【新唐人2013年02月18日訊】「十八」大後，中紀委書記王岐山密切配合習近平的反腐言論，聲稱對腐敗分子「絕不姑息」。而中紀委能不能監督總書記和國家主席﹖地方和部門的紀委能不能監督第一把手﹖前中共總書記趙紫陽的智囊——姚監復提出﹕誰來監督中紀委﹖誰來監督黨中央﹖誰來監督中央主席﹖下面請看姚監復的分析評論。
《陳希同親述》的作者，前中共總書記趙紫陽的智囊姚監復，與多位前中共高官——項南、鮑彤、陳希同接觸後，發現他們都對中紀委處理他們的問題存有意見，他們都沒有認錯。
1989年5月28號，鄧小平定調為壞人的中央委員鮑彤，被送往「秦城監獄」。在那裏，中紀委的兩位局長宣佈，鮑彤嚴重違反刑律，中央政治局決定開除鮑彤黨籍，撤消他黨內外一切職務。鮑彤當即反駁，認為政治局無權判定他是否違反刑律。
前中共總書記趙紫陽的智囊姚監復：「中紀委對大官的處理，有時候是從政治鬥爭角度上考慮的。鮑彤說的，政治局先有結論，認為鮑彤觸犯刑律，過了幾個月後法院才定。這種程度不符合民主法治的程序。」
前中共中央組織部部長安子文，在文革中被毛澤東定為「叛徒」，飽受批判和折磨。文革後，安子文見到鮑彤發出的第一問就是：「誰來監督毛澤東？」
姚監復認為，安子文這一問看透了最高領導人獨裁專斷，不受任何監督的制度性根本缺陷。
姚監復：「這個問題實際上反映的是一黨專政的問題，一黨專政就是全黨服從中央，下級服從上級，中央又服從政治局，政治局服從常委，常委服從主席。中國變成人治，最高領導人一句話來治，沒有監督，這個問題是個很大的問題，反映了中國一黨專政的弊病。」
中紀委不能監督總書記和國家主席，地方和部門的紀委也不能監督第一把手。而對於底層，中紀委的權力過於強大，自身又不受監督，製造出無數冤假錯案。
大連金州工業所翻譯關春榮，遭到所長程紹崇的毒打致殘。關春榮多次上訴中紀委，卻一再被抓回大連遭受迫害。中紀委一位劉姓官員對關春榮揚言：「我就代表黨中央。你告到中央也沒用！」「你再來告，我還抓你。」
另一個典型案例是遼寧錦州的訪民王玉萍，她從1977年持續上訪，至今30年沒有結果，2003年，因為中紀委辦錯案，王玉萍還被無辜勞教18個月。
姚監復認為，如果中紀委不能治理腐敗，只能充當權力鬥爭「借刀殺人」的工具，和充當冤假錯案的製造者，那麼中紀委也應該成為中共製度改革的一部分。
姚監復：「誰來監督中紀委，誰來監督黨中央，誰來監督中央主席，這個問題牽扯到一黨專政到底是中國模式、中國道路、中國經驗？還是中國的教訓？不受監督的絕對權力必然導致絕對腐敗。」
現在主持中紀委工作的王岐山，多次向外界顯示反腐的決心和魄力。但姚監復認為這遠遠不能解決腐敗問題。他認為，中共當前的腐敗是整體性的「癌擴散」，王岐山能否「主刀」切除中共的腐敗毒瘤？不僅老百姓，就連中共自己也不相信。
採訪/朱智善 編輯/許旻 後製/蕭宇
Who Can Supervise the Central Discipline Inspection Commission?
Since assuming office, Xi Jinping, new leader of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP), has touted combating corruption.
Wang Qishan, new chief of the CCP Central Commission for
Discipline Inspection (CCDI) echoes Xi in high-profile.
Yet in practice, does the CCDI have oversight of the CCP
General Secretary and State President?
Can the local CCDI authority supervise local Party chiefs?
Yao Jianfu, a former think-tank for ex-CCP leader Zhao Ziyang,
asks, “Who can supervise the CCDI?
Who can supervise the CCP Central Committee and its
chairman?” Let’s see what Mr. Yao can tell us on the issue.
Yao Jianfu, author of “Chen Xitong’s Personal Statement”,
has contacted several former CCP senior officials,
among them Xiang Nan, Bao Tong, and Chen Xitong.
Yao found that they all disapproved of the way the CCDI
dealt with their cases, and none of them have admitted faults.
In May 1989, Bao Tong, a CCP Central Committee member
and labeled “a villain“ by Deng Xiaoping, was put in Qincheng prison.
Over there, two CCDI directors announced that Bao Tong
had seriously violated criminal law.
Both claimed that the Politburo had decided to expel Bao
from the Party and from all his posts.
Bao Tong immediately refuted the Politburo’s right
to convict him.
Yao Jianfu: “The CCDI sometimes deals with senior officials
from a standpoint of political struggle.
As Bao Tong said, the Politburo had convicted him of
criminal law violation before the court made a judgment several months later.
That action didn’t comply with due legal process.”
An Ziwen was formerly chief of the
CCP Organization Department.
In the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong called An Ziwen
a “traitor" and subjected him to censure and torture.
After the Cultural Revolution, An Ziwen asked Bao Tong,
“Who supervises Mao Zedong?”
Yao Jianfu says, this question shows that An Ziwen had
discovered a fundamental flaw of the CCP political system:
the dictatorship of the CCP’s top leaders and
a lack of oversight.
Yao Jianfu: “This question actually highlights
the issue of one-party dictatorship.
That is, all the Party members shall obey the CCP central
committee, all CCP subordinates shall obey their superiors.
And then, the CCP central committee shall obey the Politburo,
the Politburo shall obey its Standing Committee, and the latter finally obeys the Chairman.
As a whole, China was under the rule of the CCP’s top leader
who is free from oversight himself.
This is a big problem, the malady of one-party dictatorship.”
The CCDI has no authority to supervise the CCP General
Secretary and State President.
Likewise, local CCDI authority cannot supervise
local Party chiefs.
However, the CCDI itself, having unsupervised power,
has committed numerous injustices on a grass-roots level.
Guan Chunrong, a translator at an industry research institute
in Dalian, became disabled after having been physically abused by the institute director.
Guan repeatedly appealed to the CCDI, but each time was
arrested and sent back to Dalian.
An official surnamed Liu at CCDI told Guan,
“I myself can represent the CCP Central Committee.
Even if your appeal reaches the Central Committee it won’t help!”
“If you come back to continue your appeal, I’ll arrest you again.”
Another typical case is petitioner Wang Yuping from Liaoning.
Her petitioning started in 1977, and has come to nothing so far.
In 2003, due to the CCDI’s mishandling of her case, Wang
was sent to reeducation-through-labor for 18 months.
Yao Jianfu comments that if the CCDI fails to solve corruption,
it will be used to “kill” opponents in a power struggle or to create injustices.
In this sense, the CCDI should be an integral part of the
CCP’s political reforms, he says.
Yao Jianfu: “Who has oversight of the CCDI?
Who supervises the CCP Central Committee and its chairman?
This is a problem related to whether the
one-party dictatorship is a model, a path and an experience for China, or a lesson to be learned.
Unsupervised absolute power will inevitably result in
definite corruption.”
CCDI chief Wang Qishan has so far repeatedly displayed
his resolve in anti-corruption.
Yao Jianfu thinks that is far from the
true solution of corruption.
Yao says that CCP corruption, as a whole,
is now like a cancer, and is spreading.
Yao asks, can Wang Qishan act as a surgeon
to remove the malignant tumor of corruption?
Not only the public in China, but the CCP itself will also be
distrustful of the suggestion, according to Yao Jianfu.