20030817

"The Chinese government has granted Hong Kong people a high degree of sovereignty, but it does not mean it will allow the SAR to become a base for what it calls subversion," Weng said.

In order to ensure things will not go wrong in Hong Kong, the Chinese government designed a "bird-cage democracy."

"Under the system, the real power lies in the chief executive, not in institutions representing the people's will," Weng said.

Such a regime possesses democratic elements but lacks democratic results, Weng said.

Wong Yuk-man, a popular Hong Kong talk-show host who mobilized nearly 100,000 people for the July 1 demonstration, said that -- unlike Taiwan -- Hong Kong cannot strive for its independence from China.

"We must fight for [true] democracy under the bird-cage democracy," Wong said.

Chang Jung-feng, vice president of the Chung-hua Institution for Economic Research, cautioned Taiwan against submitting to China's "one country, two systems" formula, saying that Taiwanese people's basic freedoms would be threatened if they did.

"Only when democracy blossoms in Taiwan and Hong Kong can the people in mainland China have hope for democracy," Chang said.

Chen Ming-tong, vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, said the "one country, two systems" formula had occurred in Taiwan when the KMT government took over Taiwan in 1947.

Chen Yi, the provincial governor who assumed a position similar to that now held by Tung in Hong Kong, mismanaged the administration, Chen Ming-tong said.

That mismanagement, said Chen Ming-tong, led to the traumatic 228 Incident -- a bloody conflict between KMT troops and local Taiwanese.

"A country cannot have half of its people free while the other half remains enslaved," Chen Ming-tong said.

The "one country, two systems" formula can never succeed in human history, he added.

Article 23 poses dangers, legislators warn

By Sandy Huang

STAFF REPORTER

Vocal in their opposition to the Hong Kong government's proposed anti-subversion legislation, two Hong Kong legislative councilors expressed their concerns over the outlook for the territory's press freedom and human rights if Article 23 of its Basic Law is enacted.

"The [Hong Kong] government's proposal of the legislation has many in the Hong Kong publishing industry feeling nervous and sweating about it because [the law would] grant the authorities the power to intervene and control the press under the pretext of protecting national security, said Emily Lau, a veteran journalist turned lawmaker.

Law, made the comments yesterday at a conference held in Taipei by the Taiwan Advocates, a think-tank founded by former president Lee Teng-hui.

Lau, along with fellow Hong Kong legislative councilor James To, a former lawyer, was invited to speak at one of the sessions in the conference on the impact of Article 23 on Hong Kong's press freedom, human rights and judicial system.

The law would prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the People's Republic of China or theft of state secrets. It would also ban political organizations and groups in Hong Kong from having contact with similar groups abroad.

Critics say it would also grant the authorities the power to silence political opponents and muzzle the press under the pretext of protecting national security.

Pointing to the ambiguity of definitions in the proposed law, Lau said the law would give the Hong Kong government the power to brand illegal any press reports that it judges to be a threat to China's national security or theft of state confidential information.

"That is to say, individuals or groups that call out slogans or make moves of any sort that China's authorities see as sensitive and pose a challenge to the Chinese Communist Party would risk the possibility of spending time in jail under the new law," To said.

To said that even talking about Taiwan's independence or the need for the US to assist Taiwan in the event of an attack from China could be considered subversive.

"In other words, those who make casual remarks in expressing support for Taiwan could easily find themselves in trouble with the law before they know it," he said.

To slammed the proposed anti-subversion legislation as detrimental to the freedom of the people in Hong Kong.

"Those who wish to hold demonstrations in Hong Kong would be branded for disturbing social stability," To said.

Beijing says that passage of Article 23 of the Basic Law is required under the agreement that saw Hong Kong return to Chinese rule under the "one country, two systems" formula.

Deeming that the proposed law threatens their freedoms and fundamental rights, an estimated 500,000 people took to the streets of Hong Kong on July 1 -- the anniversary of the handover -- to protest against the controversial law.

The mass turn-out prompted Hong Kong's administration to eventually yield and agree to scale back the bill and defer passage of the legislation, which was originally scheduled for a vote last month.

Both Lau and To are democracy activists instrumental in the fight against the proposed law. Lau has been known as a persistent critic of the Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa.

At yesterday's conference, session Chair Byron Weng, a professor at National Chi Nan University, cited a story reported in the Ta Kung Pao, a mouthpiece for Beijing. The report branded Lau and To's participation in the conference as "acts of defiance."

While expressing gratitude for Taiwan's support so far in their fight against their government's proposed anti-subversion legislation, both Lau and To stressed that the implications for Taiwan cannot be brushed aside and deserve close attention.

"We hope that Taiwan can continue to support us, as well as pay attention to the further development of the proposed law," Lau said.

Taiwan must now choose democracy, professor insists

By Stephanie Wen

STAFF REPORTER

Professor Mineo Nakajima spoke of the importance of Taiwan's democratization yesterday at an international conference on Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" organized by Taiwan Advocates at the Grand Hotel yesterday.

A former principal of Tokyo University of Foreign Language specializing in International Relations, and author of many books on China-Taiwan-Hong Kong relations, Nakajima said that Taiwan's next presidential election was important, if not crucial, for the Asia region.

"Taiwan's democratization, which began during former president Lee Teng-hui's administration has to be continued, even more so in the face of China's anti-democratic political pressure. If Taiwan's democratization fades, Japan and the countries of the Asian region will be severely disadvantaged," Nakajima said.

Nakajima said that it was absolutely necessary that President Chen Shui-bian be re-elected in next year's election, as Chen is the only person who will carry out Taiwan's democratization agenda and protect Lee's accomplishments.

"After the presidential election, the next step for Taiwan will be a referendum on changing the nation's name." Nakajima said.

"The change ... is important as this will take away any justification China might have in using force against Taiwan. And the US cannot ignore China's use of force against Taiwan should Taiwan takes the word `China' out of its formal name," he said.

In his presentation yesterday, Nakajima spoke of the collapse of Hong Kong since its 1997 handover, and of the gradual diminishment of Hong Kong's freedom and democracy should serve as a lesson for Taiwan.

While Nakajima holds a pessimistic view of the future of Hong Kong, he said the people of Taiwan have a choice about their future.

"In choosing between obtaining recognition of Taiwan and maintaining the current situation, thereby continuing the ambiguity over identity, Taiwanese will need national cooperation, a lot of conviction and commitment to change the current status quo," he said.

Should Taiwan's opt for the latter course, 21st century Taiwanese will not be able to obtain adequate international recognition, he said.

Nakajima stressed the utmost importance of Taiwanese people recognizing their own identity.

"Without such self-awareness and recognition, Taiwan will be divided and eventually taken over by China," he said.

Nakajima said that it is unlikely that China will accept the government's direct cross strait transportation proposals because: "It is unlikely that the two sides will reach a mutual agreement with each side maintaining their political stance,"

He also said that he thought direct transportation links were anyway undesirable in that they would lead to greater penetration of Taiwanese society by Chinese influences.

As far as economic development is concerned, Nakajima said that he thought the current economic development projections by China were mostly wishful thinking on the part of Beijing.

"Once the make-believe crumbles, investments in China will all suffer" he said, calling for early preparation by all Taiwanese and Japanese investors for such an eventuality.

Nakajima said that Taiwan had to make a decision regarding its national identity.

"It is very unlikely that China will use force against Taiwan for fear of condemnation by the international community before the 2008 Beijing Olympic. Thus, should Taiwan make a choice, it had best be done before 2008," he said.

Chen, Lee warn of conservative forces' return

SAFEGUARD: The president and former president said Taiwan must savor its democratic gains and not be forced to live in the shadow of the `one China' principle

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

"If we stop moving forward or are forced to take a step back and revert to authoritarian rule again, we will have a painful price to pay and our vision for democracy will never be realized."－President Chen Shui-bian

President Chen Shui-bian and former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday said Taiwan would pay a painful price if it allows conservative forces to comeback into power.

"Democracy cannot go backward and reform cannot be undone. If we stop moving forward or are forced to take a step back and revert to authoritarian rule again, we will have a painful price to pay and our vision for democracy will never be realized," Chen said at the opening ceremony of an international conference discussing Hong Kong's experiences under the "one country, two systems" formula since its return to China in 1997.

The conference was held by pro-independence think tank Taiwan Advocates, of which Lee is chairman.

Addressing the conference alongside Chen, Lee said, "If Taiwan cannot defend its hard-won democratic achievements and allows the resurrection of a conservative power, the country will be forced to live under the shadow of the "one China" principle.

"This is the most important choice Taiwan's people will be face in less than seven months time," Lee said, referring to the presidential election due to be held next March

In his speech, Chen said China's attempts to impose an anti-subversion law on Hong Kong revealed a reversal of democracy and broke Beijing's commitment to allow Hong Kong to remain free from interference for 50 years.

In contrast to Hong Kong, Lee said Taiwan has been able to undertake a substantial political and economic transformation thanks to the nation "forsaking any unrealistic expectations of China and seeking an identity on the basis of its 23 million people."

However, Lee urged Taiwan not to rest on its laurels because of its democratic and economic achievements and instead strengthen the development of its national identity in the face of and Taiwan's internal pro-China forces as well as China's persistent calls to the "one China" principle, calls which undermine the will of Taiwan's people to be independent.

The two-day international conference, held in the Grand Hotel Taipei, drew more than 600 participants and saw a number of distinguished speakers, including former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan Nat Bellocchi, Japanese expert on international relations Maneo Nakajima, Hong Kong legislative councilors Emily Lau and James To, Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen and prominent academics from Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Bellocchi delivered a speech titled "Hong Kong and Taiwan -- Choice Makes the Difference," asserting that the fundamental political differences between China and Taiwan are so wide that using the "one country, two systems" principle even as a starting point for resolving that difference is simply "impractical."

"The overwhelming difference between the two is in their political history and their political system that makes the `one country, two systems' so improbable for Taiwan. Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan has a choice and that makes a difference," Bellocchi said.

Meanwhile, pro-democracy councilor Lau, who was attacked by the territory's media for collaborating with Taiwan's pro-independence forces by attending the conference, denied the allegations and said she is not a puppet of any faction in Taiwan.

"I speak for myself. If I can't even attend the meeting out my own will, what would people in Taiwan think about the `one country, two systems' principle?' That we don't even have the freedom to attend a meeting? It's ridiculous!" Lau said.

Last week, President Chen Shui-bian took more than 50 high-ranking editors and other high-ranking media professionals on a tour to give them a breath of fresh rural air and a chance to see for themselves Taiwan's accomplishments. Besides speaking about "implementing direct links through a three-phase project," Chen also commented on the media chaos, expressing hopes that his guests would be able to improve the content and diversity of news.

The main problem with the print media is that it sees everything from the "Taipei perspective." This in turn fosters contempt in southern and central Taiwan of this imposition of Taipei's metropolitan viewpoint on communities outside of the the greater Taipei area. This is the result of arrogance derived from intellect and power on the part of high-ranking media professionals cultivated by the former KMT administration.

As for television media, the problem is the explosion of "real time and live news" made possible by video and satellite technologies. This has been caused by conglomerate investment in TV. Anyone who has worked for big business would tell you the bottom-line reigns supreme: advertising revenues, dependent on viewership have taken precedence over journalistic principles, so violence- and sex-oriented content have become the mainstream.

The "Taipei perspective" is much more than media indifference to areas other than Taipei. It represents high-ranking media management who continue to oppose reforms, demonize politicians who favor nativization and either resist or negatively portray the trend of democratic reforms.

The "Taipei perspective" has historical roots in government-spokesperson appointments. Party and government officials appoint friends and relatives to fill media vacancies, placing the government and media stakeholders in bed with one another. Naturally, reportage has become rife with the ideologies of a certain elite, and reform efforts are criticized, negatively portrayed and challenged.

In the 1990s, after former president Lee Teng-hui gradually introduced democratic reforms, the "Taiwan consciousness" became the will of the mainstream. However, media remained mostly in the hands of the old-timers. Therefore, reportage continued to overlook views of southern and central Taiwan, criticize the policy implementations of Chen, and viciously attack politicians who had aided the transfer of power.

Chen has taken media supervisors on tours of remote areas for three years in a row. His primary purpose is to make these professionals listen to grass-roots voices and see the vitality of this green island-nation. In this regard, the annual trip has been most meaningful.

While the DPP has said it supports media reform -- including the de-politicization, protection of press freedoms, and equal distribution of media resources -- since its opposition days, we find ourselves having to remind Chen that these ideals remain just that.

The government has followed the path of its predecessor by forgetting is role in an actual democracy. On the one hand, the government promises withdrawal of military and political influence from media management, so as to materialize press freedoms. On the other, it treats important positions in state-run media as rewards for DPP potentates.

We hope that as the president, who is also chairman of the DPP, asks the media to exercise self-discipline, he must also fulfill his party's promises. The Legislative Yuan will re-convene in September. Will the Executive Yuan actively lobby for the needed media reform? Will DPP members back out of the media? Can the president's promises on media reform become a reality? Everyone is waiting to see.