KMT rolling back media freedom

Editorial in Taipei Times

Friday, Feb 06, 2009, Page 8

It appears as if the National Communications Commission (NCC) has been added to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s armory in its battle to neuter the media and stifle criticism of the current administration’s shortcomings.

This became apparent after the NCC on Tuesday singled out SET TV’s political chat show Da Hua News (大話新聞, or “Talking Show”) for censure.

The commission’s failure to produce evidence of the show’s alleged transgressions speaks volumes for the professionalism of a body that was ruled “unconstitutional” by the Council of Grand Justices in 2006 and, despite cosmetic changes, still leaves major doubts hanging over its neutrality.

The NCC’s rebuke also comes just a month after Talking Show cut its weekend programs as part of a “cost-cutting” exercise. News of the cut came shortly after a raid on the home of the channel’s president by Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau officials.

Rumors that the show’s popular host, Cheng Hung-yi (鄭弘儀), would be replaced or that the show might be dropped altogether — a strange move considering it is rated the nation’s most popular political talk show — had to be scotched by station officials at the company’s year-end party.

Add to this Wednesday’s NCC-proposed amendment to the Satellite Radio and Television Act (衛星廣播電視法) that would set stricter fact-checking regulations on such shows and see repeat offenders removed from the airwaves, and it could be interpreted as part of a concerted attack on one of the most vocal critics of government policy.

This seems even more the case when one considers that government-friendly political talk shows that present gossip and rumor as fact on a daily basis have not come in for similar criticism and treatment.

While the NCC may receive complaints from viewers unhappy with the subject or content discussed on any particular show, if the views presented on air are backed up with facts and figures then there should be no case to answer, regardless of the sensitivities of viewers.

The media’s right to broadcast opinions should be judged on whether what is said is based on fact, not on whether certain sections of the public disagree with it. This is at the heart of the NCC’s proposed amendment, but whether any law will be applied evenhandedly or just used to attack government critics remains to be seen.

Who would have imagined that when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) praised Singapore’s government during a visit in 2007 that, once back in power, he and his party would use the “rule of law” as a premise to replicate Singapore’s infamously sanitized, ­government-controlled news media?

But with the well-documented government interference in the affairs of the Central News Agency, Radio Taiwan International and Public Television Services as evidence, and now the pressure being ratcheted up on Talking Show, things certainly seem to be heading in that direction.

While he was in Singapore, Ma also said that Taiwan was different because it emphasized democracy. Ma should know that media freedom is vital to the survival of any democracy, especially one where a single party has a vice-like grip on all the instruments of state.

That is, unless his administration is intent on rolling back Taiwan’s democracy in the same way it is rolling back its media freedom.

Entfremdung durch Annäherung

Die Regierung von Ma Ying-jeou erweckt seit ein paar Monaten Befürchtungen, die Staatshoheit und die Demokratie Taiwans zu untergraben. Das letzte fragwürdige Ereignis war die Ankunft von Chen Yun-lin als Handelsvertreter für China auf Taiwan, um Handelsabkommen abzuschließen. Dies traf auf entscheidenden Widerspruch bei der Bevölkerung Taiwans, die sich noch immer tief entsetzt von dem kürzlichen Melaminskandal und der fehlenden Transparenz zeigt, wohl wissend von der Grausamkeit der Regierung Chinas.

Massenweise treten nun Bürger Taiwans auf die Straßen und protestieren gegen das voreilige und unvorsichtige Verhalten der Regierung. Proteste, die nicht nur von der Opposition, sondern von Studenten selber organisiert wurden. Dieses mal geht es nicht um die einfach Frage, ob Taiwan von China einverleibt werden darf, sondern um neue Härte, die die Polizei gegen Aufstände anwendet. Selbst das tragen von den eigenen Nationalflaggen ist nun in Gegenwart Chens verboten worden.

Taiwan ging einen langen Weg, um Demokratie und inneren Frieden währen des Weißen Terrors durch die Kuomintang zu erlangen. Nun scheint beides wieder zu entschwinden.

Felix Firsbach
Formosa Verein für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

The World's Blind Spot

While many lament China's attitude towards Tibet and highlights the obstinacy of China's dictatorial regime, one has to also note that the lack of pressure from democratic governments to address human rights abuses committed by China gives China no motivation to correct its brutish and oppressive behaviour. Western nations have chosen to kowtow and pander to China's demands, rather than using concrete political measures to express deep dissatisfaction with China's abrasive attitudes.

Until the United States and countries in the European Union give a clear, unambiguous signal, that China's treatment of Tibet, its intimidation of democratic Taiwan, and its continual suppression of fundamental rights is unacceptable, China will continue to assert its expansionist and repressive agenda, to the detriment of its populace and its neighbours.

Dr. Stan Lai, Director for Public Relations
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe

KMT rights rollback cannot be whitewashed

Article occurs in Taiwan News

A flood of international criticism by global human rights organizations, democratic governments and prominent legal scholars and academics in the China and Taiwan fields has evidently touched a sore nerve in the restored Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) government of President Ma Ying-jeou.

After over a decade of being seen as a model of democratic transition from four decades of KMT martial law rule and a lighthouse for human rights and civic freedoms in East Asia under former Taiwan-born president Lee Teng-hui and ex-president Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party administration, Taiwan has again become a prominent human rights issue after only six months of restored KMT governance.

The sensitivity of the KMT government to global concern and its inability to respond sincerely to international and domestic criticism were displayed by the response issued Tuesday under Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng to over 20 prominent scholars who published an "Open Letter on Erosion of Justice in Taiwan" earlier this month in the wake of a series of unwarranted detentions of serving and former DPP officials, such as DPP Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen, and other state violations of civic freedoms and human rights.

Wang's response utilized the prime technique used by the KMT during its martial law period and by the People's Republic of China today in reacting to human rights criticism, namely denial.

For example, the justice minister attempted to whitewash the dark past of Taiwan judicial history by trying to rebut concerns that the KMT government may be using the judicial system "to get even with members of the DPP government" as "groundless" since such a claims would create "the misimpression (sic) that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation, which quite simply is untrue."

In fact, the KMT martial law regime unabashedly utilized as an instrument of repression from the late 1940s through the early 1990s and during which time its spokespersons claimed that there were "no political prisoners."

Only gradually and by no means fully has the Taiwan judiciary been weaned from its past role as a tool for the use of law as a means of authoritarian rule into a defender of the impartial rule by law through the democratizing reforms under former president Lee Teng-hui and the DPP administration.

However, their efforts to modernize the judiciary and promote its independence were stymied by pro-KMT vested interests and by the KMT legislative majority, which refused to approve major revisions to the Judicial Yuan Organization Law and rejected Chen's first nomination for supreme public prosecutor precisely because former deputy justice minister Hsieh Wen-ting voiced his intent resist pressure from all parties.

With this foundation, all the KMT government needs to do to "interfere" in the judicial process is to set standards. Ma himself set the stage for an "open season" on the former president and DPP officials in August in Santo Domingo by making an inaccurate comparison of Chen with the late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, while Wang herself inappropriately discussed the Chen case on pro-KMT talk shows even before the former president was listed as a defendant.

The promotion of numerous Taipei City police district chiefs in the wake of the grossly excessive use of police during the visit of PRC envoy Chen Yunlin earlier this month also sends a ringing signal that the KMT government priorities "order" above the protection of the constitutional rights of our citizens.

Similarly, while Wang correctly noted that the Code of Criminal Procedures gives prosecutors do have a legal power of asking for investigative detention, she neglected to respond to widespread charges in even pro-KMT domestic media that this power is being grossly abused.

As noted in an editorial in the vernacular China Times Wednesday, "if those who cooperate with investigations are released on bail and those who do not cooperate are placed under incommunicado detention, is that not enough to make clear whether they are being detained to extract confessions?"

The KMT government's aim to pull wool over the eyes of foreign and domestic audiences was also exposed in claims that "the U.S. government has expressed its full confidence" in Taiwan's judicial system.

Actually, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack on Nov. 18 stated that the legal process involving former president Chen "is a matter for Taiwan's legal system to resolve. We are confident in Taiwan's democracy and its legal system, and we have every expectation that the process will be transparent, fair, and impartial."

The most important word used by the U.S. State Department spokesman is "expectation," a term is by no means an endorsement but a diplomatic signal not to stray one inch from the standards of being "transparent, fair and impartial."

In sum, President Ma, Wang and other KMT government leaders may not appreciate that the world community has higher "expectations" for the Taiwan government precisely because it is supposed to be a democracy and may not welcome any moves by the KMT government that threaten to extinguish the lamp in Taiwan's democratic lighthouse and retard hopes to promote democracy and human rights in China and the rest of Asia.

Taiwanese and Hakka Resources

Of course Hakka is an important part of Taiwanese heritage, and both Hakka and Taiwanese need to be promoted.

Here are some links provided by the Taiwanese government:
Taiwanese learning resources
Hakka learning resources

Taiwanisch sprechen!

Es gibt ein tolles Buch, wenn du Taiwanisch lernen willst.....es heißt:

Taiwanisch Wort für Wort

Leider sprechen die junge Leute in Taiwan nicht so viel Taiwanisch, und ich glaube dass es sehr sehr schade ist! Taiwanisch ist viel schöner als Chinesisch, und ist die richtige Sprache Taiwans. Es ist nur wegen der Unterdrückung des Taiwanisches durch die KMT, dass die Leute da immer weniger Taiwanisch sprechen. Aber jetzt sollen wir Taiwanisch fördern: in Taiwan, sprechen wir Taiwanisch!

Speak Taiwanese!

What really bugs me is the disappearance of Taiwanese language speaking ability in the younger generation of Taiwanese. They themselves are at fault, their unwillingness to try to speak a language other than the dry, boring, Mandarin that they learn anyway in school. Their parents are also at fault - despite their ability to speak Taiwanese, they don't bother teaching or conversing with their kids in Taiwanese.

Taiwanese is a language in danger! Perhaps in two generations, it will disappear - what a shame that would be.

Besides, Taiwanese is much cooler language than Mandarin, and the subtleties of Taiwanese just cannot be expressed in Mandarin.

Here are some websites to help for those who want a reference for learning Taiwanese:
Tailingua
Intermediate Taiwanese Grammar
台灣字

And remember, when you are in Taiwan: speak Taiwanese!!!

Endangered Democracy

Taiwan's democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a fledgling democracy is considered a political miracle. In the months since President Ma Ying-jeou took office, Taiwan is in danger of losing its sovereignty, with its democratic institutions at risk of being swallowed by China's expansionist ambitions.

Although support for Mr. Ma, whose party administered a dictatorship on Taiwan for 40 years, has plummeted to record lows, he is determined to proceed with an agenda that compromises the independence of Taiwan's educational and economic systems. His insistence on normalizing trade relations with a country that threatens Taiwan with more than 1200 missiles has most recently left Taiwanese consumers vulnerable to melamine-contaminated food.

The Taiwanese people overcame many years of martial law dictatorship to build a dynamic democracy that respects the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens. Unfortunately, Mr. Ma's consessions to China have placed years of hard-fought achievements at grave risk.

Dr. Stan Lai, Director for Public Relations
Formosan Association for Public Affairs Europe

Building a new DPP on strength and unity

By Liu Shih-chung 劉世忠

Taipei Times Article

Taiwanese politics change quickly and yesterday’s political stars become today’s political losers.

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration knows this well, and so does the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Who would have imagined that after only 50 days in power, Ma’s public approval would drop from 58 percent at the time of the presidential election to about 30 percent now?

The inability of Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet to tackle rising consumer and oil prices and the freefalling stock market are only part of the reason for the public’s reaction. The key reason for the government’s loss of public support is Ma’s failure to deliver on his campaign promises.

Ma’s rise to perhaps the most popular politician in Taiwan was mainly a result of meeting the public’s taste in backing away from ideological rhetoric and framing himself as a gentle problem-solver.

But in reality, Ma is a consummate politician. He anticipates what people want to hear and tells the public whatever keeps them satisfied. The biggest question now is whether Ma is a man of action and efficiency.

Deja vu? The fact that the DPP was not defeated by Ma and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) but by itself deserves more attention. Once voters questioned its integrity and held its misconduct up against principles of honesty and morality, it was hard for the DPP to regain support.

Public distrust of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the DPP led voters to place their hopes in Ma and the KMT because they believed the new government would bring immediate results. Its failure to meet expectations has naturally created a strong public backlash.

With the government’s poor performance, how can the DPP rebuild its image and regain public trust?

The DPP government’s biggest problem was it promised more than it could achieve. Sometimes the commitments were made dishonestly, and even worse was the misconduct associated with some DPP officials.

We all make mistakes, but the difference is that politicians’ mistakes make the front page. So politicians — good ones at least — develop an ability to recover from a foul-up.

Under the chairmanship of Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the DPP has displayed a different and more positive image. Not only has Tsai introduced a rational strategy for monitoring the KMT, she has also been carefully developing new skills of coordination and leadership within the party’s grassroot support.

A recent poll released by TVBS showed Tsai to be the most popular political figure in Taiwan, with a near 50 percent approval rating — compared with less than 30 percent for Ma and Liu.

What Tsai and the DPP need most is to incorporate elements of strength, self-discipline, decisiveness and effective execution to fulfill the role of a loyal opposition.

The power reshuffle at last weekend’s party congress showed some political wrestling between different factions and senior leaders, but the DPP should avoid pointing fingers. A re-examination must be conducted from the bottom up. A closer relationship between party headquarters, the legislative caucus and local party branches must be established. Most importantly, the DPP must reinforce its connection with the rank and file and recruit more independent and attractive talent.

By taking the theme of strength and unity and applying it to anti-corruption, economic rejuvenation, law enforcement, environmental protection and national security, the DPP can win back public support.

China’s List of Olympic Don'ts

This article in the NY Times

Now that the shock of the earthquake (which they could not control) in Sichuan Province has dissipated somewhat, China’s leaders are focusing again on something that they think they can control: people. Sports fans attending the 2008 Olympics in Beijing will have a long list of rules to carry in their pockets along with their tickets.

On its Web site last week, the Chinese Olympic organizing committee listed a set of restrictions for the 500,000 overseas visitors expected in August. Olympic spectators are being told not to bring in “anything detrimental” to China, including printed materials, photos, records or movies. Religious or political banners or slogans are banned. So are rallies, demonstrations and marches — unless approved by authorities in advance. It also says that visitors with mental illnesses and sexually transmitted diseases will be barred from the country.

We shudder at how those judgments — many of them highly subjective or intrusive — will be made.

The International Olympic Committee has long prohibited political activities at Olympic venues, and we respect the goal of trying to put aside divisions while celebrating a common humanity. But Beijing is using those restrictions for its own authoritarian ends.

To win the right to host the Games, China promised to improve its human-rights record. It keeps moving mostly in the opposite direction. In recent days, authorities effectively disbarred two prominent human-rights lawyers who volunteered to defend Tibetans charged in violent anti-China protests. They also broke up a gathering of 100 parents who were peacefully protesting shoddy school construction and the deaths of their children in the May 12 earthquake.

And while authorities initially relaxed restrictions on journalists and aid workers after the earthquake, they have again tightened up. Local journalists have been discouraged from covering the parents’ protests, and international television networks have complained that security requirements will limit coverage of the Olympics.

There’s an inherent contradiction between China’s desire to invite the world to the Olympics and its effort to deny those visitors — and its own people — the most basic freedoms. Last week, an I.O.C. official said he is convinced the Games would be a “force for good” in China. The committee and Western governments need to remind Beijing that the world is watching, and so far the picture isn’t good.

Don't coddle Beijing – it must account for its role in Darfur

Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general who was head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, knows a thing or two about genocide and protecting human rights....

Here's what he has to say in the Globe and Mail:



Many consider it taboo to speak of the genocide in Darfur and the upcoming Beijing Olympics in the same breath. I disagree entirely. I believe the two should be firmly linked in the public's mind, and I said so in blunt terms during a recent CBC interview.

I was quickly and severely criticized in print for my comments by journalist Lysiane Gagnon and academic Christian Constantin. They seemed to think I needed a history lesson on Chinese political progress and a reminder of the West's sins, including our willingness to trade with countries whose human-rights records are shaky or even dismal.

There's no doubt Western countries have demonstrated abysmal judgment in various crises over the past couple of centuries, and their failures and misdeeds need retelling and analysis lest they be repeated. Western insouciance and intransigence over the past few decades alone have been staggering in terms of human suffering – think of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Congo, Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, to name a few.

For the moment, however, the crisis screaming out to the West and the rest of the international community is the genocide taking place in Darfur. China has been obstructionist in the UN Security Council while blithely supplying Khartoum with modern arms in exchange for oil. This has enabled Sudan to systematically kill an estimated 300,000 Darfurians since 2003, and to harass, torture, rape and starve the 21/2 million it has displaced.

The Chinese government wants us to ignore its central role in all this, and to laud it as the gracious host of the 2008 Olympic Games. Beijing's painstaking efforts to paint itself in a positive image attests to its obsession with being unconditionally accepted as an open, modern, honourable and progressive player by the international community.

Based on its behaviour in the Sudan, however – I liken it to that of a colonial power – the Chinese government cannot possibly be afforded the accolades it so eagerly craves. Led by liberal democracies and middle powers, including Canada, the international community must protest against Beijing's role in fuelling Darfur's genocide. It must use the leverage of the very international disapprobation China fears to make it stop supporting Khartoum and obstructing the deployment of the desperately needed 26,000-strong United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur.

Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin assert that Beijing is too proud to give in to Western pressure. Moreover, they say, public pressure by the West would only push China to withdraw behind its Communist dictatorship. We need to challenge these assumptions. In any event, remaining silent while China continues to help Khartoum hammer away at helpless civilians with gun ships and co-ordinated ground attacks with the brutal janjaweed militia would be repugnant and morally indefensible.

Fortunately, international criticism is not the only force at work. Despite the government's repression, Chinese student, labour and intellectual movements have been fighting for democratic and political reforms for a long time. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which emerged from the disaffection of ordinary Chinese citizens. The country's growing middle class, numbering about 300 million, who seek a better standard of living and greater freedoms, will also push their government to become a respected and reliable international economic power.

According to Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Constantin, China has made significant strides in justice and tolerance. They remind us of some of the great economic, cultural, political and social progress the country has made. But let us not forget that it still routinely engages in torture and arbitrary imprisonment. We must also acknowledge that, with its 2.2 million soldiers, the Chinese government has ample ability to contribute to peace efforts in Darfur, not just to send in advisers to teach the Sudanese forces how to use the weapons it provides against defenceless civilians.

In addition to the existing political, economic and diplomatic channels, we must use the Olympics to pressure China and enlighten its people about what is happening in Darfur, and why the international community is outraged. For now, China keeps its Chinese citizens hyped on Olympic glory, insulated from outside media and ignorant of its dirty work in Darfur. It's a despicable scenario that we cannot allow to persist.

Senator Roméo Dallaire is a retired lieutenant-general and former commander of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda

Athletes should think twice about heading to Beijing: Elvis Stojko

This appeared in the Globe and Mail:

Two-time Olympic medallist Elvis Stojko says Canadian athletes should “make a stand” for human rights and think twice about heading to the Beijing Summer Games.

Mr. Stojko, who won silver medals at the 1994 and 1998 Winter Olympics, says he would consider boycotting the Games if he were still a competing athlete.

Mr. Stojko made the comments during a rally protesting China's human rights record outside the Ontario legislature Saturday afternoon.

About 200 people showed up for the rally, which included lighting up a mock Olympic torch.

The three-time world figure skating champion also says it's unacceptable for countries to muzzle athletes' opinions, since the athletes are the ones representing their countries.

China's government has faced mounting criticism over its human rights record, and drew fire for a recent crackdown against anti-government protests in Tibet.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Games but Canada has rejected the idea of boycotting the Olympics.

“I know for me, it would be extremely difficult to be able to go compete in a country that was hosting the games, but don't exemplify what the games are being held for,” Mr. Stojko told The Canadian Press.

He added athletes have an ability to raise awareness about important issues.

“People should know what's going on and athletes have a chance to be able to do that if they wish,” said Mr. Stojko, who added China's treatment of its people is dragging “negative energy” into the world tournament.

But Steve Keogh, communications manager from the Canadian Olympic Committee, said athletes are free to say what they want.

“There's been no instruction to our athletes not to say anything, they can say anything they wish.”

Mr. Keogh added that Canada is a signatory of the Olympic charter, which prohibits athletes from making any “proactive demonstration while in an Olympic venue.”

FAPA Europa und EFTA verurteilen die Unterdrückung Tibets durch China

Zur sofortigen Veröffentlichung

Mittwoch, 19. März 2007, Mainz, Deutschland – Der Formosa Verein für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in Europa (FAPA Europa) und die European Federation of Taiwanese Associations (EFTA) missbilligt zutiefst den kulturellen Völkermord, den die Chinesische Regierung derzeit in Tibet begeht. Tibetanische Protestanten, welche ihren Widerstand gegen Chinas illegale Besetzung ihres Landes demonstrierten, wurden von Chinesischem Sicherheitspersonal festgenommen, ermordet und verfolgt.

„Wir verurteilen aufs Schärfste die eklatante Missachtung der Menschenrechte durch die Chinesische Regierung“ erklärte Jenny Hsieh, Vorsitzende von FAPA Europa. „Die Chinesische Regierung hat systematisch über mehr als 50 Jahre die Tibetanische Kultur und Freiheit ausgerottet, und nun intensivieren sie ihre Unterdrückung des Tibetanischen Volkes.“

Das Volk Tibets besitzt keinerlei ethnische Verwandschaft zum Volk der Han-Chinesen und musste hilflos mit ansehen, wie ihre Nation von der Chinesischen Regierung annektiert, besetzt und zerstört wurde. Ihre Grundrechte und Freiheiten bleiben ihnen seit jeher durch die brutale Herrschaft der Chinesischen Diktatur verwehrt.

„Europäische Staaten sollten eindeutig Stellung bezüglich der entsetzlichen Verletzungen der Menschenrechte beziehen“ meinte Hsieh weiter. „Sie sollten endlich den Kotau vor der Chinesischen Autokratie unterlassen und für eine Freilassung des Tibetanischen Volkes plädieren.“

Ching-Kai Shen, Sprecher der European Federation of Taiwanese Associations, bemerkte außerdem, dass “ein solches Vorgehen die wahren Absichten der Chinesischen Regierung zum Vorschein treten lässt. Es zeigt eindeutig, welche Bedrohung China für freie, demokratische Nationen wie Taiwan darstellt. Wenn die Europäische Union ihre Verpflichtung zu demokratischen Werten demonstrieren möchte, muss sie Taiwan und Tibet konkret unterstützen.“

###

Über FAPA Europa:
FAPA Europa ist eine europäische Organisation die europäisch-taiwanesische Beziehungen fördert und das Recht Taiwans auf Selbstbestimmung unterstützt.

Wird Deutschland Tibet helfen?

Als China mehr schuldlose Tibeter ermordet, bekommen wir noch eine Bestätigung dass China die Menschenrechte und wesentliche Freiheiten gar nicht achtet. Die Tibeter haben gar kein Blutsverwandtschaft mit den Chinesen, und sie erlitten die Zerstörung ihrer Kultur seit 1959 wegen der Besatzung Chinas.

Obwohl die Kanzlerin Deutschlands, Angela Merkel, den Dalai Lama letztes Jahr empfing, muss sie mehr tun, um dieses Gemetzel der Tibeter aufzuhören. Deutschland muss sich standhaft der Missachtung der Menschenrechten Chinas entgegensetzen. Die Regierung Deutschlands darf nicht die Freiheit und die Hoffnung der Tibeter ausverkaufen.

Ma is on the wrong side of history

Published in the Taipei Times on March 17, 2008

By Gerrit van der Wees

As Taiwan prepares for the presidential election, the people face a choice for their future. This goes beyond a choice for the next four years: It is more than a continuation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government under the new leadership of Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), or a return to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under new leadership, that of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

The choice between the two men also harbors longer-term consequences for the future of the country: continuation of the trend towards increasing emphasis on Taiwan's own identity and treatment of Taiwan as a nation-state in its own right, or closer ties with Beijing, eventually drifting towards absorption by China in one way or another.

Hsieh is an advocate of the former line: Building on the legacy of the fight for democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, and the consolidation of democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁), he will carefully maneuver to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and expand its international position, while attempting to keep China at bay.

Ma is an advocate of eventual unification, but realizes that he cannot move too swiftly since this would anger the Taiwanese majority and make the US and Japan -- already apprehensive about China's military buildup -- increasingly nervous, so he will emphasize the "status quo" while gradually pushing the envelope toward closer ties with China.

How will they perform if they are elected? How will they stand up to pressure from China -- or from the US for that matter? Are they committed to democracy?

To get a glimpse into their character, it is useful to examine how they acted and reacted in an earlier era: when Taiwan was suffering under martial law in the 1970s and 1980s, and when they rose to prominence, each in his own right.

Both Hsieh and Ma were educated to be lawyers. But there the similarity ends.

Hsieh is a native Taiwanese, who became well-known in Taiwan in 1980, when -- together with a number of other lawyers including Chen -- he voluntarily took up the defense of eight prominent leaders of the tangwai (outside-the-party) democracy movement (including Vice President Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu [陳菊]), who had been arrested and imprisoned by the KMT regime on spurious political charges.

Hsieh was thus willing to stick his neck out and stand up for justice when it counted -- and when few others dared to do so. In the 1980s he became a member of the Taipei City Council, and later was elected to the Legislative Yuan. He was a founding member of the DPP in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, he was the DPP's vice presidential candidate in Taiwan's first-ever democratic presidential elections (together with Peng Ming-min), but lost to Lee.

Ma, on the other hand, is a Mainlander, who was born in Hong Kong and whose parents came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). His father was a high-ranking KMT official, and young Ma grew up in the political elite of the Chinese Nationalists. In the 1970s he went to Harvard for his graduate studies, but several of his Taiwanese fellow students complained that Ma was a "student spy" who collected data for the secret police in Taiwan.

After his return to Taiwan In 1981, he quickly rose to prominence within the KMT. He started as an aide and personal translator for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), and in 1984 became deputy-secretary general of the KMT. In 1993 he was appointed minister of justice by Lee and served in that position until 1996.

Let us examine what his position was during the crucial moments in Taiwan's transition to democracy: In 1985-1986, when Taiwan was still under martial law, he was an ardent defender of martial law, arguing that it enhanced "stability" on the island. He also defended the long prison sentences given to proponents of democracy and human rights.

In lengthy letters to foreign governments and political parties which expressed concern about the lack of democracy in Taiwan, Ma waxed eloquently in defense of the indefensible.

Finally, after many hearings and resolutions in the US Congress by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Claiborne Pell and representatives Jim Leach and Steven Solarz, and after increasing pressure from the bottom up in Taiwan, Chiang Ching-kuo relented and lifted martial law in 1987. Ma had been on the wrong side of history.

Almost the same thing happened in 1991 and 1992, when the democratic movement started to push for abolishment of the "eternal" legislators who had been elected in China in 1947, and who were in their 80s and 90s still representing "China" in the legislature and National Assembly. Again, Ma came out against such changes and wanted to maintain a semblance of "China" representation in the legislature.

Fortunately, Lee had vision and pushed through the legislative reforms. Again, Ma was on the wrong side of history.

Fascinatingly, three years later, the same pattern occurred: Lee started to push for direct presidential elections -- to replace the anachronistic system in which the KMT-controlled National Assembly had rubberstamped the KMT choice for president.

Ma was one of the KMT opponents of this move toward full-fledged democracy. Again, his instincts had been to preserve an outdated status quo, and oppose democratic change.

Ma was a follower, who went along with developments when they became inevitable, while Hsieh stood up when it counted, and defended his principles.

The choice for the people of Taiwan is thus between someone who has opposed democratic change, and wants to edge closer to a repressive, undemocratic China, and someone who has been at the forefront of democratic change, and wants to propel Taiwan forwards in the international family of nations.

It will be a decisive moment in Taiwan's history.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.

Tibet et le devoir de la France

L'attitude de la Chine contre les droits fondamentals est encore évident.  Ce n'est pas assez que la Chine détruit la culture tibetaine, est opprime la liberté religieuse, la liberté de la pensée, et la liberté d'expression, mais maintenant, la Chine estime qu'il faut tuer les
démonstrateurs innocents.

Pourquoi la Chine pense-t-elle qu'elle sort indemne quand ces viols des droits de l'homme se produitent? Parce que les autres pays comme la France refusent à considerer l'importance de ces droits et l'importance de la liberté dans ses politiques étrangère avec la Chine. Mais considérant ces atrocités de la Chine, le gouvernement de la France condamne-t-il ces actes malgré les conséquences pour les relations avec la Chine? Si les pays comme la France continuent à s'incliner devant le regime autoritaire de la Chine, il n'y aura aucune raison pour la Chine de changer sa conduite et attitude envers les droits de l'homme.

Dr. Stan Lai

L'Association formosane pour les affaires publiques

Die Drohung Chinas

Man kann sich fragen, warum China so groß eine Aufrüstung macht, als kein Land sie bedroht. Ist eine 17,6 Prozent Steigerung wirklich nötig für Ihren Verteidigungshaushalt? Es gibt nur einen Grund, so eine Steigerung zu vollziehen. China will Taiwan von Unabhängigkeit abraten.

Aber die Meinungsumfragen in Taiwan sagen immer, dass die Taiwaner ihre Demokratie und Freiheitsrechten schätzen. Sie wählen ihre eigene Regierung, sie haben ihre eigene Kultur, und sie wollen uberhaupt kein Fremdeindruck in ihrem Staatswesen.

China ignoriert aber die Meinungen der Taiwaner, und bedroht weiter dieses demokratisches Land. Die ganze Welt, nicht nur USA, muss China erklärt, dass diese Bedrohung unannehmbar ist. Die Rechte der Selbstbestimmung gehört auch zu den Taiwaner.

Kosovo, Taiwan, und Deutschland

Deutschland hat Recht, Kosovo anzuerkennen. Kosovo hat Leiden und Genozid ertragen, das von der Regierung Slobodan Milosevic vollbracht. Die Leute Kosovo können jetzt einen neuen Anfang übernehmen, und Deutschland soll dieses neue Land unterstützen. Die Menschenrechten, die Freiheit der Kosovar mussen geschützt sein.


Aus welchem Gründen aber, die Regierung Deutschland denkt dass die Demokratie und die Freiheit in Asien ist gar nicht wichtig. Taiwan ist eine richtige Demokratie und seine Regierung schätzt die wesentlichen Rechte ihre Bürger. Warum erkennt Deutschland Taiwan dann nicht?

Natürlicherweise will die Regierung Deutschlands vor China katzbuckeln, um die Geschäftsbezeihung mit China auszubauen. Aber Deutschland weiss sicher, wie scheußlich eine strenge Diktatur sein kann. Wenn Deutschland wirklich die Tyrannei entgegensetzt, muss es die Demokratie Taiwans unterstützen. Freiheit und Frieden ist wichtig, nicht nur in Europa aber in Asien auch.