國民黨政權流氓取締制度起源研究 (1927—1955)

Abstract

以「流氓」為取締主體的法規可以上溯至1927年國民政府在北伐期間所頒布的「懲治土豪劣紳條例」，而該條例也是至1985年「動員戡亂時期檢肅流氓條例」制定以前，取締流氓中唯一具有法律位階的法規，而其所創設置經由特種刑事法庭加以審判的訴追程序，與日後傾向於以行政程序、保安處分的方法大不相同。雖然，「懲治土豪劣紳條例」所定義的諸項違法行為，其行為主體為「土豪劣紳」，「流氓」不過是受其指使的手腳而已。但是，隨著之後「違警罰法」、戰後的「加強監督不良份子辦法」、1949年「台灣省取締散兵遊民辦法」、1950年版「台灣省戒嚴時期取締流氓辦法」、1952年版「台灣省戒嚴時期取締流氓辦法」、1955年版「台灣省戒嚴時期取締流氓辦法」的頒布，國民黨政府對「流氓」的定義越來越廣，但其基本劣行、以及法規的用詞遣字竟然不脫1927年「懲治土豪劣紳條例」第二條對「土豪劣紳」惡劣行為的描述。由此，我們看到國民黨政府在取締流氓的實體法規範上受到日治時期的影響極小，而受其戰前統治中國大陸的經驗多。將「台灣省戒嚴時期取締流氓辦法」之淵源溯至日治時期的「浮浪者取締規則」是不恰當的。 再者，就有關規訓「流氓」的機關而言，國民黨政府在中國大陸時期即針對剿共期間的散兵游勇問題而訂有「臨時散兵游勇收容習藝所訓育大綱」，詳訂矯正散兵遊勇等無業歹人的方法、中日戰爭期間又有「非常時期處置散兵游勇暫行辦法」的訂定與「勞動總隊」的設置，其「集中服役、運用軍事管理方式，施以感化與職業教育」的方法，直至戰後台灣仍繼續沿用。不論是二二八事件以前的「勞働訓導營」，或是其後保安司令部設置的「職業訓導總隊」及「游民習藝訓導所」，不論其名稱如何變化；主管機關如何以輔導、技能訓練為念，但其軍事管理的本質不變。在規訓處所上的使用，戰前日本殖民者設置的類似機構，對國民黨政府而言，倒是能提供相當不錯的再利用，前述的「游民習藝訓導所」即設在日治時期「開導所」之舊址上，而「勞働訓導營」則設在台北大直日治時期的青年訓練所舊址上。 最後，值得一提的是，日治時期取締「浮浪者」所運用的是總督府綿密建制的警察系統，但無論戰前或戰後時期，國民黨政府所依賴整頓治安的力量則往往是軍隊。不論是「散兵遊勇」或是「流氓」的取締，國民黨政府慣用的方法是；通通捉起來再逐一分類處置。這或許和國民黨政府自國民政府成立以來至戰後的戒嚴時期間，皆有相當明確敵人，而在其認知上，「流氓」就是被這些敵對勢力所利用的手腳，必須要除惡務盡。這或許也相當程度說明，至1985年以前，國民黨政府始終傾向於以用行政命令取締流氓的制度設計。

Legislation cracking down on hooligans can be traced back to the “Ordinances Governing the Punishment of Local Tyrants and Scofflaw Gentry” issued by the National Government during the Northern Expedition in 1927. This Ordinance was the only regulation with the status of law for clamping down on hooligans prior to the Anti-Hooligan Ordinances for the Period of Communist Rebellion adopted in 1985. The special criminal courts and procedures for apprehending offenders and administering justice set up on its authority differed a great deal from methods that tended to lean toward administrative procedures and rehabilitative measures used later. The Ordinances Governing the Punishment of Local Tyrants and Scofflaw Gentry defines “local tyrants and scofflaw gentry” as the masterminds behind various types of illegal activities, while hooligans are only tools directed by them. With the later promulgation, however, of the Act Governing the Punishment of Police Offenses, the Ordinance to Strengthen the Surveillance of Hooligans (adopted after World War II), 1949 Guidelines for Cracking down on AWOL Members of the Military, the 1950 version of the Guidelines for Cracking down on Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province, the 1952 version of the Guidelines for Cracking down on Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province, and the 1955 version of the Guidelines for Cracking down on Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province, the Kuomintang Government’s definition of the term “hooligan” became increasingly broad. The basic wording describing illicit behavior and regulations, however, did not differ to any significant degree from the description of the behavior of local tyrants and scofflaw gentry in Article 2 of the 1927 Ordinances Governing the Punishment of Local Tyrants and Scofflaw Gentry. From this, it is clear that the Kuomintang Government’s substantive regulations for clamping down on hooligans was influenced very little by the period of Japanese occupation as it drew a great deal from its experience in ruling mainland China prior to the war. As such, it is inappropriate to trace the origins of the Guidelines for Cracking down on Hooligans during the Period of Martial Law in Taiwan Province to the “Regulations Governing Disbanded Troop Turned Vagrant” of the period of Japanese occupation. Furthermore, as to agencies responsible for disciplining hooligans, the Kuomintang Government established the Provisional Guidelines for Skills Training Shelters for Disciplining and Educating AWOL Troops to address the issue of deserters from the war against the Communists while in mainland China. Other methods adopted to correct vagrants, such as deserters, include the issuing of the Provisionary Guidelines for Dealing with Disbanded Troops Turned Ruffians during Emergency Periods and the establishment of Labor Corps during the Sino-Japanese War. These employed “concentrated corvee labor and military management techniques to reform and provide education and labor skills” that continued to be used in Taiwan until after WWII. Regardless of how names changed, such as the Labor Training Camps prior to the 228 Incident or the Professional Discipline Corps and Vagrant Discipline Training Center set up later by the Security Command, or how competent authorities integrated guidance and skills training concepts, the military management nature used in them remained the same. The Japanese colonists had similar disciplinary agencies prior to WWII which the Kuomintang Government could put to its advantage. The abovementioned Vagrant Discipline Training Centers were set up on similar sites called “開導所” used by the Japanese during the period of Japanese occupation and the Labor Training Camps were built on the site of a youth training center used in the period of Japanese occupation in Dazhi, Taipei. Finally and well worth mentioning is the fact that the office of governor-general used its very tight and highly disciplined police system for cracking down on disbanded troops turned ruffians during the period of Japanese occupation, while the Kuomintang Government depended on the armed forces both before and after the war to maintain public order. Whether clamping down on deserters or hooligans, the Kuomintang Government used the same method: rounding up all suspects, then placing them into categories and dealing with them accordingly. This is perhaps because since the establishment of the Nationalist Government by the Kuomintang Government and throughout the period of martial law following WWII, the government had very clear and definite enemies and to the government’s thinking, hooligans were simply the arms and legs of these enemies. As such, they had to be eradicated to the last person. This perhaps explains to some degree why the Kuomintang Government tended to use executive orders to crack down on the formation of organizations by hooligans up until 1985.