佔領運動 當仁不讓 — 專訪台灣學運領袖林飛帆、施懿倫

 

 

隨著台灣立法院院長王金平表態支持服貿「先立法再審查」,佔領立法院二十四天的台灣學生們終於4月10 日撤出,太陽花學運可謂完滿結束。由寥寥數十人的行動發展至數萬人包圍立法院、更成功號召逾50萬黑衣民眾於格蘭大道向服貿說不,學生的組織和動員能力驚人。到底他們如何走到這一步?《中紙》特地到台灣專訪太陽花學運的靈魂人物林飛帆和施懿倫,為這場讓台灣遍地開花的運動作個小結。

 

八九學運領袖王丹評價太陽花運動能凝聚許多社運新面孔的原因之一,是少數人的堅持,終於帶動了一個世代(4月8日,台灣《蘋果日報》)。去年6月21日簽訂的服貿協議牽涉甚廣,內容也複雜,對一般台灣民眾而言絕不容易理解。林飛帆等學生團體一直關注服貿議題,包括在協議去年7月送到議會審查的時候、公聽會上都作出了質疑和提問,但都沒有得到回應。他說:「服貿協議從簽署到審查都是黑箱。正因為絕大數人都認為自己不了解服貿是甚麼, 所以他們反對。」

 

 

起動:受商討日啟發

同一時間,香港和平佔中運動也一直在蘊釀,林飛帆坦言運動受到當中「商討」(deliberation)的理念啟發:「我們有些伙伴去香港時看到佔中曾經搞過幾百個人商討民主,這個經驗影響了我們的運動,所以有些伙伴借用了香港的經驗,所以搞了『街頭審議』。」

 

施懿倫也認為,議會不能作出反映民意的決策時,他們在立法院內外召開「人民議會」,有很大的象徵意義。「在路上做審議的出發點是基於國會的失靈。大家對服貿的意見很多,我們就讓聲音凝聚起來,真正反映民意。」

 

回想318前一天,林飛帆等幾個學生還只是在和老師討論著幾個可能的行動方案,至當天下午,他們才正式確定幾個小時後佔領立法院。林飛帆坦言,一開始的組織、分工和行動都很倉促。「剛開始狀況蠻混亂,但大家後來自動捐物資進來,所以其實也反映了民眾對馬政府是非常不滿。」

 

民眾對服貿存疑,讓這場行動驚人發展,聲勢盛況空前,令人想起2012年也是由學生發起的香港反國教遊行。林飛帆說:「我們原來只有三、四十個人的規模,一個晚上發展到有幾萬人過來包圍。一開始沒有預料到有這樣強大的民意在背後支持我們。

 

318後,各個團體紛紛響應。只要是目標一致並願意分擔工作,學生們就歡迎對方加入,甚至主動邀請部分團體參與。參與的人士和團體漸多,聲音也多,加上他們的手機都被監聽,網絡也不安全,所以他們的對話和討論都是透過親身碰面才能進行。消息傳播難免滯後,造成誤解。

 

參與:非暴力、不爭話語權

林飛帆表示,他們會盡量解釋政治判斷的理據,主動溝通:「基本目標和理念維持一致就能一起行動。如果有不同就各自做各自的事,不用強求在同一場運動內爭話語權。」外界看不到的議會內,學生們馬不停蹄地開會,一直在為求同存異而努力。

 

太陽花學運中,「非暴力」是參與者的共識。在林飛帆眼中,很多警察都感到很無奈,也是這個體制內的受害者。「我們很清楚對抗的對象不是警方。他們不挑釁或侵犯我們,我們也不主動攻擊。在這個默契下,我們對政府提出最強烈的質疑和不滿。」也是因為學生堅持「非暴力」,令運動贏得了民眾的體諒和支持。

 

可是,林飛帆個人認為「非暴力」並非絕對。「如果有一天這個獨裁暴政狀況已是忍無可忍,是不是還要堅守這個原則?我沒有答案。」

 

訪問結束之前,我們問這位一直拒絕「領袖」封號的林同學,若是讓他重新在這一場學運自由地挑一個崗位,他會作何選擇,仍是一臉稚氣的林抓了一下頭皮,認真地想了一遍,得不出一個答案。或許,人只要行所當行,當仁不讓,就是活於一個無須置疑的歷史行跡裡。

 

 

 

後記:好在有「公民社會」 (文:徐少驊)

 

這個只有二十二分鐘的訪問,發生於王金平進入立法院的當天,訪問之後,林飛帆和另一學運推手施懿倫匆匆的進入一個房間開緊急會議。翌日,陳為廷宣布撤離的決定。這三天,我和陳淑莊待在台北等候隨時發生的訪問,不經意地見證了這歷史的一刻。

 

我們沒有可能在這二十二分鐘之內為「太陽花運動」起底作結,但這一場足以改變台灣政治生態和民主操作的抗爭運動重申一個歷史鐵律:只要有足夠規模的人民持續的支持下,為公義抗爭的運動必然會令政權的虛張聲勢現形。

 

在等待訪問的過程中,我們在立法院內外走動、觀察,與學生、教授、醫療人員聊天。這一場運動,在3月18日爆發,不用動員,醫療、法律、物流、資訊科技……各種專業人才自動「埋位」,一名醫生說:「只要公民社會受到侵害,就會有對應的專業人士出來提供無償支援。」這不就是所謂「公民社會」的精神嗎?「公民」為生活工作賺錢,同時用其所長維護社會整體利益。在這一方面,台灣有很不錯的基礎!

 

「和平佔中」運動固然是以爭取「真普選」為其目標,在這個過程中,推進「公民社會」的建構可説是同等重要,我們需要作為「公民社會」一員的你,為這個地方的民主貢獻你的專長。

 

 

 

"The Occupier" conducted an exclusive interview with two key leaders in the Sunflower movement - Lin Fei-fan and Shi Yi-lun

 

The Sunflower movement in Taiwan came to a satisfactory end on 10 April as the student protestors withdrew from the Legislative building after a 24-day occupation.  The movement started with just a few dozens of students but quickly rallied the support from half a million protestors who flocked into Ketagalan Boulevard.  How did they manage to do this?  "The Occupier" conducted an exclusive interview with two key leaders in the Sunflower movement - Lin Fei-fan and Shi Yi-lun.

 

Wang Dan, a student leader in the 1989 Chinese democratic movement, commented that one of the key reasons of success in the Sunflower movement was the persistence from a small group of people. Lin and his fellow students in Taiwan had been closely following the legislative process of the cross-strait service trade pact and believed that the pact was too complicated to the majority of the people in Taiwan.  They raised queries during the review of the pact in the legislature and the related public hearings but all such concerns did not get addressed.  Since then they had taken an opposing stance against the government's black-box operations in the service trade pact legislation.

 

Lin admitted the movement was inspired by the idea of "deliberation" in the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong.  "Street Deliberation" was actually an idea borrowed from the experience of the D-Days in Hong Kong.  Shi believed the "People's Parliament" had a huge symbolic meaning when the actual parliament failed to reflect public opinion.

 

Just on the day before 318, Lin and a few other students were still discussing the several possible action plans.  Not until a few hours before the occupation was the plan finalized.  It was a bit of chaos at the beginning but then everyone was keen to assist, showing their dissatisfaction with the Ma administration.  Lin admitted they did not expect such a strong support from the public.  All this reminded them of what happened during the demonstration against national education in Hong Kong in 2012.

 

After 318, a number of organizations joined the movement but at the same time brought in different voices.  Most of the discussions were done face-to-face as their mobile phones were bugged.  Timely  dissemination of information was difficult and misunderstandings were caused as a result.

 

Lin said they tried very hard to explain the reasoning behind the political judgments and promote communications among the participants in the movement.  However, he did not think the public saw the efforts made by the students in the legislature trying to reach a consensus.

 

"Non-violence" was the consensus in the Sunflower movement.  Lin showed great sympathy towards the police and made sure the students did not confront them.  It was their adherence to the non-violence principle that won the understanding and support of the public.  However, Lin did not have an answer to whether the non-violent principle would always hold true if one day the authoritarian tyranny becomes unbearable.

 

At the end of the interview, we asked Lin which position he would have chosen in this movement if he were free to do so.  He gave it a serious thought but could not offer an answer.  Maybe, he was just stepping forward for a good cause in the historic moment.

 

 


訪問:徐少驊 陳淑莊 / 撰文:羊女 / 攝影:鍾志工

 

相關文章: