Oct. 18,1999---Kofi A. Annan, Trent Lott, Denny Hastert

[ Up ]

Taiwan Tati Cultural
And Educational Foundation
B16F, No.3 Ta-Tun 2St.
Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
October 18, 1999.

Dear Mr. Kofi A. Annan,
   Mr. Trent Lott,
   Mr. Denny Hastert,

Beijing interrupt Nobel Peace Prize committee, because it was angry about the upcoming award may be given to a Chinese dissident.

BEIJING, Oct. 15 ---
Mainland Chinese dissidents put on brave face Friday after the Nobel Committee overlooked Chinese democracy activists in the naming of the 1999 winner of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.

Exiled democracy activists Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan were rumored to have been in the running for the prize, heightening hopes that one of them would win the prestigious award.

Instead the Nobel Committee named the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders as the winners of the 1999 prize.

"It would have been good if we would have won, but as we didn't it doesn't matter. We will continue to make efforts for more democracy in China through non-violent and legal measures," He Depu member of the outlawed-China Democracy Party told AFP.

He said he would like to see CDP leaders Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai and Qin Yongmin nominated for next year's prize. The three were jailed for 13, 12 and 11 years respectively last December for subversion.

Wang Dan's mother, who was under police supervision in her house in Beijing for several hours Friday before the announcement, was relieved that the winner was finally named.

"Well, good, now I can tell these police to leave," Wang Lingyun told AFP.

"This year we didn't win, but I hope in the future someone from China can win. We have such a big country and there are a lot of people working for democracy, so we will have another chance in the future," she said.

OSLO, Oct, 13 ---
The head of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, Geir Lundestad, said Wednesday that the Beijing government had contacted him "several times," worried about press speculation that the upcoming award may be given to a top Chinese dissident.

"I have had several contacts with Chinese (officials) in recent days, some of whom are at the Chinese embassy in Oslo, which is worried about a recent article that says a Chinese dissident is among the front-runners for the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize," the committee's secretary, Geir Lundestad, told AFP.

"I reassured them that the article had misquoted me," Lundestad said.

A Norwegian newspaper last week suggested that exiled dissident Wei Jingsheng and fellow pro-democracy activist Wang Dan are among the top candidates for the award, due to be announced in Oslo on Friday.

Norway's ambassador in Beijing was also called to a meeting by the communist Chinese authorities "three or four days ago," said foreign ministry spokesman Ingvard Havnen.

Havnen added: "The Nobel committee has nothing to do with the Norwegian government and is completely independent in its decision-making, neither consulting us nor even informing us of its choice before other people."

Wei, who lives in exile in the United States, served 18 years in prison for his outspoken criticism of the Beijing government. He was released on November 17, 1997.

His name has been rumored in the runup to the award announcements every year for the past six years.

Wang Dan was one of the top student leaders during the pro-democracy movement that was crushed by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in June 1989.

He was sentenced to an 11-year term on October 30, 1996 on charges of subversion. Wang was released into exile on medical grounds on April 18, 1998. He also lives in the United States.

By Antonio Chiang, the publisher and editor in chief of the Taipei Times ---
The government capability was greatly criticized by the public in the wake of the 921 earthquake. Although the main political leaders arrived in the disaster-stricken regions almost immediately, giving the appearance that the government was indeed prompt in its reaction, it was an event that cannot be placed on par with the Taiwan people's abundant vitality.

The situation contrasts greatly with that on the mainland.

The 50th anniversary of the People's Republic of China displayed the power of the party and state, but it was an event in which the people's vitality was not detected. To thoroughly utilize social power so as to carry out the goals of national development was once China's great achievement, but during the process, the state suppressed and throttled social vitality.

As a result, the Chinese state today is one of highly focused political power, but without the benefit of social power. Its authoritarian rule stems not from the will of the people, but from its role as a provider of national sovereignty, a functioning economy and some degree of social security.

At the present time, however --- national sovereignty aside --- serious crises exist in the industrial and financial sectors and society, in terms of public order and unemployment, not to mention environmental concerns. If China refuses to reform its political system substantially, it will certainly not be able to face the challenges of the next century.

In recent years, China has begun to allow grass-roots village and borough elections, to reinforce education ruled by law, carry out administrative reform and the training of public servants, to strengthen parliamentary functions, to ease up restrains against the expression of private political views, and prohibit those in the military from engaging in business ---- to bring it back under control.

Yet these reforms, like the extinction of the foot-binding system, will only be significant under the premise that China is capable of being reformed.

If China's party power is greater than all, then there will never be a day in which the judiciary becomes independent, and so talk of real law and order will be pointless.

The grass-roots elections, controlled by the local party cadres, are a farce. If the National People's Congress is appointed by the state, how then can parliamentary function be strengthened?

What significance can there be to the relinquishing of central power, when that power is given up to merely strengthen local party cadres?

The fact that China is afraid of reform is partially because of the fact that among themselves, there is no common consensus towards the direction that future developments should take.

And more importantly, Chinese leaders can only seek survival in conflicts where everyone lacks a sense of security, a situation in which nobody dares to make long-term commitments.

Besides, with Gorbachev's past example serving as a warning, nobody wants to take the risk of major, sweeping reforms. Premier Zhu Rongji's reforms for the finance sector and state-operated businesses encountered great opposition. If even Zhu can find himself under attack, who would dare to pick up the gauntlet and propose reform to the political system.

China is not a democracy and will never gravitate towards the Taiwanese political model. The state's only interaction with Taiwan is one of bullying , and its threats of military force makes China nothing more than a bandit.

Indonesia's Sukarno did not take advantage of the country's period of economic prosperity and seize the chance of political reform. When economic crisis wracked the country, its effects led to social and political unrest, ultimately forcing Sukarno out of power. But in the process, Indonesia also lost unity.

China should not waste such a similar opportunity, because if economic conditions should turn, hope for reform will become an impossibility.

After little long love story from month to years, the ceremony, is very short and simple, perhaps only three to five minutes long. After some words by the priest, minister or court justice, the bride and groom bow to him or her. The quests and each other, each three times, and then sit down to a reception feast.

The bride often wears a western style bridal gown and the groom a tuxedo or suit. At the reception, guests offer innumerable toasts to the newly-weds. Tradition formerly required that the bride and groom drink liquor along with the guests after each toast, but now they often secretly substitute liquor to avoid getting drink.

In Taiwan, we haven't arranged marriages again. We do democratic way in which most couples make marriage decisions themselves. However, matchmaking is still a popular means of meeting a prospective mate. It's usually one's friends or parents friends who do the matchmaking.

If the matched couple don't hit if off, they are not obliged to marry each other. They can break it off at any time if they like. Before get marriage, we prepared engagement. The first is the "little engagement," when the couple announces their wedding plans to close friends and relatives. The "big engagement" is the couple's public announcement of their intent to many. The little and big engagement would achieve a perfect marriage, because the engagement can convince of the need for wedding ceremony.

The means of reunification of both sides of Taiwan-straits are just as "marriage". It needs complete all the ways of "democratic game".

Taiwanese people can not accept "arranged marriages".

Sincerely Yours,
Yang Hsu-Tung.
Taiwan Tati Cultural
And Educational Foundation



Back Up Next