HK's silent masses no longer mute

By Wang Dan

To understand the furor induced by Hong Kong's proposed Article 23 legislation as well as its impact, one has to understand the background of the legislation.

On the eve of Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule, the British authorities in the colony introduced democratic reforms to the territory's liberal legal system. Beijing was extremely suspicious of the UK's motives.

When the pro-democracy movement erupted in 1989, 1 million people hit the streets in Hong Kong to voice their support. Hong Kong student representatives also took part in the organization work of the Tiananmen Square demonstration. This deep-ened Beijing's worry that Hong Kong would become a base for opposing China.

China is not willing to see the UK continue to take advantage of Hong Kong's freedoms and democratic system to have any influence on its politics. This is the basic reason behind Beijing promoting Article 23 legislation in the Basic Law.

Around the time of Hong Kong's handover in 1997, China finally stepped clear of the predicament of the June 4 massacre both politically and economically. Its rulers regained some confidence in governing the nation, thereby reducing the urgency of the push for Article 23 in Hong Kong.

To secure the stability of Hong Kong's return and make efforts to reverse its diplomatic situation, China has tried to dodge the territory's democratic forces. For example, it allows exiled pro-democracy activists such as Lu Siqing and Han Dongfang to participate in democracy movements, and allows the June 4 candlelight vigil to be held in Victoria Park every year.

But why do the Chinese authorities want to force Article 23 legislation at a time when public rancor in the territory is surging and its economy is in a slump? According to information we have obtained, we believe that this is former Chinese president Jiang Zemin's personal decision.

His visit to Hong Kong last year was met with protests by hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners. Jiang reportedly was enraged. He then ordered the Hong Kong government to push the legislation in order to provide a legal basis for suppressing similar activities.

A vital regulation in Article 23 stipulates that all the organizations banned in China must also be banned in Hong Kong as well. This is aimed at the Falun Gong.

The massive turnout at the July 1 demonstration can be attributed to the correct policy of the democratic faction, which focused the protest on opposing Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and Article 23. Opposition against one-party politics was not at issue this time. Although the outside world estimated the number of participants at 500,000, the actual figure was likely over 750,000.

Such strong public support has put the central government in an awkward position. The best solution would be to return to its original stance and shelve Article 23. But this will set a precedent for making concessions to the people. And moreover, this will foster Jiang's discontent with President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.

The central government is now gathering opinions from all circles in search of a solution. They have heard three complaints -- people are dissatisfied with the economy, people are dissatisfied with Tung and people are dissatisfied with Article 23.

Now China needs to make two policies, which will also be the focus of public attention. One is related to the concessions it should make on Article 23 -- either making more alterations or delaying the legislation indefin-itely. The other is whether it should forsake Tung. What exactly Beijing will do next is still unknown, which suggests that differences of opinion exist inside the government.

But one thing is for sure. This abrupt change in Hong Kong's politics is a new test of the relations between the Hu-Wen system and the Jiang bloc. We can assume that any future political changes in Hong Kong will have an indirect influence on China's political development.

Hong Kong's political development offers us some food for thought. I believe the territory's recent problems prove the impossibility of maintaining the "one country, two systems" principle under China's totalitarian rule. It is merely the late Deng Xiaoping's personal promise that Hong Kong would remain un-changed for 50 years. Without a democratic system, this kind of promise is nothing but a pie in the sky.

Under China's authoritarian rule, even a leader's personal feelings can change the basic structure of a policy. I hope that the people of Taiwan can understand one thing -- as long as political democratization has not arrived in China, its rulers' promises are not dependable. Even political inter-ests cannot provide a guarantee.

The fact that Jiang was able to push for the legislation based on his personal interests serves as an obvious example since Article 23 does not tally with the Communist Party's interests and its international image.

I believe after this furor in Hong Kong, the Chinese people will also see things a little more clearly -- without a democratic system, China does not have international credibility and there are ample reasons not to believe Beijing's promises.

Since the June 4 movement in 1989, democracy movements in China and overseas have gradually died down. Many people have therefore lost their confidence in China's democratization, believing it is a faraway dream. But the massive demonstration joined by 750,000 Hong Kong residents indicates that we must never underestimate the power of public will in striving for democracy and safeguarding freedom under Beijing's rule.

Hong Kong has long been viewed as a commercial city without political activity. The bourgeoisie, the leading force in Hong Kong, only care about their business interests. The number of demonstrators turning out on July 1 surprised the outside world. This is because we have long neglected the Hong Kong people's suppression since the handover when they have had to live under totalitarian rule. Similarly, we can also imagine how much the people in China have to suppress their feelings.

Hong Kong raises the question of whether people ruled by Beijing are willing to remain silent forever? Before 1988, China was a peaceful and joyful state, where public rancor was far less heated than it is today. But people's political enthusiasm was kindled seemingly overnight in 1989, a process which I personally experienced. Today's Hong Kong is another example.

We should not be misguided by the facade China displays into believing that its stability will last. Nor should we think that the Chinese people's passion for democracy has abated. Facts prove that, under a totalitarian system, public resentment will erupt abruptly. The inactivity of the opposition movements currently in China is only a superficial phenomenon. I am very optimistic that there will be a breakthrough in China's democratization within the next five to 10 years.

Of course, China's democratization would be a fundamental guarantee of Taiwan's long-term interests. From this point of view, caring about and supporting Hong Kong's democracy -- and further caring about and supporting China's democratization -- is a rational option for a far-sighted political party and its leaders.

Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations.

Human rights law promises changes

LIBERAL AGENDA: The draft that is to be presented to the Cabinet will abolish the death penalty and give legal protection to the rights of gay couples

BY DEBBY WU

STAFF REPORTER

“The existence of the death penalty does not help in reducing crime, and not having the death sentence would not mean social chaos.”－Wu Jia-zhen of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights

The Cabinet has completed the drafting of a “basic human rights law” which, among other liberal measures, will abolish the death penalty and allow same sex couples to marry, form families and adopt children.

The law was draft by the President’s Advisory Group on Human Rights, which was founded in October 2000 and headed by Vice President Annette Lu.

The group’s task is to promote human rights locally, help Taiwan participate in international human rights activities and advise the president on related issues.

Article 5 of the draft law, concerning the right of life, says that “everyone has the right to life and the freedom of life, these rights are not to be violated casually, and the death sentence should be abolished.”

Article 3 says: “The freedom and rights everyone is entitled to should not differ on the ground of one’s birth, sex, sexual orientation, race, skin color, genetic features, appearance, language, religion, politics, property, profession, or other status.”

And in Article 26 on the rights of marriage and family formation, it says: “ People have the rights to marry and form families according to their free will; families formed by same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children according to relevant regulations.”

Secretary-general of the Sex-uality/Gender Rights Association Wang Ping said that Article 3 together with Article 26 would give gay couples the right to mary, form families and adopt children.

These articles, along with the abolition of the death penalty are seen as major advances in human rights provision in Taiwan, going considerably further than is the norm in many developed countries such as the US.

Currently Taiwan’s laws still offer judges the choice of using the death sentence, while there is no legal protection of the rights of gay couples.

Concerning the abolition of the death penalty, Taiwan Association for Human Rights office coordinator Wu Jia-zhen was positive about the move, but said that the government needed to communicate with the public further on the issue since the majority of people still believed in the necessity of the death penalty.

“The government should make it clear to the public that the abolition of the death penalty does not mean protection for perpetrators. The existence of the death penalty does not help in reducing crime, and not having the death sentence would not mean social chaos,” Wu said.

“It would also be better to abolish the penalty step by step rather than abolish it all at once so the public can adapt more easily,” Wu said.

First the judges should avoid giving the death sentence; then the Minister of Justice should avoid signing death warrants, and slowly we would reach the goal,” Wu said.

While the abolition of the death penalty was lauded, providing legal protection for the rights of same-sex couples found less favor.

“Progress [on gay rights] is quite slow,” said Lai Cheng-jer, a gay rights activist and proprietor of the renowned gay shop Gin Gin’s.

“The draft was mentioned one year ago, and it is still not passed [by  the Cabinet]. This time it is again only mentioned, and this is probably only for the sake of providing news.”

“Homosexuals are obliged to the same obligations as normal people such as paying taxes, but they do not enjoy the same human rights. What is spelt out in the draft is what should have been enjoyed by homosexuals from the beginning,” Lai said.

The human rights basic law is based on the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

One of President Chen Shui-bian’s most important promises during his campaign in 2000 was to base the country’s laws on human rights principles. He talked in his inauguration speech about bringing Taiwan into the international human rights system and having the legislature incorporate the International Bill of Rights in Taiwan’s domestic law.

Referendum at top of agenda for delegation to US

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

A high-level delegation headed by Presidential Office Secretary-General Chiou I-jen wrapped up a three-day visit to Washington yesterday after a series of meetings with senior George W. Bush administration officials, think tanks and others seeking to clear the air on a number of issues that have strained US-Taiwan relations in recent months.

The Chen Shui-bian administration's plans to hold referendums, Taiwan's failure to fund purchases of promised US arms systems and the lack of progress in combating intellectual property piracy were three key issues believed to be at the head of the meetings' agendas, sources and observers said.

The delegation kept a low profile and scrupulously avoided the press during the visit. Both sides had wanted to keep the trip secret but it was leaked to the press earlier this week.

While neither side would give any details, Randall Schriver, the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, indicated that the referendum issue was one of the topics discussed.

"It's something we know is a very sensitive topic, and it's something that we are watching. And we're willing to hear from the Taiwan side why they think it's important," Schriver told Taiwanese reporters who approached him after he made a public appearance Thursday morning.

Shriver said the referendum decision "is a decision that Taiwan is going to have to make for itself. But I think in terms of the way it's been debated in public in Taiwan, we haven't seen a real compelling need" to conduct the referendums that Chen is currently considering.

"It's been domestic politics, maybe that's what's driving it. If so, it's not necessarily something that we have to proactively support," Schriver said.

However, Schriver declined to discuss any of the other issues that might have come up during the talks with the Chiou delegation.

Washington's reaction to the referendum issue is linked in the eyes of some observers to the arms purchases and Taiwan's overall security posture.

As some US officials see it, Taiwan should not proceed with referendums, which are potentially provocative to China, without assuring its own defensive capability to deal with Beijing's reaction to such provocations, sources said.

The intellectual property rights issue has been a long-standing source of irritation in Washington, which has suspended high-level trade visits between the two capitals in view of the lack of progress by Taipei in halting the illegal copying and distribution of videos, music and other intellectual property.

The delegation was scheduled to meet with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

It was also believed that Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's deputy, was on the list. But it was not known which US trade officials the Taiwanese met.

The group also met with members of the Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and other think tanks.

Yesterday, two of the delegation members, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Michael Kau and National Security Council Deputy Secretary-General Ko Cheng-heng, were to fly to Monterey, California, to take part in the annual Taiwan-US Strategic Talks, an important channel of communications on US-Taiwan military relationships.

Officials from the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and American Institute in Taiwan will also take part. Other members of the Taiwanese delegation are DPP foreign affairs chief and legislator Hsiao Bi-khim and Legislator Chen Chung-hsin.