Chen: new constitution can solve nation's woes

REFORM: A new constitution can improve the efficacy of the political structure, thereby improving how the economic system works and bettering people's lives

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday said the new constitution that he says he wants to create in 2006 is an important solution to improve the efficacy of country's political structure and is pivotal to the country's long-term development and stability.

Speaking in his capacity as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chen yesterday said a new constitution is key to the betterment of the people's livelihood as the economic system can only run smoothly under an efficient political structure.

"With the DPP introducing its blueprint for national development, we could not only talk about economics, but also focus on additional measures for political reform. Therefore we want to provide solutions comprehensively to the problems of the existing political structure through pushing for a new constitution. All of our proposed reform schemes concern the elevation of national competitiveness," Chen said at the party's weekly closed-door Central Standing Committee.

Chen said in the context of global competition, industrial transformation and the attraction of the Chinese market, the country needs a "rational legislature, the administrative leadership of a Cabinet whose power and responsibility are consistent with each other, sound relations between the administrative and legislative branches and a streamlined and efficient government structure."

"Taiwan cannot go backward to authoritarianism for a unified executive efficiency, but at least we can reform our political structure to make policy-making and execution smoother," he said.

Chen also issued a mobilization order to about 100,000 DPP rank-and-file members nationwide to join a march in Kaohsiung City on Oct. 25 to back the passage of a referendum law.

The committee meeting yesterday invited Minister without Portfolio Yeh Jiunn-rong to deliver a speech on how a new constitution could incorporate the reality of Taiwan's position in an increasingly globalized world.

Yeh said the country was entering a "constitutional moment" during which it could enjoy a "new beginning" and draw up a brand new set of procedures and opportunities for reforms that the previous six sets of constitutional amendments failed to realize.

Yeh urged the government to evoke the public's zeal in pushing for a new constitution.

Yeh said that a new constitution would have to be drawn up at an extraordinary "new constitution meeting" of constitutional experts, politicians across party lines and public representatives and approved in a nationwide referendum.

"The second term is usually the best time for the president to push for reform," Yeh said.

Kaohsiung Mayor Frank Hsieh, a former DPP chairman, said yesterday that the new constitution drive has evoked the supporters' passion and has boosted the DPP's support base by about 5 percent.

DPP Legislator Lin Cho-shui said the notion of a new constitution is different from building a new country and couldn't be narrowed to a dispute between independence or unification.

"Although the new constitution does not involve the issue of changing the nation's title, it would set up the foundation for the country's long-term development," Lin said.

China developing `paralysis warfare'

By Brian Hsu

STAFF REPORTER

China's military is changing its strategy from deterrence to pre-emption, planning to use "paralysis warfare" against Taiwan in the future, the Ministry of National Defense said in a report delivered to the legislature's defense committee yesterday.

"Paralysis warfare features Web-based information warfare, saturation ballistic missile attacks, joint precision strikes and seizure of the enemy's capital city by special operations units," the report says.

"Such tactics will become a major option for the Chinese military in its choice of modes of attack against Taiwan in the future," it says. "They emphasize shock and awe effects against the enemy."

The report, which was delivered to lawmakers on the defense committee yesterday, singles out paralysis warfare as the most likely mode of attack that China would use against Taiwan.

Minister of National Defense Tang Yao-ming will make the same points in an address to the defense committee today.

The report says the number of short-range ballistic missiles that China has in its inventory has reached 500. It does not state that these missiles are aimed at Taiwan, but it is believed that Taiwan would be the target.

The report also confirms that China has established a second airborne corps to increase its troops ready for use against Taiwan.

The new airborne corps has been the subject of media speculation in recent months, but had not been confirmed by the ministry until now.

The ministry believes China's military is seeking to acquire the ability of rapid and long-distance deployment of forces.

To counter the new threats, the ministry says it is speeding up the development of high-tech weapons.

The new weapons are focused on electronic warfare. They also include the development of miniaturized weapons on the basis of nanotechnology and superconductors.

It is the first time that the ministry has made public its development of miniaturized weapons.

Experts see progress on corruption

TRANSPARENCY: Academics and lawyers believe a study ranking countries on corruption shows Taiwan's decision to crack down has paid off

By Jimmy Chuang

STAFF REPORTER

Taiwan slipped in a study ranking countries on corruption, but academics and lawyers insisted yesterday that progress was being made.

According to a study released by Transparency International Taiwan (TI-Taiwan) at a press conference yesterday, Taiwan ranked 30th on a list of 133 countries. The country achieved a score of 5.7 on the 10-point "Corruption Perception Index." The 5.7 was a slight improvement over last year's 5.6, but the nation fell from last year's 29th spot. A higher score on the index indicates less corruption.

"Thanks to Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan's hard work on an anti-corruption crackdown over the past three years, statistics show that local corruption cases are decreasing," Hsieh Li-kong, an associate professor at Central Police University, said at the press conference.

The study is the result of surveys conducted by 13 non-governmental organizations and the work of more than 20,000 participants from over 200 countries.

According to the index, Finland was the least corrupt nation with a score of 9.7. Iceland ranked second with a score of 9.6. Denmark and New Zealand shared third place with a score of 9.5.

Closer to home, Singapore came in fifth place with a score of 9.4 -- the highest rank among Asian countries -- while Hong Kong, the second highest score in Asia, was listed 14th worldwide with a score of eight.

China placed 66th with a score of 3.4.

Canada and the UK tied for 11th with a score of 8.7. The US, with a score of 7.5, placed 18th.

Bangladesh ranked last with a score of 1.3.

"The index reflects ... participants' impression of corruption toward these 133 countries," said Jay Shih, a member of TI-Taiwan and a professor at National Cheng-chi University.

Hsieh said that clean elections are key to driving away corruption and that Chen has made remarkable progress.

"It is a problem of the public's attitude," Hsieh said. "In the past, candidates believed that they had to buy votes to win elections. After they won their campaigns, they began to accept bribes in order to `balance' their bank accounts. It is a vicious cycle."

According to Hsieh, establishing connections with foreign law enforcement agencies should be a priority as it would help Taiwan handle an increasing number of international corruption cases.

Su Yiu-hen, defense counsel in the Hsichih trio murder case, said that the government is making progress despite slipping in the ranking.

"It only showed that many other countries are also making progress," Su said. "We still have lots of room to improve."

Paal doesn't understand the TRA

By James Wang

`If China decides to resort to force against the Taiwanese people's exercise of democracy and human rights, then China is the one that undermines regional peace and stability.'

In 1979, the US Congress enacted the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to replace the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty in order to safeguard Taiwan's security and to preserve and promote commercial, cultural and other relations between the two countries. Over the past 25 years, the TRA has been cited as the legal basis for guaranteeing Taiwan's interests.

Unfortunately, in the middle of a movement pushing for a referendum in Taiwan, American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal has cited the TRA as a basis for restraining human rights and democracy in Taiwan. Paal has not only interpreted the TRA out of context but also seriously distorted it. This is incompatible with both the text and the spirit of the TRA.

"What the referendums are used for and what effects they have on the regional situation is a matter of concern to us. Our congress has declared its interest in regional stability through the TRA," Paal said in an interview published in the August issue of Topics -- the magazine of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei.

In fact, without the TRA, the US government can still express its concern for stability in the Western Pacific region. Without the TRA, the US can still say that stability in the Western Pacific is in the interests of the US. By citing the TRA, Paal was probably prescribing the wrong remedy for an illness, as a Chinese saying goes.

First of all, in view of the TRA's spirit, the purpose of the bill is to deter and prevent China from annexing Taiwan by non-peaceful means. Before the US severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979, the two sides still had the Sino-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which prevented China from attacking Taiwan and prevented then-president Chiang Kai-shek from staging a surprise military attack against China.

Taiwan's security was guaranteed by the US. After diplomatic relations were severed, the Omnibus Bill sent to the US Congress by the Jimmy Carter administration in January 1979 angered many Congress members because it ignored the issue of Taiwan's security entirely. Congress decided to revise the draft bill and eventually came up with the TRA, with powerful defensive articles stipulated in an effort to replace the abolished mutual defense treaty. Obviously, the purpose of the act is to deal with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, not to restrain Taiwan from attacking China by force.

Second, in terms of the TRA's text, the law clearly states that "the enactment of this act is necessary to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific area."

Section 2 of the law also states, "Peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the US, and are matters of international concern."

Paal was probably referring to this article in his comments on the TRA. But he only mentioned stability, not peace, during the interview. The claim that a referendum in Taiwan may damage stability contravenes the purpose of the TRA.

Third, while citing the US policies stipulated in the TRA, Paal surprisingly did not pay attention to Paragraph (c) of Section 2, which states, "Nothing contained in this act shall contravene the interest of the US in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately 18 million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people in Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the US."

This article was put forth by US Congress members concerned about Taiwan's future, including Stephen Solarz. Their position was that the people of Taiwan are entitled to the basic human rights of democracy and the freedom to choose their own government and future.

Why would the basic human rights of the Taiwanese people to implement democracy and referendums impede regional security? Paal perhaps could not get himself to say it. But obviously, what he meant was that China views a referendum in Taiwan as a "Taiwan independence movement," and that China will use military force against it.

If China decides to resort to force against the Taiwanese people's exercise of democracy and human rights, then China is the one that undermines regional peace and stability. The problem is in China's disrespect for Taiwan's democracy and human rights. The responsibility rests not in Taiwan. How could Paal say that referendums in Taiwan will damage regional stability?

As for Paal's assertion that the US is concerned about Taipei's purpose for holding referendums, his past comments suggest that the US believes there are two possible purposes behind Chen's advocating referendums. One is to boost his chances in next year's presidential election; the other is to declare Taiwan's sovereignty.

If Chen's purpose is the first one, then it is a maneuver in Taiwan's domestic political wrangling. The US has no need to show any concern. If Chen's purpose is to declare sovereignty, then the US should not be concerned either, because this is part of the sovereignty battle between Taiwan and China, a battle fought through peaceful means.

The US has not expressed concern over China's attempts to isolate and suppress Taiwan in the international community, or to co-opt Taiwan's sovereignty by changing its name at international organizations. Why should it then express concern when Taiwan adopts relatively peaceful methods to safeguard its sovereignty?

Since the US has emphasized that the disagreements between Taiwan and China should be resolved by peaceful means, why has the US condoned China's diplomatic attempts to deprive Taiwan of its sovereignty, and yet not allowed Taiwan to safeguard its sovereignty via democratic and peaceful methods?

Of course, some pro-China people will defend China's attempts to co-opt Taiwan's sovereignty by saying that the US has the "one China" policy. Such misinterpretations are exactly the reason why this policy has been challenged in the US Congress. John Tkacik, a China policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, presided over a seminar on the "one China" policy on Sept. 16. Steve Chabot, a Republican US House representative, and Robert Andrews, a Democrat US House representative, voiced their doubts at the seminar about the suitability of this policy.

Their most important argument was that the "one China" policy does not recognize China's sovereignty claim over Taiwan, but it is used by China as a basis for such claim. They therefore suggested that the US review this policy and make clear that Taiwan's future should be determined by the people of Taiwan and that Taiwan's sovereignty does not belong to China.

The reason why US political circles are beginning to question the "one China" policy is related to the democratization of Taiwan. The "one China" concept as it existed under the KMT's authoritarian martial law rule and the Chinese Civil War was used by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger as an escape plan for the US, whereby the country "acknowledged" instead of recognizing "one China." This empty policy, however, has begun to crumble under former president Lee Teng-hui's  "state-to-state" model of cross-strait relations and President Chen Shui-bian's"one country on each side" stance.

Based on its own interests, China is demanding that the US not change its "one China" policy, but the US no longer has a basis for persisting in a "one China" policy that is used by China to harm Taiwan's sovereignty.

Remarks by Lee Teng-hui and retired National Taiwan University law professor, and one of Chen's gurus, Lee Hung-hsi pointing out that "the Republic of China no longer exists," as well as the advocacy of a new Taiwanese constitution and for calling Taiwan "Taiwan" all serve to further highlight the fact that sovereignty rests with the people, and that the "one China" policy has become an anachronism.

Lee Teng-hui's demand that school textbooks include the San Francisco Peace Treaty -- so as to clarify that the return of Taiwan's sovereignty to China is not a historical fact -- is very important for the realization of Taiwanese democracy, guaranteeing Taiwanese sovereignty and challenging the empty one China policy.

The treaty was signed by the major countries at war with Japan. Neither the PRC nor the ROC were parties to the treaty, which merely states that Japan "renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."

The US, the UK and Japan are signatories to the treaty. According to the treaty text, none of them has the right to unilaterally claim the "return" of Taiwan to China. The bilateral Treaty of Taipei signed by the ROC and Japan is based on the San Francisco pact.

Afterward, then foreign minister George Yeh was subjected to harsh questioning by legislators in a secret Legislative Yuan meeting regarding why the treaty between the ROC and Japan did not state unambiguously that Taiwan and Penghu were returned to the ROC.

Yeh's reply was succinct -- in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan only agreed to "renunciation" and because the peace treaty had been ratified by the allies, Taiwan and Penghu no longer belonged to Japan, which thus had no right to state in the treaty with the ROC that it "returned" Taiwan to any country. Even if Japan wanted to return Taiwan and Penghu to China, "we" could not accept that.

Yeh also said that neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty nor the Treaty of Taipei included any text specifying "the future of Taiwan."

Yeh's account corroborates Lee Teng-hui's opinion that "sovereignty rests with the people," and that the ROC only is "occupying" Taiwan. Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the people of Taiwan, who have the basic human right to decide their own constitution and national title. Beijing's promotion of one China can neither change the final decision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty nor arrive at the conclusion that Taiwan belongs to China.

Paal, who likes to quote the TRA, should take a look at Section 15, Paragraph 2 of that act: "The term `Taiwan' includes, as the context may require ... and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to Jan. 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof)."

In other words, the TRA already leaves a way out for a future change of national and government title by Taiwan. If Paal wants to stress regional stability, the focus should be on requiring that Beijing recognizes the sovereignty of Taiwan, and not on helping Beijing suppress Taiwan's democracy and human rights and harming Taiwanese sovereignty.

James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.