Selective beliefs

Chiou Chwei-liang's experience is not unique ("Old China versus modern Taiwan," Sept. 24, page 8). I have the misfortune of occasionally running into these ignorant Chinese immigrants in the US.

Somehow these immigrants never think there is anything wrong with the notion that people somehow only need to be fed, not to think or to feel, like a domesticated animal or a house plant.

Yet these are the very people who abandoned what they tout as the "great nation of China" and emigrated to a "modern" nation such as Canada. It is not hard for them to accept modern values; the problem is they only accept it for themselves, not for the Chinese still in China.

They think that what's good for themselves is not good for other Chinese, or worse, should be taken away from other Chinese. And since they consider Taiwan part of China, these values should be taken away from Taiwanese too.

Such selective learning -- a monstrous mix of ignorance and grandeur, comes from selective teaching of those in power, the emperors of old and communist dictators of late, who must keep the masses ignorant lest their exclusive power should be challenged.

Canada, I suppose, just as the US, asks its immigrants to swear allegiance to its Constitution, which represents these values. Those countries would do well to monitor these immigrants, for their contempt and insincere pledges, lest one day they should think about practice their true belief in communism and imperialism in their adopted country.

But do not despair or think that the entire 1.3 billion population of China believes these values too. Believe me, if given the chance, all 1.3 billion would emigrate.

Since this is impossible, what's the next best thing? Democratize China!

Chen Ming-chung

Chicago

Consistency would be nice

I have noticed that the Taipei Times uses "Hokkien," "Hoklo" and "Minnan" to refer to the same language, which is used by about 70 percent of the people in Taiwan.

This language is referred as "Taiwanese" in the 2003 Taiwan Yearbook issued by the Government Information Office.

In my opinion, these four names are all inappropriate.

The correct name for this language in Taiwan is "Holo" (both o's pronounced as German umlaut "oe"). This name has been used since the ancient time and is most commonly used today.

"Hokkien" also includes, for example, Fuzhou language that is completely different from Holo.

"Hoklo" and "Minnan" (or "Binlam") are rarely referred to by the people who speak Holo.

"Taiwanese" should include Holo, Hakka and Aboriginal languages although Holo is the most common Taiwanese. Since languages are a hot topic recently, please use "Holo" (or "Hoeloe") for this common Taiwanese.

Charles Hong

Columbus, Ohio

Environmental activists criticize lax laws

ENSURE RIGHTS: Environmentalists say it is imperative that the government revise certain laws in order to guarantee the public is protected against harmful projects

By Chiu Yu-Tzu

STAFF REPORTER

"It's time for us to emulate European people, such as the Germans, who voted to shut down operational nuclear power plants."－Eugene Jao, DPP Legislator

Recent discussions pertaining to legislation surrounding the nation's first referendum law have prompted environmentalists to urge the government to have lax laws revised in order to ensure people's environmental rights.

One of the most controversial laws criticized by activists for its failure to prevent foreseeable environmental deterioration is the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIA Act). The lack of public participation and access to information provisions have been attributed to protests emerging in an endless stream, activists said.

The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) came under fire last week after its head, Hau Lung-bin, suggested that a public development project, whose EIA had already been passed, should be exempted from the application of a proposed referendum law currently drafted by the Cabinet.

Hau was immediately bashed by both legislators and environmentalists. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislators on Thursday pointed out that Hau, the only Cabinet-level agency chief with pan-blue leanings, was expressing a view opposing the DPP-dominant Cabinet.

According to Hau, the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant should be completed anyway, because its EIA had been passed in the early 1990s.

DPP Legislator Eugene Jao said the construction of the plant needed to be inspected for environmental impact.

"In the last few years, we've seen the loss of sand on the beach near the plant's wharf. Why was the problem not addressed by the EIA committee?" Jao asked.

In addition, Jao said the capacity for each power-generating unit has been boosted to 1,350 megawatt from 1,000 megawatt by its builder, Taiwan Power Company (Taipower), which did not redo an EIA.

"It's time for us to emulate European people, such as the Germans, who voted to shut down operational nuclear power plants," Jao said.

The EIA system was first utilized by the US in the early 1970s. It soon influenced advanced countries in Europe, as well as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Japan. Developing countries in Asia did not begin to promote the EIA system until the 1980s. In Taiwan, after spending a decade preparing a draft for the legislature, the government enacted the EIA Act at the end of 1994.

"It's quite sad that the lax law helps process controversial development projects pertaining to industrial complexes, reservoirs and others," said Eric Liou, secretary-general of the Taipei-based Environmental Quality Protection Foundation.

Liou said that other examples illustrating sloppy EIAs include two conflicting national projects -- Tainan Science Park and the nation's first high-speed railroad.

The National Science Council (NSC) selected Tainan as the site for Taiwan's second science park in 1994, two years after the Ministry of Transportation and Communications had designated a route for the rail project running through the site. Both EIAs gave project proponents the green light. To date, vibrations caused by the passage of bullet trains remain a minus in the park's attraction to high-tech firms. The invitation for bids for construction pertaining to vibration reduction will be completed in March next year.

In addition, activists said that the lax law gave dishonest developers space to dodge their responsibilities.

Chen Jian-zhi, director of the waste policy committee of the Green Citizens' Action Alliance, said scoping out regulations for diverse development projects become tools used by project proponents to avoid processing EIAs.

For example, Chen said, the EIA Act designates that it is not necessary for a project constructing a waste incinerator on less than five hectares of land to have an assessment completed.

"That's why residents in Taoyuan have no alternative but to accept the establishment of a large incinerator, with a daily capacity of 1,350 metric tonnes of waste, on a site covering only three hectares of land. This is just one of many similar cases in Taiwan," Chen said.

Green Formosa Front chairman Wu Tung-jye said the government's credibility had been seriously damaged by assessment committees, whose members were empowered to approve projects, but not asked to shoulder any responsibility if environmental problems emerged later.

"The EIA system will never gain people's trust if public participation remains unavailable," Wu said.

According to the EIA Act, public hearings only have to be held after the approval of the first phase of the assessment, which gives developers the green light.

Agency officials stressed that the fundamental spirit of the EIA Act is to prevent and mitigate adverse impacts of development activities so as to attain the goal of environmental protection.

"We know the importance of public involvement. But, under economic pressure, the EIA Act is often blamed by developers for the long process of having assessments completed," said Tung Te-po, director general of the EPA's Department of Planning.

Tung said the agency would consider having the law revised by allowing the public to express their opinions before conducting the assessment.

Shih Shin-min of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union said that, before revising the act, establishing a legal basis of public referendums for people to challenge questionable policies or environment-unfriendly projects would be an effective way to ensure satisfactory public involvement.

"The more democracy we have, the better the environment will be protected," Shih said.

A birthday with little to celebrate

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) celebrated its 17th anniversary yesterday. Many public opinion polls show that many people do not feel safe under the party's rule even though they are also unwilling to see a return of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rule. As a result, the blue camp's lead over the green camp has remained unchanged. How to break this deadlock and win back the public's trust is the DPP's main task for the next 12 months.

The DPP won political power on an anti-corruption and "love Taiwan" platform and a "new middle road" political discourse. But the party lacked the breadth of talent necessary to form a truly competent government. Taking up the reins of government before it was really ready for the job caused the DPP to stumble time and again. Its government has faced obstructionism by the opposition at every turn. External factors such as the global economic slowdown also made it difficult for the party to realize its policies and ideals.

Since its promises of "happiness and hope" fizzled, the DPP seems to have lost the ability to create a new discourse. President Chen Shui-bian has vacillated constantly on his "new middle way." The goals of economic recovery and reform have also frequently come into conflict with political maneuvers and electioneering.

For example, one long-term DPP policy is to revoke the tax exemptions and 18-percent preferential deposit interest rate given to servicemen, civil servants and teachers. The Executive Yuan has drafted amendments to the tax laws and sent them for legislative review. But Chen recently surprised the Executive Yuan and the DPP by announcing that these perks will not be revoked during his term. His announcement was apparently aimed at easing the pressure of protest by teachers scheduled for yesterday, as well as trying to woo votes from teachers and civil servants.

His announcement set a bad precedent. We have seen similar policy U-turns regarding reforms of the farmers' and fishermen's credit cooperatives and educational reforms. These have created doubts among the public about the DPP's reforms.

The DPP has always had a democratic tradition. However, to resolve conflicts between government and party policies, Chen broke with the party's tradition of separating government and party powers, and took over as party chairman. This has resolved intra-party conflicts, but it has also caused intra-party pluralism to wither. Even after the party's defeat in the Hualien County commissioner by-election, little dissent was heard inside the party.

The DPP is suffering from a policy-making crisis. It appears to be following in the footsteps of the KMT. In an attempt to defend its political power, the DPP has begun to show a conservative, even regressive attitude, only comparing mistakes and not comparing progressiveness. Bravely challenging authority and constantly seeking reform and progress used to be the hallmarks of the DPP.

Getting re-elected is the party's main focus because only with another four-year term will it be able to carry out its planned reforms. For many voters, however, the re-election of a DPP without the determination to reform will be futile. The DPP is now facing suspicion and mistrust from middle-of-the-ground voters about its performance. To win them back, the DPP will have to restore its democratic spirit and insist on reforms. Only then can it meet the public's expectations.

There's nothing new under the sun

By Nat Bellocchi

`With time, tradition, education and broad public debates on issues will make voters more aware of the biases, but at this time the bulk of the media and the polls are still strongly weighed on one side.'

One element for the campaign for next March's presidential election, is shaping up as being pretty familiar. The candidates and parties make clear promises on domestic issues that are difficult to implement, and remain largely unclear where they will take the country on external issues. That reads very much like what presidential candidates face in any democracy.

In my last article, the focus was on the importance of the election's outcome to the US and other countries, and the possibility of needing a review of strategy. Given the importance to the US of its relationship with Taiwan with regard to both China and East Asia security, Americans in particular should also better know why the result of the voting is still so uncertain and will likely be very close, and why that should matter.

Historically the two sides in Taiwan have geographical areas that tend to favor one side or the other. Presumably this is still valid. Taiwan's "south" is generally conceded to be Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) turf. This area encompasses about 30 percent of all the voters. North of this, more populous and with a much larger number of "mainlanders" and civil servants, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has had a majority in the past, although there are times when some districts have voted for the DPP.

There are, however, some important constituencies that are not a part of any political parties.

One, well over a million new voters are expected to cast a ballot for the first time. Both sides claim they have a majority of these young constituents, which means that neither side is really confident how they will vote. Employment, or lack of it, is the priority issue for many of them, given the high unemployment rate.

Their perceptions of Taiwan's position in the international community and especially the relationship with China, seem to have little depth. Many take for granted Taiwan's separate existence without considering the challenge of such a policy by China. The base for their decision on who to vote for more likely will be largely what they read or see in the media or the polls, both of which are often misleading, or simply the personality they like.

Two, the Hakka community is roughly thought to be about 15 percent of the people, or about the same number as the mainlander community. During the later years of the KMT administration, local elections were allowed, including in the three districts in central Taiwan where the majority of Hakka live.

The majority of Hakka voters in the past have sided with the KMT (or a KMT splinter party), including during the last election. The DPP administration has made a considerable effort to expand knowledge of Hakka culture in education and cultural institutions, but it is still unclear what the impact of this attention will be in the forthcoming election.

Three, a new constituency is that part of the Taiwanese business community that either works in China or has important business relationships there. Both sides have been cultivating support from this group. The number of people as reported by media is somewhere between 500,000 to 1 million.

It is generally thought this group, or more precisely the individuals in it, will vote for the side that will best pursue the means of expanding their capability of doing business in China. It may not be so simple, however, as most have family and company ties in Taiwan, and presumably their ballots, like every voter, will be both private and opened in Taiwan.

Last month a "pan-purple alliance," made up of nine social welfare groups, largely critical of both sides at least on some issues, caught public attention at its founding. It does not seem to have captured a political following yet, but it has indicated recently that it will begin seminars next month on unemployment problems facing college students.

Another important factor is the large number of "undecided" voters that appear in some polls. Altogether, this variety of constituencies point to a very uncertain and close election. Any one of these non-partisan groups -- youth, Hakka, China business -- could be a determining factor in the final vote.

Two other factors that shape the political background are the media and the wide use of polls. That each are fraught with biases is not uncommon in countries with the kind of democracy Taiwan has. It is a difficult problem even in democracies that have existed for countless generations. With time, tradition, education and broad public debates on issues will make voters more aware of the biases, but at this time the bulk of the media and the polls are still strongly weighed on one side.

In both cases, the candidates and parties have strong base constituencies on one side or the other of the political spectrum. So the objective of both sides is to satisfy their base constituency while struggling to gain the middle ground sufficient to become a majority. The result of a defeat by either of the two main parties will have long term consequences. The balance between conservative and moderates in the DPP factions would likely change drastically, and the KMT will almost assuredly see a new generation taking over the party.

Every democracy is different of course, and few have to bear the challenge to its own sovereignty as Taiwan must do even now. The sheer diversity of the constituencies that the candidates and parties have to contend with, and the sensitivity that the country not only could lose its sovereignty but its freedom places a special responsibility on the candidates, the parties and the voters. At the same time, the uncertainties especially in light of the newer constituencies, make it very likely that the vote will be a cliff hanger.

The implications of this for China or the US is the potential, at some critical point or on some issue that at the moment is leading the concerns of the Taiwanese voters, for intervention. China seems to have learned its lesson. Its past efforts at public pressure clearly were counter productive. There are, of course, many other means to influence an election. -- like money or persuasion on those when it has some leverage on. That becomes a matter that politicians and officials have to cope with domestically in Taiwan.

For the US side, while commitments on Taiwan's security make it legitimate to make American concerns known, it is better understood that public pressure is counterproductive in an open political system such as Taiwan's, and in addition there would inevitably be domestic political costs in the US as well. Dialogue is the best way to lessen this likelihood. That, unfortunately, is rejected by China. With the US, a different kind of dialogue, outside the stringent self-imposed rules, would be the best answer. It is time, and in not only the US' or Taiwan's interest, but even China's.

Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group.The views expressed in this article are his own.