孔傑榮專文：北京錯估逮捕李明哲的後果
日前不幸消息傳來，中華人民共和國以「顛覆國家政權罪」「逮捕」了臺灣人權活動人士李明哲。這亟需我們進行反思和進一步評論。
首先值得注意的是，北京在宣布正式「逮捕」前已經將李明哲隔離監禁了六十八天（按：見刊此時已經八十天）。這再次表明，中國國家安全部和公安系統如今頻繁使用「監視居住」手段，來規避中國《刑事訴訟法》所規定的普通拘留或逮捕程序的時限。即便警察扭曲解釋了《刑事訴訟法》，那至多也只能允許他們在檢察院正式作出逮捕決定之前拘留嫌疑人三十七天。按照國際標準，這一拘留時間已經遠遠長於正常的期限。然而，現在警察只要聲稱當事人涉嫌危害國家安全，就能在提請檢察院批准「逮捕」之前，通過監視居住這一強制措施關押嫌疑人長達六個月。此外，如同警察在其他一些涉及人權律師案件中的作法，他們甚至可以再次或多次更新為期六個月的監視居住，以長期拘留嫌疑人。這無疑是對《刑事訴訟法》的嘲弄。
其次，如臺灣陸委會簡要指出，圍繞李明哲被捕的情況進一步證實，北京方面自從臺灣新任總統蔡英文一年前就職以來，一直拒絕執行重要的《海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議》。中國不但沒有按照協議及時通報臺灣當局李明哲被限制人身自由的訊息，而且在近十周的監禁後，仍然沒有安排家屬探視。臺灣的海峽交流基金會，表面上雖然屬於半官方機構，但被兩岸授權負責執行所謂「非官方」的兩岸協議。而如今，在北京置之不理的情況下，海基會要求中國政府保護李明哲的權利並公布支持其指控的相關證據。之前在臺灣前總統馬英九執政時期與中國執法機關保持良好合作關係的臺灣法務部，現淪落到只能通過電子郵件向中國檢察院要求在調查期間保障李明哲的身體健康、人身安全和司法程序中的權利。至少在名義上，檢察院擁有對全能的秘密警察進行監督的權力。
第三，一般來說，在嫌疑人尚未被強制在電視上公開「認罪」的案件，「逮捕」公告通常就會以精心的措詞暗示嫌疑人確實承認了被指控的罪行，即使他/她只是「供認」了參與一個絕不會被文明政府視為「犯罪」的民主活動。因此，李明哲可能僅僅提到他確實與人權活動人士見面，但卻被扭曲成了供認「顛覆國家政權罪」。
第四，可能有人會問為什麽李明哲在湖南被逮捕，而不是在其他更明顯的地方，比如在廣東或北京。是因為他的人權活動已擴展到了湖南省？還是僅僅因為警方對控制該省的司法系統感到更有信心呢？這也解釋了為何天津和一些其他省市往往被選中審判一些並非發生在當地的刑事案件。
第五點，值得注意的是，李明哲被指控與一個團隊合作。那個團隊裡有哪些人？中國公布了這些成員的拘留消息嗎？他們的什麽行為被指控為犯罪？我沒有看到任何相關資訊。
第六，正如陸委會的聲明所提到，至今為止，出現在公告中的「逮捕」理由，只包含抽象的指控，而缺乏事實依據。在該案中，何種行為構成了「顛覆國家政權罪」？只有與刑法所規定的構成要件相關聯的事實，才能傳達有價值的信息。
第七，逮捕公告沒有提及中國新頒布的《境外非政府組織境內活動管理法》。因此，至少在當下這部新法律的執行情況受到普遍關注的微妙時刻，尤其是考慮到外國人擔憂一些被中國當局認為違法的行為可能會招來刑事處罰，北京已經決定不再進一步加劇他們的焦慮。
第八，許多報導指出，這可能是臺灣人第一次被指控犯「顛覆國家政權罪」。無論如何，該指控是北京對臺灣當局施加壓力的另一個信號。
第九，該「逮捕」清楚地表明，無論其當初是否由廣東警方發起，這個案子現在明顯是由中央政府負責，並已被轉化為對蔡總統政府及其政策的公然挑戰。這一事件不再能被輕描淡寫為因中央與地方的官僚組織錯誤而導致的混亂。
第十，該逮捕發生在李明哲的妻子訪問華盛頓之後不久。勇敢的李太太試圖通過外國政府向中國政府就其恣意作為施加更大壓力。此次「逮捕」顯然是要壓制類似的公開抗議活動，同時也對台灣受害者施壓，讓他們在未來不敢拒絕中國政府就釋放事宜提出的秘密磋商。
第十一，如自由亞洲電臺所指出，「李明哲案凸顯了中國與臺灣在公民自由權利方面明顯且日益擴大的差距……」 無論是在中國對臺目標上，還是在世界舞臺上增強「軟實力」的目標上，北京都嚴重錯估了這種行為所導致的後果。
我非常欣賞台灣關懷中國人權聯盟理事長楊憲宏對此「逮捕」的聲明。帶著些許情有可原的誇張，他告訴自由亞洲電臺：「向全世界宣布民主、自由、人權和法治這些普世價值代表著顛覆國家政權，等於是使共產黨成為全世界的敵人。」
A Taiwanese Man’s Detention in
Guangdong Threatens a Key Pillar of Cross-Straits Relations
April 20, 2017
Jerome A. Cohen,
a professor at New York University School of Law since 1990 and co-director of
its U.S.-Asia Law Institute, is a leading American expert on Chinese law and
government.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017 - 11:17am
The sad news that the People’s
Republic of China (P.R.C.) has now “arrested” Taiwanese human rights activist Lee Ming-che on
charges of “subverting state power” calls for reflection and further comment.
The first point to note is that
it took Beijing 68 days to decide on “arrest” while holding Lee incommunicado.
This is another demonstration of the now frequent use by the police—both State
Security and Public Security—of the “residential surveillance” technique to
avoid the time limits of the ordinary detention/arrest procedure prescribed by
China’s Criminal Procedure Law. Even the police’s distorted interpretation of
the Criminal Procedure Law only allows them to hold a suspect a maximum of 37
days—an unusually long time by international standards—before a decision on
“arrest” must be made. Yet, by alleging a mere suspicion of a national security
violation, they are permitted to detain a suspect under residential
surveillance for up to six months before applying for approval of “arrest.”
Moreover, as they have done in the cases of some human rights lawyers, the
police can even renew residential surveillance detention for one or more
six-month terms. This makes a mockery of the Criminal Procedure Law, of course.
Second, as Taiwan’s Mainland
Affairs Commission briefly pointed out, the circumstances surrounding Lee’s
“arrest” further confirm Beijing’s continuing refusal to implement the
important Cross-Strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance
Agreement since Taiwan’s new president, Tsai Ying-wen, assumed office a year
ago. The P.R.C. not only failed to give the Taiwan authorities the prompt
notice of Lee’s detention required but it has also failed to arrange for a
family visit after almost ten weeks of detention. Taiwan’s ostensibly
semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation, charged with responsibility for
implementing the supposedly unofficial cross-strait agreements but now ignored
by Beijing, demanded that the Chinese Government protect Lee’s rights and
release evidence to back up its claims. And Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice, which
enjoyed smooth cooperation with Chinese law enforcement agencies under the
administration of Taiwan’s previous president, Ma Ying-jeou, was reduced to
emailing China’s Procuracy, its prosecuting agency, with at least nominal
authority to supervise the all-powerful secret police, to request that Lee’s
health, personal security, and judicial rights be protected during the
investigation.
Third, as is often the case if
the suspect has not yet been coerced into giving a public “confession” on
television, the “arrest” announcement is worded very carefully to suggest that
the suspect has indeed confessed to the crime alleged even though he or she may
only have “confessed” to taking part in democratic activities that would surely
not be deemed “criminal” under a civilized government. Thus, Lee may have
merely said that he did meet with human rights activists, but that in turn is
twisted into confessing the “crime of subverting state power.”
Fourth, one might ask why Lee
has been detained in Hunan rather than the obvious places, Guangdong or
Beijing. Is it because his human rights activities extended to that province or
simply because the police feel greater confidence in controlling the judicial
system there? That is why Tianjin and certain other places are often selected
for criminal trials in cases that have not occurred in their area.
Fifth, note that Lee is alleged
to have worked with a group. Who are they? Have their detentions been
announced? What are they alleged to have done? I have seen no reference.
Sixth, as the Mainland Affairs Commission statement mentions, thus
far in appearing to state the reasons for “arrest,” the announcement merely
engages in abstract allegations rather than facts. What behavior constitutes
“subversion of state power” in this case? Only when facts are characterized in
relation to the Criminal Law can meaningful knowledge be communicated.
Seventh, no mention is made of
China’s newly enacted Law on the Management of Foreign NGOs. So Beijing has
decided, at least at this delicate moment of widespread concern over that new
Law’s enforcement, not to further aggravate foreign anxieties about possible
resort to criminal punishment for perceived infractions.
Eighth, this may well be the
first time a Taiwanese has been charged with “subverting state power,” as has
been widely reported. In any event, this prosecution is another signal of
Beijing increasing the pressure on the Taiwan regime.
Ninth, the “arrest” makes clear
that, whatever the responsibility of Guangdong police for its initiation, the
case is clearly now the responsibility of the central government, which has
converted it into a blatant challenge to President Tsai’s government and
policy. This incident can no longer be minimized as a central-local
bureaucratic foul-up.
Tenth, coming shortly after the
visit of Lee Ming-cheh’s courageous spouse to Washington in an attempt to
heighten foreign pressure against China’s arbitrary actions, the “arrest” is
plainly meant to discourage similar public protests and future rejections of
secret efforts by the P.R.C. to negotiate the release of Taiwan victims of
China’s repression.
Eleventh, as Radio Free Asia
(RFA) has pointed out, “Lee’s case highlights the stark and growing
gap in civil liberties between China and Taiwan . . .” Beijing has badly
miscalculated the consequences of proceeding in this manner for its hopes in
Taiwan and for its “soft power” in the world.
I like very much the statement
of Sen Hong Yang, chairman of the Taiwan Association for China Human Rights,
about the “arrest.” With some pardonable exaggeration, he told RFA:
“Declaring to the world that
the universal values of democracy, freedom, human rights and rule of law
represent subversion of state power is tantamount to making the Communists the
enemy of the entire world.”
- See more at:
http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/taiwanese-mans-detention-guangdong-threatens-key-pillar-of-cross-straits#sthash.TKurMUtM.dpuf
没什么不好啊；以后台湾社工不敢去大陆，可以留在台湾多多为台湾人民服务。
回覆刪除