Paal was misrepresented

On July 5 and July 7, the Taipei Times published opinion pieces that incorrectly and inexplicably repeated an allegation that American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Douglas Paal opposes the holding of referendums in Taiwan.

Paal has made clear in a widely published interview that he has not expressed this view. President Chen Shui-bian and Vice President Annette Lu have also said publicly more than once that Paal did not express such blanket opposition.

These statements are on the record and should be well known to your editors.

You owe it to your readers to ensure the factual accuracy of material you publish, including articles expressing opinion.

Judith Mudd-Krijgelmans

AIT spokesperson

US no friend of democracy

I was almost cheered by the vision conjured up by your article ("Bush's vision for Iraqi freedom is firmly on track," July 7, page 9) It was a vision of jubilant and grateful Iraqis empowered "by the coalition, joining 28,000 American combat forces enforcing order and arresting criminals, and Iraqi citizens [who] feel safer leaving their homes."

But then who, I wondered, had crafted this oasis of calm in the midst of a Desert Storm? It was AIT Director Douglas Paal, whose own commitment to democracy and freedom has been well-demonstrated recently in his comments on Taiwan's right to self-determination.

Paal does not extend the same hand of freedom to Taiwan, the country where he lives and works. Ever since a few hundred people converged on Paal's office protesting against the Iraq war, the AIT has erected a large sign, reminding people in both English and Chinese that public protest is illegal. It seems a little odd to be singing about democracy and freedom whilst banning demonstrations by invoking a rule that served martial law under the KMT dictatorship.

Paal's warmth toward another odious dictatorship -- the one across the Taiwan Strait -- also runs counter to his seeming belief in the benefits of democracy. The DPP announced their intention to hold referendums on, for example, independence and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Yet Paal made no distinction between these two issues. Instead he merely repeated a version of Beijing's "three no's" policy: no self-determination, no ifs and no buts.

Iraq shares with Taiwan the dilemma that without accepting the US' conditional goodwill, it risks being blown into oblivion. Even if -- faced with no alternative -- they accept, they are hardly guaranteed sovereignty. US President George W. Bush and Paal have yet to admit it, but the US does not wish true democracy and self-determination for either nation. Instead, it prefers to allow both countries, as outposts of the new world order, to play at democracy, to feign freedom as long as, ultimately, they heed America's bidding.

Gareth Price

Taipei

Wang Jin-pyng defends shut-down

RAISED HACKLES: The legislative speaker denied siding with the DPP when he closed down the three-day extraordinary session before a vote was held on the referendum

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

Facing fierce criticism from within the pan-blue camp about his handling of the controversial referendum law, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng yesterday defended the legitimacy of his moderating and denounced opposition lawmakers for being ignorant about legislative procedures.

"I was acting according to the Law Governing the Legislature's Exercise of Power to refer the referendum bill to inter-party consultations amid disagreement among parties. Those lawmakers who have accused me of conspiring with the pan-green camp by abandoning the referendum bill in this legislative session were simply ignorant of legislative procedures," Wang said.

Wang made the comments yesterday at a training camp at the Lee Teng-hui School established by former president Lee Teng-hui while addressing members of the institution.

As the KMT's vice chairman, Wang has stirred up resentment among his KMT colleagues after he closed the session before the legislature had a chance to consider DPP Legislator Trong Chai's version of the referendum bill.

A small tussle even broke out between Wang and the KMT's legislative caucus leader Lee Chia-chin, who forcefully took away an adjourning announcement from Wang to prevent him from halting the referendum bill in the next legislative session.

KMT lawmakers Wang Chung-yu and Hung Hsiu-chu, as well as PFP legislative caucus whip Chiu Yi all chided Wang for compromising with the DPP.

The referendum bill was killed in the three-day legislative extraordinary session which ended last Thursday after the pan-blue bloc made a last minute turnabout in its stance to support the bill.

Wang refuted accusations that he had been collaborating with the green camp.

"There wasn't any partisan judgment when I ruled to close the session. My actions were based on a law that stipulates that the bill should be reviewed through inter-party consultations for a maximum of four months until an agreement is reached. My judgment was based solely on the interests of the country," Wang said, adding that "the reactions of some lawmakers are simply their personal opinions."

He also said "as a long-term KMT member, I would never do anything that would harm the party that has nurtured me for so long."

Speaking at the Lee Teng-hui School, Wang said he is often requested to deliver speeches on legislative reform.

Meanwhile, Wang yesterday questioned the wisdom of the idea of cutting the number of lawmakers from 225 to 113 -- a proposal advocated by the DPP.

Cutting the number of seats by half could lead to problems in practice, Wang said, noting for example that there are 12 standing committees in the Legislative Yuan and that dividing the 113 lawmakers among them would leave each committee with 11 or 12 members.

As each committee can operate with only one-third of the committee members in attendance, Wang asked whether it is appropriate "to allow three or four lawmakers to decide on bills of great importance to the country."

Ignore China's huffing and puffing

By the Liberty Times editorial

In addition to the economic stimulus bills, a major controversy in the Legislative Yuan's extraordinary session was the proposed national referendum bill. Referendums are a demonstration of civic power, and the direct exercise and expression of that power can supplement the shortcomings of the legislature. In any given mature democracy, only the substantive contents of referendums can possibly become the focus of controversies.

The right of citizens to vote in referendums shouldn't incite disputes. While Taiwan has left behind the shadow of former authoritarian rule and implemented institutionalized democracy, it is still plagued by disputes over drafting a referendum law. On the surface, both the ruling and opposition camps seem to support the passage of the law, but it is not that simple. Both sides appear to have their own concerns, and no one dare to go all out in support of the law. This is a phenomenon worthy of pondering.

The referendum issue touches the sensitive unification-independence nerve of the opposition and ruling camps. The pan-green camp hopes to demonstrate the mainstream popular will of society through the holding of referendums, while the pan-blue camp fears that referendums will ultimately lead to a duel between unification and independence supporters.

The nativization camp, spearheaded by the DPP, has for years advocated the enactment of a referendum law, while the pan-blue camp limits the scope of its support to the constitutional right of "initiative and referendum." The two sides couldn't be further apart on the issue, creating distrust between them and making it virtually impossible for them to share any common ground.

Surprisingly, after President Chen Shui-bian spoke out in support of holding referendums on World Health Organization participation and on halting construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the blue camp changed its long-held position with respect to referendums, supporting the enactment of a referendum law, and even proposing enactment of the law this month and holding a referendum next month.

It went so far as to support the draft referendum law pitched by DPP Legislator Trong Chai, in effect opposing the more conservative version of the bill endorsed by the DPP. As a result, the DPP was cornered, caught off guard and virtually unable to give a proper response to this turn of events.

The blue camp now adamantly supports the right of citizens to referendums, yet just when the referendum law seemed closer to materialization than ever, Chen chose to reiterate his promise not to declare independence, so long as China does not invade. Moreover, the version of the bill endorsed by the DPP makes referendums on national sovereignty a defensive measure, meaning such a plebiscite would only take place if and when China uses force against Taiwan.

This way, referendums become a means through which important public issues, rather than the future of the nation, are decided. In contrast, the blue camp made a drastic change of position, adopting the stance of "anything goes" when its comes to topics to be voted on by referendums.

Does this mean that the ruling and opposition camps have exchanged their political stance, with the ruling party stepping back on the issue while the opposition party marches forward? The answer is, of course, no. The change is only strategic, rather than a fundamental change of principals. The reason the blue camp dares to adopt the "anything goes" attitude, including the holding of a referendum on independence, is because it knew very well the DPP wouldn't move too aggressively under the threat of an attack from China.

The opposition alliance opted to deliberately beef up the substance of the bill, hoping to see a ruling party fiasco. While referendums may be an important policy plank of the DPP, it cannot afford to ignore the potential clashes that might be triggered in holding a referendum on the issue of independence, in view of the realities of the cross-strait relationship and the international community. Therefore, a highly conservative version of the referendum bill was born.

While the strategies of the ruling and opposition camps may be different, the concerns of both sides are nevertheless the same -- namely, "fearing the wrath of China." For the longest time, "tip-toeing around China" was one of the biggest roadblocks to progress in this country. All the controversies seen in trying to pass the referendum law are just one example.

For decades, aside from the period in which the nation vowed to "oppose communism" and "retake the motherland," all major policy changes, irrespective of whether they were political, economic, military, diplomatic or even educational and cultural, Taiwan was unable to help but set a red line. The first consideration in everything was always whether China would be provoked, and whether tension in the cross-strait relationship would be created. With extreme fear and caution, things moved along gradually and incrementally.

However, as pointed out by former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellochi in a recent article in a Chinese-language newspaper, the popular election of the president, to the downsizing of the provincial government, to the amendment of the Constitution, all went through public and fierce debates in Taiwan. They all proved that the so-called "red" lines of alert did not exist. People were worrying for no good reason.

Judging from history, the so-called red line of alert may not exist, yet, members of the pro-unification camp have emphasized the need to cross the red lines set by China during the reform process, in an attempt to obstruct the nativization and democratization movements. History shows they were simply needlessly confining themselves.

The most glaring examples are probably the popular election of the president and the downsizing of the provincial government. Taken to the extreme, belief in a red line can lead people to perceive nativization education as a gradual independence movement seeking to sever cultural ties with China. Under the shadow of the so-called red line, Taiwan can barely move. Nor can it implement structural reforms.

Let's suppose China did set a red line, as demonstrated by verbal and military threats, including the missile launches in the Taiwan Strait when former president Lee Teng-hui visited Cornell University in the US. Despite this, Taiwan made it through the crisis. Therefore, when Taiwan engages in internal reforms, top priority must be given to the welfare and interests of the people. It cannot afford to be trapped by concerns about crossing a red line, becoming indecisive as a result.

Facts prove that had Taiwan been excessively worried about a red line and unable to struggle free from the groundless fear of "incurring the wrath of China."

Without crossing this line, democratic achievements such as the popular election of the president, the downsizing of the provincial government and the election of legislatures could never have been accomplished.

Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country already. If it wishes to change its name or national flag, then it would of course require approval through a referendum.

If both the opposition and ruling camps can truly follow the ideal of Taiwan first, and genuinely think of the welfare and interests of the people, then nothing can stop the people of Taiwan from seeking freedom, autonomy and happiness, with or without red lines.