None dare call it treason

We have, if we are to fulfill our role properly, to fulminate against the preposterous new legislation proposed by the PFP in which the notion of betraying the country should be strictly defined and anybody penalized who accuses others of such a betrayal without the necessary proof.

To attack this proposal is easy enough. We could point out that what constitutes the idea of betrayal comes from one's ideas of what behavior is honorable and what is contemptible. It is a moral judgement and, as such, is not reducible to precise definition.

It is obviously justified to question the loyalty of politicians such as PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien, who, after a history of providing China with material to back up its claim to be taking care of Taiwan's health during the SARS crisis, participated in the World Health Organization's (WHO) global SARS conference in Kuala Lumpur last month as part of China's delegation. Any law that prevented us from calling Kao the traitor his behavior has shown him to be would be an intolerable restriction of the constitutional right of free speech. Since Kao's acting on behalf of Beijing was endorsed by his party and its leader James Soong -- until protests in Taiwan forced a withdrawal of this support -- it is quite legitimate to question Soong's loyalty and, by extension, that of the party he leads.

Suppression of free speech comes as nothing new to the pan-blue camp, of course, and we might say that, with this latest proposal they are simply returning to past form. It is barely more than a decade since a person could be jailed here for suggesting that Taiwan might be better off as an independent country. And of course we remember that one of the most ardent supporters of the restriction on voicing such sympathies was one James Soong.

What this proposed legislation amounts to is the pan-blue camp trying to stifle free speech in an attempt to dodge awkward questions about its loyalties. To put the PFP's proposed law into perspective, it wants to make it OK to sell out your country, but illegal for anyone else to accuse you of doing this.

So there is much to question, in fact deplore, about the PFP's proposal. No party that was committed to free speech and democratic politics would even contemplate such a law. And this tells us a lot about the PFP's commitment to those notions.

But although we think the proposed law is incontrovertibly a bad thing, we cannot help smiling. Why? Because criticism of the pan-blues has finally started to hit home.

For a long time the pan-blue's tete-a-tetes with their friends in Beijing were widely known among foreign experts on China affairs but taken very little notice of here in Taiwan. The Kao affair has been a huge catalyst for Taiwanese to sit up and ask questions about just where the blue camp's loyalties lie, why their politicians are so intimate with Beijing, why their legislative agenda concentrates on China's favorite issues. In this respect the new law is the obverse of the pan-blues' "support" for referendum legislation. By supporting something Beijing detests -- though not enough to actually pass the bill -- the blue camp wants to prove its innocence of allegations of betrayal, while also, for good measure, making it an offense to make such allegations.

What this suggests is that loyalty might well become the driving issue of next year's election. We hope it does. The secondary reason is that the DPP doesn't have much of a record of achievement to run on. But the major reason is that nothing is more important. Do you want a free Taiwan or a Taiwan Special Administrative Region of China? That is exactly what the election must be about.

President backs Hong Kong's struggle

STRONG SUPPORT: Chen congratulated democracy activists in a speech given by the Presidential Office secretary-general and said Taiwan was firmly behind them

By Sandy Huang and Debby Wu

STAFF REPORTERS

While expressing support for Hong Kong in defending its freedoms and fundamental rights, President Chen Shui-bian, in a written keynote statement delivered by Presidential Office Secretary-General Chiou I-jen, also called on the public yesterday to cherish the fruits of democracy they now enjoy.

Via a videoconferencing system, Emily Lau, a member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheong, spokesman for the Civil Human Rights Front expressed their gratitude for Taiwan's support in their fight against their government's proposed anti-subversion legislation.

Both Lau and Tsoi are Hong Kong democracy activists instrumental in the fight against the proposed law.

Citing Taiwan's experience in democracy, Lau told seminar attendants that "Taiwan's support is very much appreciated, important and needed."

The seminar was sponsored by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, a government-funded foundation which was inaugurated last month.

"We hope that Taiwan can continue to support us as well as pay attention to the further development of the proposed law," said Lau, a journalist turned lawmaker who has been vocal in her opposition to the law which she said will be detrimental to freedom of the people in the territory.

Pointing to the mass turn-out for a July 1 protest, which attracted an estimated 500,000 people, Lau said that the event changed not only outsiders' stereotypes of Hong Kong's people as caring only about money, but also demonstrated the importance of freedom and democracy to the Hong Kong people.

"I hope Hong Kong people can continue to speak their mind and stand up to fight for their right as to directly elect their government officials and representatives," Lau said, adding that demand for Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to step down was another cause behind the July 1 demonstration, in addition to opposition to the proposed anti-subversion law.

Tung, last Monday, eventually yielded to scale back the bill and defer passage of the legislation, which was originally scheduled for a vote last Wednesday.

Saying that postponement of the bill did not solve the issue but merely put it off for later, Cheng An-kuo, a former general manager of the Chung Hwa Travel Service, which is Taiwan's representative office in Hong Kong, said that an underlying dissatisfaction within the public is bound to erupt again if China does not quicken its pace in democratization and grant direct elections to the Hong Kong people.

Byron Weng, a professor at National Chi Nan University, said that following the proposal of the controversial anti-subversion legislation, the former British colony has become more sinocized despite Beijing's premise of "one coun-try, two systems."

When talking about the relationship between Taiwan and Hong Kong in the past six years and the outlook for the future, Andy Chang, professor at the Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University, said that Article 23 may have a negative influence on Taiwanese in Hong Kong and the relationship between Taiwan and Hong Kong.

"Article 23 is applicable on people with permanent Hong Kong citizenship and Chinese nationality, so first we have the question of whether the Hong Kong government deems Taiwanese as Chinese," Chang said.

"The article also states that Hong Kong can still exercise its judicial power over these people even if they commit treason-related crimes outside Hong Kong. So Taiwanese with Hong Kong citizenship may find themselves in trouble even if they participate in political activities such as voting outside Hong Kong," Chang said.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong citizens may fear communication with Taiwanese will be labled as subversion, and hence the exchanges between the two sides may lessen.

Deputy executive of the EuroAsia Education Foundation Tung Li-wen said that Taiwan's focus on Article 23 had been that one-country-two-systems was not suitable for Taiwan, but Taiwan should also be concerned with the fate of the Hong Kong people under the article.

"Taiwan cannot stay out of the matter and be happy that we knew long ago the parallel systems didn't work. Instead we have to pursue the ultimate goal of prosperity, stability and peace between the three sides [Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China]. We cannot only see Hong Kong as a buffer between Taiwan and China, but must treat Hong Kong seriously," Tung said.

Exiled Chinese dissident Wang Dan was most concerned about the democratization of China. He said that peace and stability is what Taiwan and China needed most, but it would happen only if China became a democratic country.

"With Article 23 and the big demonstration in Hong Kong, we see that the promise of one country two systems is completely bankrupt. The plan simply cannot work."

Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien said in the closing speech that China had been using "one country, two systems" and "peaceful reunion" as the basis of reunification propaganda, but the "peaceful" part was insincere when China had been increasing their national-defense budget and weapons rapidly.

Taiwanese should not bury their freedoms

By Parris Chang

How many people in Hong Kong would be willing to accept Chinese rule if they were to vote in a referendum? This is only a hypothetical question because the Chinese government won't give them the right or a chance to vote.

Before Hong Kong was handed over to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997, many Hong Kong people still harbored some illusions about Beijing's promise to let Hong Kong remain unchanged for 50 years. The nationalist cause made some of them embrace the motherland, if only reluctantly. But their illusions have been destroyed by the changes Hong Kong has gone through over the past six years. The Pearl of the Orient is now sinking by the day.

At one point, Western industrialists who supported Hong Kong's handover to China made a very bold assumption, saying Hong Kong would have a subtle influence on China after its handover, spearheading liberalization and change on the mainland. China would then become more like Hong Kong, they said.

In fact, Hong Kong under Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has become more and more like the Chinese mainland. "One country, two systems" is an empty phrase, a lie and a joke. What really hurts the people of Hong Kong is that their wallets have shrunk over the past six years. Real estate prices have fallen drastically and the industries have been hollowed out by the relocation of factories to China. Foreign businesses are also moving their Hong Kong headquarters to Shanghai or Singapore. Unemployment currently stands at 8.3 percent in Hong Kong -- far worse than in Taiwan or Singapore.

What's even worse, freedom of speech has withered in Hong Kong. The people's various freedoms and human rights have come under more restrictions. What makes many fiercely nationalistic Hong Kongers sad is the fact that post-handover Hong Kong can't appear to match its old self under British rule.

Over 500,000 Hong Kong people took to the streets on July 1 to protest against the Hong Kong government's plan to enact Article 23 legislation, which would restrict their freedoms. The protest has forced Tung and Beijing to postpone the legislation, but apparently this is only a delaying tactic.

Tung and his Beijing bosses have not really given up. They will push the bill once again when the time is right. Tung has not realized the motto, "Have Hong Kongers rule Hong Kong." On the contrary, he is having Beijingers rule Hong Kong by following Beijing's policies and orders.

Tung has been unpopular in Hong Kong over the years, as evident in his low public approval rates. In the dispute over Article 23, the media and many Hong Kong people have demanded his resignation. but Beijing still trusts and protects him, thoroughly ignoring the public opinion in Hong Kong. Western commentators hope that Beijing's new leaders such as President Hu Jintao may make a major concession out of respect for Hong Kong's public opinion and demands for freedom and human rights.

This is naive and wishful thinking, I'm afraid. My concern is whether the Chinese communist leadership will suppress the Hong Kong people by force as they did to the students who demanded democracy in Tiananmen Square.

The ongoing debate on a referendum law in Taiwan is a stark contrast to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong serves as a mirror for the people of Taiwan. If the people of Taiwan elect someone like Tung Chee-hwa in the presidential election next March, Taiwan's future president will be a chief executive, not a president. The people of Taiwan should therefore keep their eyes wide open and not bury their freedoms and future.

Parris Chang is a DPP legislator.