臺灣地區人民赴大陸地區任職管制之實務分析－以鄧文聰案為例

Regulation of Taiwan Citizens Holding Positions in China: The Eric Teng Case

10.6164/JNDS.14-2.4

楊喜慧(Hsi-Huei Yang)

兩岸條例 ； 臺灣地區人民赴大陸地區任職 ； 擔任職務或為其成員 ； 管制理論 ； Cross-Strait Act ； Taiwan citizens holding positions in China ； Holding Positions and Membership ； Regulatory Theory

國家發展研究

14卷2期（2015 / 06 / 01）

157 - 207

繁體中文

隨著兩岸情勢的變化及經貿活動的頻密，兩岸交流樣態也日益增多，臺灣地區人民前往大陸地區任職或為其成員更是大幅增加，衍生爭議也更為複雜。儘管根據《臺灣地區人民與大陸地區人民關係條例》（以下簡稱「兩岸條例」）第33條之規定，臺灣地區人民赴陸擔任黨政軍機關及所屬之機構團體或附屬單位職務，均屬違法之行為，但國安局2012年仍提送了169位涉及違反上開規定的臺灣民眾，桐經政府相關部門近一年的清查，仍有32人確定觸法或可能觸法。本案例主人翁鄧文聰先生，因遭海基會檢舉擔任「上海市歸國華僑聯合會」（以下簡稱「上海僑聯」）海外及港澳臺委員職務，陸委會認為此項職務屬該會依「兩岸條例」第33條第2項規定，於2004年3月1日公告禁止擔任職務或為其成員之大陸地區政治性團體。陸委會遂函請內政部依「兩岸條例」第90條第3項規定，罰緩新臺幣10萬元。鄧因此不服，向行政院訴願委員會提出訴願，獲該委員會撤銷原處分之決定。「兩岸條例」的本質是管制法規，本論文運用葉俊榮教授所提出的管制理論三層次分析架構，首先描述此一案情結構，包括：管制環境、管制結構、管制流程、管制機關與權限、管制法令與結構等等；其次再分別從權利與救濟、制度與程序、政策與策略，對此一個案進行管制是否合情合理的討論，進而對現行臺灣地區人民赴大陸地區任職之管制機制提出建言。

As the cross-Strait situation has changed and economic and trade activities between the two sides have increased, the types of exchanges between the two sides have expanded and diversified. The number of Taiwan citizens taking up employment or organizational membership in China has risen dramatically and led to a complex controversy. Article 33 of the Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (hereafter abbreviated as the Cross-Strait Act) prohibits Taiwan citizens from holding positions or membership in party, state and military institutions or their affiliated organizations in China. However, in 2012 Taiwan’s National Security Bureau raised 169 cases of Taiwan citizens violating this provision and investigations by relevant government departments during the past year show that 32 people remain in violation, or possibly in violation, of the law. In the case examined in this study, Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation reported that Taiwanese businessman Eric Teng held a seat on a committee representing Taiwan (along with Hong and Macau) on the Shanghai City Federation for Returned Overseas Chinese. On 1 March 2014, the Mainland Affairs Council announced that Teng was in violation of the Cross-Strait Act's prohibition of Taiwan citizens' membership in organizations of a political nature in China and requested the Interior Ministry issue Teng a fine of 10,000 New Taiwan Dollars in accordance with Article 90, Section 2 of the Cross-Strait Act. Teng filed an appeal with the Executive Yuan's Appeals Committee, which ruled to revoke the decision to take disciplinary action against him. The Cross-Strait Act is essentially a regulatory statute. This study applies Jiunn-rong Yeh's three-level regulatory theory analytical framework to examine th Eric Teng case. It first describes the structure of the case, including the regulatory environment, regulatory structure, regulatory process, regulatory bodies and jurisdictions, and regulatory laws and structures. Second, the paper discusses whether or not regulation is reasonable in this case from the perspective of rights, relief, system and process, and policy and strategy. Finally, the author offers some recommendations for Taiwan's regulatory mechanism regarding Taiwan citizens holding positions in China.

1. 徐斯儉(2010)。黨國還是共和國？－中共政治變遷的一個內在邏輯。政治科學論叢，45，37-67。
   連結：
2. Baldwin, R.,Cave, M.,Lodge, M.(2011).Understanding regulation: theory, strategy, and practice.UK:Oxford University Press.
3. Blumm, M. C.(1994).Public Choice Theory and the Public Lands: Why Multiple Use Failed.The Harvard environmental law review,18,405.
4. Breyer, Stephen G.,Stewart, Richard B.,Sunstein, Cass R.,Adrian, Vemeule(2002).Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases.New York:Aspen Law & Business.
5. Buchanan, J. M.,Tollison, R.(1972).Theory of Public Choice: Political Applications of Economics.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
6. Buchanan, J. M.,Tollison, R. D.(1984).The Theory of public choice--II.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
7. Clegg, S. R.(ed.),Hardy, C.(ed.)(1999).Studying Organization: Theory and Method.SAGE Publishing.
8. Dacin, M. T.,Goodstein, J.,Scott, W. R.(2002).Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum.Academy of management journal,45(1),45-56.
9. Dal Bó, E.(2006).Regulatory capture: a review.Oxford Review of Economic Policy,22(2),203-225.
10. Davis, C. R.(1996).Organization theories and public administration.Praeger Publishers.
11. Davis, G. F.,Marquis, C.(2005).Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms.Organization Science,16(4),332-343.
12. DiMaggio, P. J.(1988).Interest and agency in institutional theory.Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment
13. Estlund, D. M.,Waldron, J.,Grofman, B.,Feld, S. L.(1989).Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited.American Political Science Review,83(4),1317-1340.
14. Greenaway, D.(ed.),Bleaney, M. F.(ed.),Stewart, I. M.(ed.)(1996).A guide to modern economics.Routledge.
15. Hafferty, Frederic W.(1986).Physician oversupply as a socially constructed reality.Journal of Health and Social Behavior,27(1),358-369.
16. Hantke-Domas, M.(2003).The public interest theory of regulation: non-existence or misinterpretation?.European Journal of Law and Economics,15(2),165-194.
17. Horwitz, M. J.(1982).The history of the public/private distinction.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,130(6),1423-1428.
18. Hovekamp, Herbert(1986).Regulatory Conflict in the Gilded Ages: Federation and the Railroad Problem.The Yale Law Journal,97(6),1061-1072.
19. Laffont, J. J.,Tirole, J.(1991).The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture.The Quarterly Journal of Economics,106(4),1089-1127.
20. Levine, M. E.,Forrence, J. L.(1990).Regulatory capture, public interest, and the public agenda: Toward a synthesis.Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,6,167-198.
21. Makkai, T.,Braithwaite, J.(1992).In and out of the revolving door: Making sense of regulatory capture.Journal of Public Policy,12(1),61-78.
22. March, James G.,Olsen, Johan P.(1989).Rediscovering Institutions: The organizational basis of politics.New York:The Free Press.
23. Mashaw, J. L.(1983).Bureaucratic justice: Managing social security disability claims.New Haven:Yale University Press.
24. Meier, Kenneth J.(1985).Regulation: Politics, Bureaucracy and Economics.St. Martin’s Press.
25. OECD(1997).The OECD Report on Regulatory Reform: Synthesis.
26. Roberts, R. W.,Kurtenbach, J. M.(1998).State regulation and professional accounting educational reforms: An empirical test of regulatory capture theory.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,17(3),209-226.
27. Schubert, G. A.(1960).The public interest: A critique of the theory of a political concept.Glencoe, IL:Free Press.
28. Scott, Colin(2003).Regulation.Dartmouth Publishing Company.
29. Seitz, S. T.(1978).Bureaucracy, Policy, and the Public.CV Mosby Company.
30. Tomain, J. P.,Shapiro, S. A.(1997).Analyzing Government Regulation.Administrative Law Review,49(2),377-414.
31. Zucker, L. G.(1987).Institutional theories of organization.Annual review of sociology,13,443-464.
32. 王銘義 (2000)。〈國家安全網兼顧開放與安全〉，《中國時報》，12月16日。
33. 行政院大陸委員會 (2013)。《大陸事務法規彙編（第10版）》。臺北：行政院大陸委員會。
34. 行政院大陸委員會(2002)。行政院大陸委員會 (2002)。〈立法院內政及民族委員會審查「臺灣區與大陸地區人民關係條例修正草案」書面報告〉。臺北：行政院大陸委員會。
35. 李郁怡(2009)。人物特寫：鮭魚返鄉代表人物爭議告白，幸福人壽鄧文聰：我就是陸資！。商業週刊，1122
36. 林江琳 (2011)。〈大陸投資20多年臺商台商鄧文聰解碼「海西」機會〉，《華夏經緯網》。http://big5.huaxia.com/tslj/zjts/2011/03/2351128.html。2015/03/20檢索。
37. 國家安全局（編）(2010).國家安全法規彙編.臺北:國家安全局.
38. 陳志平 (2000)。〈蔡英文：國家安全網是風險管理〉，《中時晚報》，7月20日。http://forums.chinatimes.com/report/bargain/htm/89072002.asp。2015/03/20檢索。
39. 陳慧萍 (2012)。〈169臺灣人任中國黨政軍職〉，《自由電子報》，3月27日。http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/mar/27/today-fo1.htm。2015/03/20檢索。
40. 葉俊榮(2003).行政法案例分析與研究方法.臺北:三民書局.
41. 董炯(1998)。政府管制研究－美國行政法學發展新趨勢評介。行政法學研究，4，73-80。
42. 劉孔中（編）,施俊吉（編）(2001).管制革新.臺北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所.
43. 謝海定(2004)。中國民間組織的合法性困境。法學研究，2(28)，5。

1. (2024)。國人赴陸就職管制之法律問題—以「廈門社區主任助理案」為中心。軍法專刊，70(1)，118-157。