Cabinet’s Lee Ying-yuan stands up for referendum

BY FIONA LU

STAFF REPORTER

A senior official of the DPP party yesterday said the Constitution had empowered citizens long ago with the right to carry out referendums.

“The very legal basis for conducting a referendum by people was stated in the ROC Constitution which guarantees that referendums are the right of every citizen as stated in Articles 2 and 17,” DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan said.

Lee made his remarks after the ruling party’s weekly Central Standing Committee meeting. The remarks were made in response to the pan-blue forces’ challenge to the legitimacy of conducting referendums.

One day after President Chen Shui-bian pledged his party lawmakers that the government will advance a referendum before March 20 next year, pan-blue officials, including KMT legislative leaders and officials in the Taipei City Government, said that the pledged referendum would encounter problems with legitimacy.

Lawrence Gao, also a DPP Central Standing Committee member, concurred with Lee’s interpretation of the disagreement.

Gao, a DPP legislator, urged his opposition counterparts to stop boycotting the legal formulation of the referendum law, saying that “67 percent of respondents in a poll thought that the Legislative Yuan should bear most of the responsibility for the disorderliness of Taiwanese politics.”

“The legislation for a referendum needs to be passed as soon as possible to honor our goal of advancing a second wave of democratic reform,” Gao added.

Following up on Gao’s statements, Lee said: “An obligatory legislative confirmation for all referendum topics, once approved by lawmakers in the referendum legislation, would be the most incredible insult to a basic right granted to every citizen by the Constitution.

DPP legislative whip Ker Chien-ming, who attended yesterday’s meeting to give a briefing on the just-concluded extra legislative session, spoke of his hope that party caucuses in the legislature in the next session will wind up the referendum legislation after a period of rational negotiation.

“We hope that the referendum legislation will not end with a legislative showdown since it is only a procedural enactment about how a referendum could be carried out,” Ker told reporters in yesterday’s news conference.

Another hightlight of yesterday’s weekly meeting was a speech given by Wang Dan, a Chinese intellectual in exile, on the long-term view for the development of democracy in China.

Hong Kong has long fight ahead

By Wang Chien-chuang

The National Security Law was promulgated and put into effect in early July 1987. Hong Kong also planned to enact national security regulations this month. Although the KMT and the Communist Party have been fighting each other, they are like twins in some way, worrying about secession or treason all day long. They therefore feel they have to enact a law in the name of national security to intimidate people. Otherwise, they find it hard to sleep at night.

Initially, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government was firmly determined to push the anti-subversion legislation. Not only that it "must" be enacted, but that this should be done "within a time limit." However, the fact that 500,000 people took to the streets has forced the pro-Beijing members of the Legislative Council to turn their guns around. The massive demonstration has also scared the Chinese leadership in the Zhongnanhai. Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa  finally gave in and decided to delay the legislation.

The enactment of the National Security Law in this country 16 years ago also created a stir in society. The forerunner of today's DPP led a great demonstration to protest against the legislation but the protest was impeded by ultra right-wing groups, which led to serious disputes and bloody conflicts outside the Legislative Yuan.

When the KMT tried to force the bill through three readings in the legislature, more than a dozen opposition lawmakers sat in inside the legislature to voice their protests. Among them were now first lady Wu Shu-chen, National Security Council Secretary-General Kang Ning-hsiang and DPP Secretary General Chang Chun-hsiung.

The KMT saw the enactment of the National Security Law as a necessity because it was worried that there was no law that would allow for a clamp down on secessionist movements after martial law was lifted. Likewise, the Chinese Communist Party is determined to push for the anti-subversion legislation in Hong Kong because it has been shocked by the strong backlash from a million of the territory's residents taking to the streets in 1989 to protest the Tiananmen Massacre.

Beijing is worried that Hong Kong will become a base for subverting the central government. Therefore, the territory's Basic Law -- its mini-constitution -- stipulates that the government must enact anti-subversion regulations.

Hong Kong has always been a non-political or politically rarefied area. The massive fugitive tide from China in 1962, a left-wing revolt in 1967 and the democracy movement in 1989 have been the only times since 1949 when Hong Kong had anything to do with politics. In addition, although the territory's residents could not enjoy democracy under British colonial rule, they had plenty of freedom. Everyone was a money-making economic animal and had no interest in politics.

But after its return to Chinese rule, Hong Kong has become a "political zoo," according to the noted columnist Lin Xingzhi. The territory's government has indulged itself in "love the country, love Hong Kong" patriotism. All dissidents have been tagged as traitors. This has panicked everyone in the territory.

If the anti-subversion bill is passed, people could face prosecution for "anti-revolutionary crimes" and as a result lose their life or be put in jail. Faced with totalitarian rule, if Hong Kong residents remain silent and docile, then the Pearl of the Orient would be crushed to powder.

Through their protests, the people of Hong Kong have only succeeded in delaying the legislation. Even if they somehow prevent the legislation from being passed, the Communist Party still can cook up charges against activists. Keep Taiwan's experience in mind. Hong Kong people must not think that the war is over.

Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.

It's time for Tung Chee-hwa to go

By Paul Lin

In the recent massive demonstrations in Hong Kong, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa once again showed his obtuse and obstinate nature. People in China and the outside world alike were shocked by the July 1 demonstration of nearly a million people. Tung alone seemed to respond with "composure" because his authority came from Beijing. Even if several million people were to take to the streets, he wouldn't care as long as Beijing doesn't dismiss him from office.

Thus, on the three mornings following July 1, Tung uttered an unperturbed "good morning" to the journalists waiting for him. He didn't appear the least bit ashamed. Nor was he prepared to respond quickly. Instead he remained mired in inconclusive committee meetings.

Only on July 4, when Liberal Party Chairman James Tien, who sits on Hong Kong's policy-making Executive Council, returned from a pilgrimage to Beijing and proposed delaying the legislation, did Tung sense the threat of internal division in his camp. This finally prompted him to respond on July 5.

He compromised on three particularly controversial parts of the draft national security bill being enacted in accord with Article 23 of the Basic Law. However, he remained intent on holding second and third readings on July 9.

On July 6, however, the Liberal Party insisted on postponing the legislation, and Tung knew that he would be unable to pass the bill in the Legislative Council. He was thus forced to announce on July 7 that the legislation would be postponed -- an event known as the "July 7 incident."

We can see from this series of events that Tung has completely lost the initiative and is retreating step by step in response to outside pressure.

As if having completed a major task by announcing the postponement, Tung subsequently went silent again for several days. He made no response whatsoever to the 50,000 residents of Hong Kong who surrounded the Legislative Council on July 9 to demand the return of power to the people. Then on July 10, Tung attended a lunch meeting and gave a speech. People expected he would make some important announcement, but he spent over an hour talking about why Hong Kong's secretary for health, welfare and food, Yeoh Eng-kiong, was investigating himself over his handling of the SARS outbreak.

In the fight against SARS, Yeoh was widely criticized for covering up the epidemic. Tung organized a committee to investigate this issue and chose Yeoh himself to head it. After over a month of criticism in public opinion forums, Tung's explanation on this occasion was that because the investigation was focused on incidents, not people, there was no harm in putting Yeoh in charge. With this kind of obtuse and obstinate leader, can Hong Kong be saved?

After July 1, apart from local communists, the Law Committee of the National People's Congress and the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all of whom expressed support for Tung, the central government did not declare its position. There have been reports that Beijing sent a delegation to Hong Kong to survey popular opinion and even got in contact with the democratic faction there.

There have also been reports that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who was in Shenzhen at the time, cursed Tung after seeing television images of the demonstration, saying "What the hell is going on!"

But Beijing is also faced with a dilemma.

Considering the need for "stability," Beijing would naturally prefer to retain Tung, but he has completely lost the support of the people. His unequivocal language about Article 23 -- including that there could be no compromise on certain content of the legislation and no postponement of its enactment -- has been proved a pack of lies. How can he govern Hong Kong?

Moreover, in the buildup to and the aftermath of the demonstration, he displayed extreme incompetence. How can he assuage the public anger and handle the problems that have arisen? And how can the important task of stimulating the economy be handed to a dim-witted official like him? On the other hand, Beijing must consider whether the people of Hong Kong would only raise more demands if Tung were replaced. In particular, would they demand popular election of the chief executive? What if Beijing loses control?

Although Beijing is still hesitating, members of the public are already beginning to look for Tung's successor. If this movement grows, it will be difficult for Beijing to retain Tung, not to mention that having become accustomed to acting as a puppet, Tung is incapable of taking any initiative himself.

The candidates being discussed include Henry Tang, Tien, Allen Lee, Victor Fung, Peter Woo, Chief Secretary for Administration Donald Tsang, Rita Fan and Executive Council member Leung Chun-ying.

The financial sector has responded by saying that if Fung were to replace Tung, the Hang Seng Index would shoot up by 500 to 1,000 points because he has an excellent track record as chairman of the listed company Li & Fung Ltd. His later performance as chairman of the airport authority was not bad either. He has a low-key style and good connections abroad. Tsang has a good image and is capable as well. He could lift the Hang Seng Index by 200 to 300 points.

Leung is the most controversial candidate. The chairman of a securities firm predicted that the Hang Seng Index will drop by 1,000 points if he takes charge. However, one fund manager has said that merely announcing a change of leadership would cause the market to rise by 200 to 300 points. One can see how unpopular Tung is.

The international ratings agency Standard & Poor's has even hinted that Tung must step down or become a mere figurehead in order to resolve the crisis. Some fund managers have said they will pull their money out of Hong Kong. It appears Beijing won't delay for too long in deciding whether to retain Tung. The only fear is that the process might become bogged down in a power struggle at the highest echelons.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.

First lady a beacon for the country

The supercharismatic first lady Wu Shu-chen yesterday set out on a cultural exchange trip to Germany and Italy, carrying the Taiwanese people's weighty expectations of a diplomatic breakthrough. Wu is also scheduled to meet with Pope John Paul II. She hopes to use the trip to expand Taiwan's diplomatic contact with European countries, elevate bilateral relations and foil Beijing's attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally. But Wu can also use this opportunity to let Europeans see for themselves how different democratic Taiwan is from communist China.

Not every Taiwanese has Wu's sense of humor; the people born in democratic Taiwan share her sincerity, simplicity and candor. This is the real character of Taiwanese women. This is vastly different from the pursuit of luxury and glamor among the wives of high officials during the KMT era. It is also very different from high-level Communist Party cadres like Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi, who rule through the barrel of the gun.

What's most precious is Wu's determination to make an effort for the country's future and safeguard the dignity of Taiwanese people, while enduring the ailments besetting her -- all this in the face of Beijing's trampling. For this she has become the best role model for handicapped people in Taiwan. The people of Taiwan do not look down upon her because of her physical handicap. Instead, they respect her even more for her sincerity and congeniality.

The country needs people who dare to speak the truth at international events, dare to say that democratic Taiwan is different from Communist China.

China's Qing-dynasty government ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895, making Taiwan a Japanese colony for half a century. Taiwan's separation from the mainland predates the split between the two Germanys or the two Koreas by more than half a century. More than a century of separation has caused Taiwan's local culture to develop in a completely different direction than that of China.

Meanwhile, China has gone through half a century of communist rule, further increasing the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. China's communist society is completely different from Taiwan's, which is based on a free economy. Laws are enacted and implemented in very different ways in these two societies. In terms of political development, Taiwan has popular democratic elections for the president, legislature and local councils. The other side of the Strait is still going around in circles. The one-party rule established in 1949 is unchanged, and there is absolutely no democratic procedure. The difference is akin to the gulf between Singapore and China.

Beijing is working hard to force a name change on Taiwan, as they did at the World Health Organization by listing Taiwan as a province of China. But the people of Taiwan have always believed that they are not the citizens of the People's Republic of China. China is merely one of the many places around the world that Taiwanese business people go to invest. The Beijing government has nothing to do with us.

The Chinese government is becoming more and more fanatical in its suppression of Taiwan. We can expect various types of harassment against Wu during her trip, but we believe she is very much accustomed to handling Beijing's petty diplomatic maneuvers. Most importantly, we hope Wu will be able to bring the voice of the Taiwanese people to the world and make it heard at international events in Europe. We hope she will bravely point out that Taiwan has never had anything to do with communist China and that the Beijing regime has no right to claim sovereignty over the country.

Nation can treat SARS as a new beginning

By Chen Lung-chih

On July 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced Taiwan's removal from the list of SARS-affected areas, thereby indicating that the collective efforts of the government and people of Taiwan to combat SARS had been successful. The people of Taiwan could finally resume their way of life.

Although the WHO was very late in announcing this news, this does not mean that Taiwan's effectiveness in combatting SARS ranked last in the world. Actually, in comparison with other countries, Taiwan brought SARS under control within a relatively short period. Taiwan's rapid and effective response to the epidemic was also remarkable. Because of China's political interference, Taiwan became isolated in the international campaign to combat the epidemic. We faced the SARS attack on our own and encountered more difficulties than other nations did. With confidence and perseverance, however, we finally accomplished our difficult task.

As we enter the post-SARS era, we should be aware of the following issues.

First, the spread of SARS gave rise to a period of collective panic in society and seriously slowed the pace of the nation's economic recovery. Its influence was both wide and deep, surpassing even that of the 921 earthquake in 1999. But in the last few months of battling against SARS, the people realized that only by demonstrating love and concern for others could they ultimately be victorious. Only if all people rallied together and cooperated could the difficulty be overcome.

Second, the SARS crisis made the people more aware of the Chinese government's true nature as a bully. China suppressed Taiwan and repeatedly spread lies about it in the international arena. China violated the Taiwanese people's basic right to health and blocked the country from participating in the WHO. And China forcibly isolated Taiwan outside of the world's public-health system and adopted a cruel and arrogant stance that seemed to say, "Who cares about you Taiwanese."

Third, although Taiwan hoped to gain a seat at the World Health Assembly (WHA) by making concessions such as classifying itself as a "health entity" or an "observer," its humble requests were still rejected. As in the past, politics overrode everything else in China's response. It says Taiwan is part of China and lacks the qualifications to participate in the WHO.

Beginning next year, our government must take the position that Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation and apply for full formal membership in the WHO. We should not only emphasize the right to proper healthcare. Even more importantly, we should emphasize that Taiwan is an independent sovereign country that is not governed by the PRC. The more China suppresses Taiwan or tries to diminish its stature, the more we must staunchly insist that Taiwan is an independent sovereign country.

Fourth, the recent storm over SARS caused the people to feel the real meaning of gemeinschaft -- ie, that anyone, regardless of ethnic background, who identifies with Taiwan as his or her country is Taiwanese. The people must not create internal divisions between themselves and instead should work together and encourage each other. We must maintain and strengthen a healthy attitude toward life and good habits of hygiene, thereby transforming the painful experience of SARS into a new beginning for the country.

Chen Lung-chih is the chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation.

Beijing pressures North Korea into accepting US talks

AP , SEOUL

Amid conflicting claims over how close North Korea is to making atomic bombs, China said yesterday that dialogue remained the best option for a resolution to the standoff over the North's nuclear development.

On Monday, an envoy of Chinese President Hu Jintao reportedly urged North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to accept US-proposed talks aimed at resolving the nine-month-old crisis.

China also said the security concerns of North Korea, which fears a US attack, were "rational" and must be resolved. The comment appeared to be part of an effort to fashion a compromise between Washington and Pyongyang. In April, China hosted and participated in talks with the two longtime adversaries.

"China has been very clear that it remains open and flexible on the participants and the formalities of the talks on the nuclear question," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan.

"We've been saying that various parties should stick to a peaceful solution to the nuclear question," he said. "We hope the Beijing talks can be continued."

Experts have said Pyongyang could extract enough weapons-grade plutonium to make several atomic bombs by reprocessing its pool of 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods, a procedure that yields weapons-grade plutonium. US officials believe the North already has one or two nuclear bombs.

The New York Times said that North Korea told US officials last week that it has produced enough plutonium to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs and intends to turn the material into weapons. But US intelligence agencies have little evidence to support the North's nuclear claim, the newspaper said.

Last week, Seoul's intelligence chief said Pyongyang may have reprocessed a small number of its 8,000 rods.

In Pyongyang on Monday, Kim met Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, who gave Kim a letter from Hu, according to KCNA, North Korea's state-run news agency. The contents were not disclosed.

China's role is pivotal because it exerts considerable leverage over the North as a major source of food and fuel to its impoverished neighbor. At the same time, China is sharply critical of US proposals for economic and political pressure on North Korea.