| 中文摘要 |
楊天宏先生撰文指出，在1923年總統選舉中，直系發放的5,000元支票與國會議員歷年積欠薪俸數額相符，據此推論開具的支票是在變相補發歷年欠薪。但楊文在時間節點與統計數額上皆存在誤差。經考證歷年國會積欠歲費，個中情況極為複雜。議員每人遭積欠款項多寡不一，欲以統一數額的支票平均補發歷年欠薪，在現實中不具操作性。所謂補發歲費，實際上是直系與反直系間政治博奕的籌碼，為大選票價之外的優惠政策。稍後實行的「歲費暫行支給方法」，已在一定程度上保證歲費發放。一直到大選前夕，喧騰一時的5,000元支票金額才最終議定，而且預算獨立、專款專用、專人經手，支付手續未經國會會計科，而是由負責選舉的經辦人直接發放支票，指定銀行取款。事後投票議員的辯駁，實是在政府欠薪的前提下，有意以補償積欠歲費來模糊「賄選」的概念。 |
| 英文摘要 |
In his article published in 2012, scholar Yang Tianhong has argued that checks for 5,000 yuan issued by the Zhili clique in the 1923 Chinese presidential election were consistent with the amounts of unpaid salaries due National Assembly members over the previous years, thereby inferring that the checks were a form of compensation. However, there are errors in the time points and statistical data in the article. After researching the related salary arrears of the period in question, I have found that the situation is considerably more complicated. The amounts of salary arrears of the members vary; therefore, it is not feasible to redress the unpaid salaries with a uniform amount. The so-called compensation was in fact a political bargaining chip between the Zhili clique and anti-Zhili parties, a form of preferential policy beyond compensation via check. The“provisional payment of salaries”歲費暫行支給方法, introduced at a later date guaranteed to a certain extent the disbursement of wages. But it was not until the eve of the election that the 5,000-yuan checks were finally agreed upon, with a separate budget, a special fund, and a specially appointed person to handle the matter. Furthermore, instead of going through the Congressional Accounting Section國會會計科, the checks were issued directly from the Cao Kun’s曹錕(in office 1923–1924) presidential campaign office and withdrawn at a designated bank. The subsequent rebuttals by the lawmakers who had voted for Cao Kun were thus intended to use, whether intentionally or not, the issue of compensation for unpaid wages to obscure the concept of vote-buying under the pretense of salary arrears. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
