職業學生」和「抓耙仔」兩個辭彙，是台灣專制時代的產物。國民黨習慣用「職業學生」來指控反對派（不管是中共還是民進黨）的青年幹部，或是支持反對運動的青年，他們或是以學生身分掩護其「革命工作」，或是以學校為基地開展反對運動。八年代以來的學生運動中，不管是所謂的「學運領袖」，還是如筆者一般的小螺絲釘，往往都被校方貼上如此的標籤。至於「抓耙仔」，當然指的是國民黨以「打進去、拉出來」手法滲透到反對運動陣營中的爪牙，是反對運動者所恐懼、擔憂與仇視的對象，國民黨也善用反對運動的「抓耙仔」恐懼症，從中運用，讓反對者互相猜忌、自亂陣腳。
 
「職業學生」戰「抓耙仔」

這些專制時代的產物，並沒有隨著台灣表面的民主化而消失。在歷次選戰中，反成了藍綠雙方鬥爭的工具，造成了極其錯亂的場景。過去的反對運動陣營，如今拾起了國民黨的餘唾，回敬馬英九「職業學生」的帽子。更荒謬的是，過去威權政體的成員，現在反過頭來指責政治對手是替國民黨服務的「抓耙仔」。我們應該問一句︰如果當「抓耙仔」是錯誤的，那麼佈建「抓耙仔」的政府╱政黨又豈能在政治上、道德上逃避究責？如果國民黨在政治上、道德上是基本正確無瑕的，那替國民黨政府服務、充當「抓耙仔」又何罪之有？

「職業學生」和「抓耙仔」的話題，成了兩大黨拙劣的泥巴戰，而關於約制國家暴力與伸張民主人權的嚴肅課題，卻從來不是兩黨的核心關懷。馬謝兩人的過去當然應該攤在陽光下，但即使馬謝遭控的罪狀成立，也僅僅是一種對政治黑暗和歷史真相的「選擇性揭露」。在人民的立場，藍綠兩黨不應該逃避如下的一系列追問︰

如果當「抓耙仔」是該被譴責的，那麼國民黨為何可以不斷迴避它在專制時代運用情治機關製造的種種罪惡？在國民黨厚重的檔案櫃中，是不是有大量被深埋的檔案資料應該被公開？一直宣稱要「連結台灣」的國民黨，為何如此不願連結自己的歷史責任？

「轉型正義」與國民黨的黑暗過去，一直是綠營慣用的選戰工具。然而，這八年來掌握國家權力的民進黨，何時公佈情治單位長期以來監控民眾、斲傷人權的紀錄，何時戮力改革情治機關，矢志杜絕國家暴力的濫用？

呼籲馬謝公開政治黑幕

馬謝兩陣營，你們是否願意宣示︰不管是誰當選，都將和對手共同努力，一方面公開專制時代無數政治黑幕、人權迫害的真相，一方面對於過去的歷史錯誤進行深刻的反省，並透過對話尋求台灣社會的和解？

過去的加害者，不願反省，迴避責任，有的人享盡富貴榮華，有的人在新朝搖身一變，繼續身居高位，也有人準備班師回朝。新的統治者，不但把歷史悲劇拿來當廉價的鬥爭工具，更走著國民黨的老路，濫用國家權力，甚至不時拿出「戒嚴」和媒體控制來恐嚇反對者。面對這兩大新舊統治集團，人民難道永遠只有「兩害相權取其輕」的卑微選擇嗎？

蘋果日報20080218

以下是台北時報刊登的英文版

The parties are failing to deal with a dark past

By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中

Wednesday, Feb 20, 2008, Page 8
Professional students and informants were the products of Taiwan's past authoritarian era. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used to accuse the opposition's young cadres of being professional students for the Chinese Communist Party or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The KMT also accused the young supporters of the opposition movement of disguising revolution with student status, or carrying out such activities by using schools as bases.

During the student movement in the 1980s, both student leaders and supporters like myself were labeled as professional students by school administrations.

Informants, for their part, were spies placed by the KMT within the opposition camp to "push them in, pull them out." They were feared, worried over and hated by opposition activists. Through this fear of informants, the KMT aroused mutual suspicion among activists in order to create internal conflict.

Such authoritarian products did not completely disappear following Taiwan's superficial democratization. They have, in fact, turned into tools of the pan-blue and plan-green camps to influence elections. The former opposition camp repaid the KMT in kind by labeling presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) a professional student. Even more ridiculously, the former authoritarian rulers have called DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) a KMT informant.

Which begs the question: If being an informant is a sin, then how can the government or a party that created informants justify itself and its activities? If the KMT is basically politically and morally upright, what's wrong with being one of its informants?

The issue of professional students and informants has turned the election campaign into a mud-slinging war. More serious issues, such as the control of government violence and promotion of human rights, have not appeared on the parties' to-do list. Certainly, Ma and Hsieh's pasts should be exposed. But even if they really were professional students or informants, the whole thing is merely a selective exposure of the political darkness that characterized the nation's past. From the public's perspective, none of them should avoid the following questions.

For the KMT: If being an informant should be condemned, why does the party avoid discussing the past crimes committed by the intelligence service? Shouldn't the great number of files in the KMT cabinets be made public? Since the KMT claims to be "establishing links to Taiwan," why doesn't it link itself to historical responsibility as well?

The DPP, on the other hand, has always used "transitional justice" and the KMT's dark history as electoral tools. Yet, in its eight years in office, the party never released the intelligence service's records of public surveillance and human rights abuses. A reform of the intelligence apparatus has yet to be made, and government-sponsored violence continues.

To the Ma and Hsieh camps, we could ask whether they are ready to pledge to work with the rival camp no matter who is elected president, if they are prepared to uncover the human rights abuses during the authoritarian era, review past mistakes and seek reconciliation with society through dialogue.

Today, the perpetrators of past crimes have done nothing more than deflect accusations onto others. Some are enjoying great wealth and high positions in the DPP government.Our leaders have not only taken historical tragedies as cheap tools for power struggle, but have also gone down the same road as the KMT by abusing national power, threatening antagonists with media control or even hinting at the imposition of martial law.

Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.

Translated by Eddy Chang

Taipei Times