假設，假設有一條法律，一條法律是夫妻其中一方可以依此訴請離婚，而其內容如下：若夫妻一方與配偶外之第三人有性交關係，其配偶可據此訴請離婚並求償，一個政治系出身的人和一個法律系出身的人，被抓到和第三者有性關係而又不想付錢，他們在法庭中會展現出什麼不同的辯論邏輯呢？
政治系的人會和法官說：婚姻的關係是建立在精神的結合上，我雖然肉體外遇，但是我還是深愛著對方，因此婚姻關係不因我的肉體出軌而消滅。法律系的人會和法官說：我和對方只有口交，口交不是性交，所以婚姻有效。
基本上，政治系出身的人會和你爭辯價值的問題，法律人會用字詞的定義而閃避問題，不幸的是，臺灣現任及未來可能出任總統的人，都是法律系出身的，這是我感到厭煩之處，馬英九不是個例外。
最初馬英九令我反感的一點是在1979年時他對高雄事件的一個意見。他說，”這些人違反集會遊行法，依法統統抓起來”。當時這些黨外人士是為爭取民主而遊行的，馬英九以其只有口交沒有性交的法律人邏輯，不和你爭辯更大的價值問題，而是以法律閃避之，因此他會說，我不是反民主，反人權，而是這些人違法，這就是他不沾鍋的訣竅。但我們可以這麼想，當年參與五四運動的人，馬英九是不是也要以違反集遊法的精神把這些人統統抓起來呢？馬英九是不是也要把六四學運的學生統統抓起來呢？換句話說只有兩個可能，馬英九的邏輯是，法律高於普世人權的價值，那麼我想哈佛法律系的教育是失敗的，不然馬英九就是一個在威權體制下的同流者（conformist），前者腦筋錯誤，後者不值令人尊敬。
能創造歷史的人，從來就不是拘泥於法之流，或是沒有勇氣同流者，因此我從不期待馬英九會為臺灣開創出不一樣的格局，特別是在特別費上被自己的下屬出賣而不自知，危機處理能力不足，這些暴露出的弱點將重創他的２００８總統之路；不過也好，讓大眾瞧出這個看似完美的馬英九，事實上並不完美，天下沒有真正的英雄，英雄情結幻滅的開始反倒是民主成熟的契機。
Suppose there is a law which allows a couple to divorce basing on the accusation that one had a non-marital sex and the other one could get pension from that. If two persons, one with a backgroud of politics science and one with a law background, get caught about the non-marital sex and they don't want to pay for the divorce, what's the way they argue at the court?
The politics one would argue that "The existance of marriage is basing on spirits. I still love my wife, therefore the non-marital sex is not a reason for divorce". The law guy would argue that " I only had oral sex, which could not translate into a sex. Therefore, the marriage still holds".
Basically, people with politics science background would argue about the issues of value, and the law people would use rhetoric way to shun problem. Unfortunately for Taiwan, the current president or the future possible one are law people, which is annoying to me. Ma Ying-jeou, who is the current Taipei Mayor, is not an exception.
I really averse to a remark by Ma Ying-jeou toward the
Kaohsiung Incident, which is a pro-democracy demonstrations at Taiwan, 1979. He said, "these people were against the Mass Gathering and Demonstration Act, they should be took into custody". At the one-party-ruling time, the people paraded for democracy. Ma Ying-jeou shunned the value issue of democracy by rhetorics of law, which is identical to the rhetoric way and the saying, oral sex is not sex, to shun the problem. Ma could say： He is not against democracy．It is the problem that they broke the law. I think this is why he got a nickname "non-stick pans" at Taiwan politics.
But we could think in this way. If he uses the same logics, that means the people participated in May Fourth Movement and the students at Tiananmen Square protests should be put into custody. In another words, Ma is a moron. He put law higher than Universal Value, which is a failure of Havard Law School education. Or Ma is a conformist under the one-party rule, which deserves no respect.
People who could create a history are no morons or conformists. Therefore, I never expect Ma Ying-jeou to create a future for Taiwan. Especially, his unawareness of the betray by his own people on the special funds issue and his lack of crisis management will hinder his way to the presidency at 2008. However, it may be good to Taiwan. It lets people see the weakness of Ma who is regarded as a perfect political star before. No star could shine forever. The diming of Ma's starlight evaporates people's complex of political star. And it might accelerate the maturity of Taiwan democracy. Not too bad.
首先，我要引用陳文茜在結束英雄的年代文章中，對榮格(Carl G. Jung)共時性(Synchonicity)的說法: 共時性在一些時代，常連續性的出現。當某個社會集體走向絕境時，它隱約之間會爆發看起來不能解釋的巧合，然後深深影響了這個社會的集體心理，幫助他們離開那個絕境。台灣和中國的絕境是什麼？我認為是虛假，虛假的極致令人勁悶，最終總有人出來戳破這個虛假的泡泡，就像國王新衣中的小孩一樣，同時對其它人而言則是心理的解放。
