Democracy Watch
英文版感謝林綉娟與Taiwan Voice的熱心志工協助翻譯


圖為2015.11.06公民團體發起遊行抗議馬習會與要求停止貨貿談判,詳見活動說明


沒有留言:

張貼留言

熱門文章