Editorial: Chen Shui-bian and brinkmanship

Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties are rare phemonena in the world of political parties. More than three years after the transfer of political power, the ruling and opposition parties continue to play reversed roles. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) behaves like an opposition party in its election campaigning, going on the offensive and regularly floating controversial issues. In contrast, the pan-blue alliance, made up of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP), behaves like it is in government: loaded with heavy political baggage, and slow in reacting to political developments, public opinion and other trends.

A massive, 200,000-strong demonstration was held in Kaohsiung City on Saturday to demand referendums and a new constitution. In a speech to demonstrators that evening, President Chen Shui-bian reiterated that "the people of Taiwan need a new constitution." Former president Lee Teng-hui, meanwhile, has advised Taiwanese to talk not about independence but about nation-building. The Taiwanese media and public no longer see these issues as things to be feared.

Taiwan's political spectrum is changing. KMT Chairman Lien Chan has proposed his "new one China" platform and is attempting to maintain the status quo by claiming that this "one China" is the Republic of China. Even so, all parties involved would admit that the 2004 presidential election will be a watershed for determining the nation's future.

Chen is resorting to the brinkmanship game in his campaign strategy. Although the DPP still lags in the polls, the gap between the blue and green camps is bound to fall to under five percent in the latter stage of the campaign, given that the DPP has the advantage of incumbency and is adopting more flexible strategies to eat away at their rivals' support base.

All media polls indicate that the Chen-Lu ticket, with Vice President Annette Lu as running mate, is gaining ground on the pan-blue ticket of Lien and PFP Chairman James Soong. The new support consists of people who were initially stalwart Chen supporters but who for economic reasons were considered undecided voters. Now encouraged by Chen's dictum of "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait and policy ideas on a new constitution and the holding of referendums, these voters have a strong reason to vote for Chen once more.

Chen is also adopting brinkmanship in dealing with China. If Beijing reacts too strongly to Chen's appeal for referendums and a new constitution, this will result in public anger. China will then have repeated the self-defeating interference it indulged in during Taiwan's presidential races in 1996 and 2000. Chen stands to benefit from such an outcome. If Beijing responds moderately or makes no response at all, Chen will still benefit.

The US is aware of the game being played in Taiwan, but Chen must be careful not to irritate Washington by being too provocative. But by sending officials to Washington to explain the government's position and arranging transit stops in the US as part of Chen's diplomatic tour, Taiwan has managed to stay on track in its relations with the US and China.

The brinkmanship strategy is a double-edged sword. Gripping this sword, Chen can score points quickly if he makes the right moves. But one false move could also get him into big trouble.

Military bends on secrets regulations

NATIONAL SECURITY: The Ministry of National Defense, after criticism from lawmakers from across party lines, agreed to a tighter definition of what constitutes a military secret

By Brian Hsu

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 1

The legislature's defense committee yesterday agreed to new regulations on the classification of military secrets after the Ministry of National Defense compromised on the definition of what constitutes a military secret.

The ministry had been criticized by lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition camps for making a broad interpretation of what constituted a secret. The ministry's definition would have covered almost everything related to the military, from a general's personal background to the purchase and development of weapons systems.

The amended regulations will act as a guideline for the military for cases involving secrets being compromised by active-duty military personnel and civilians.

They are administrative orders. Violators of these orders will be punished according to the armed forces criminal law, which was passed in 2001.

With the endorsement of the legislature, the ministry is now ready to abolish decades-old regulations governing military secrets.

A senior defense official said the new regulations might be too broad in terms of what constitutes a military secret, but that the old regulations are even worse as they leave greater discretion to the ministry.

The ministry developed the first version of the new regulations in the middle of last year, sending it at the end of that year to the legislature for endorsement.

That version was rejected by the defense committee on the ground that its definition of secrets was too broad.

Ten months later, a modified version was submitted to the defense committee.

As the regulations were being reviewed yesterday, a fierce debate broke out between lawmakers and defense officials.

PFP Legislator Lin Yu-fang asked officials representing the ministry why a general's personal background should be considered confidential.

"Is there any secrecy about a general's personal background? We can easily get such information about a US military leader from relevant Web sites," Lin said.

Lieutenant-General Chen Ti-tuan, administrative deputy defense minister, said the enemy might be interested in such information. But in later talks with lawmakers, Chen agreed that there was no need to hide such information.

Flags to fly at half-mast for Madame Chiang's funeral

OFFICIAL HOMAGE: The Presidential Office said the funeral arrangements for the former first lady are a state event and the president will pay his respects

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 3

The Presidential Office decided yesterday to accord state mourning for former first lady Soong Mayling and so flags will be flown at half-mast on the day she is buried.

Deputy Secretary-General of the Presidential Office Joseph Wu said the funeral arrangements for Soong, also known as Madame Chiang Kai-shek, should be regarded as an important state event rather than just the business of a family or political party.

"According to the Presidential Office's latest plan, President Chen Shui-bian will go directly to Madame Chiang's residence as soon as he arrives in New York on the afternoon of Oct. 31," Wu said.

"The president will deliver an official commendation praising Madame Chiang's outstanding contributions to the Republic of China [ROC]," he said.

Chen is scheduled to begin his fourth diplomatic trip -- to Panama -- on Friday and will make a two-night stopover in New York.

Wu said that Chen had told his staff to make adjustments to his New York schedule and make Madame Chiang's memorial service a priority.

Although some Chiang family members have expressed opposition to Chen or other members of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) attending the memorial service, Wu said, "The president, on behalf of the country, is willing to pay tribute and offer condolences over Madame Chiang's death."

The family is also divided on whether to ask Chen to drape the ROC flag on Soong's coffin.

Those relatives who were with Soong before she died last Thursday have said they would like to see Chen drape the flag on her coffin. They told reporters on Sunday that if Chen was willing to place the flag, they would postpone the funeral, scheduled for Thursday, by one day to allow time for Chen to arrive.

However, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chang, the illegitimate son of former president Chiang Ching-kuo, said that it would be inappropriate to allow a DPP president to carry out the "flag-draping" for the former KMT first lady.

Chiang Fang Chih-yi, widow of Chiang Ching-kuo's son Chiang Hsiao-yung, told reporters in New York yesterday that Madame Chiang would not have liked such an arrangement.

"She devoted her entire life to defending the ROC. For that reason she even decided to cut relations with her elder sister, who joined the Chinese Communist Party," Chiang Fang Chih-yi said. "I believe that she would not allow a president who doesn't recognize the ROC to drape the flag."

Presidential Office spokesman James Huang said there are no plans for Chen to place a flag on the coffin as there is no precedent for the head of state draping the national flag for anyone's coffin.

"We have suggested the president bring a flag and present it to Chiang's relatives," he said.

No record Soong Mayling paid bribes to US: Chien

ROOSEVELT ERA: The foreign minister said he would give a report to the legislature next month about Soong's efforts to promote US relations

By Melody Chen

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 3

"I didn't know on what evidence Lee based the accusation."

－Eugene Chien, foreign minister

No official records could prove the late Soong Mayling bribed then US president Franklin Roosevelt to side with China against Japan during World War II, Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien said yesterday.

On Saturday, former president Lee Teng-hui alleged that Soong, also known as Madame Chiang Kai-shek, had paid large amounts of money to Roosevelt's relatives when she toured the US lobbying for aid for China.

During a legislative session attended by Chien yesterday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chang said Lee's "attack on Madame Chiang" had greatly saddened him.

Chang said as a Chiang family member, he was very dissatisfied with what he described as Lee's "false and immoral" remarks.

Chang is the illegitimate son of the late president Chiang Ching-kuo, Chiang Kai-shek's son.

Last Saturday, Lee said he would unveil "a history the public have not known" about Madame Chiang. He said Madame Chiang, knowing many of Roosevelt's relatives had been conducting business in China, offered a lot of "benefits" to them when she traveled to the US, although he did not provide dates or further details.

Chang said Lee's remarks were an attempt to "distort history" and he demanded Chien clarify the matter by searching the ministry's records.

Chien agreed to give a report to the legislature next month on Soong's contribution to the Republic of China's diplomatic ties with the US.

He said, however, that the ministry could not decide whether Lee's allegation was true.

"I didn't know on what evidence Lee based the accusation," he said.

Chien also told lawmakers that there was no need for the ministry to clarify Lee's remarks because they were his "personal opinion."

People First Party Legislator Sun Ta-chien said he was worried that Lee's "unkind and sharp" remarks would damage the Taiwan-US ties that he said had already been endangered by President Chen Shui-bian's recent pro-independence moves.

Lee also insulted Roosevelt by accusing Madame Chiang of giving him bribes, said KMT Legislator Sun Kuo-hwa.

Chien said that the US has not officially protested over Lee's comments and he reiterated the ministry's appreciation of Madame Chiang's diplomatic efforts.

DPP needs public to be onside for referendum

By Ku Er-teh

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 8

In the short-term, President Chen Shui-bian's government hopes promoting referendums will entice more people to vote for it in the presidential election.

The medium-term goal is to be prepared for a possible future constitutional amendment, and the long-term goal may be to use a "preventive" referendum to declare Taiwan's unwillingness to be annexed by China; or it may be what Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung referred to as "deepening democracy."

The government's greatest worry is that the opposition will be afraid to directly oppose the legitimacy of referendums, but will use legislative technicalities to restrict the timing and targets of referendums as well as thresholds for initiating referendums.

This is why the government keeps stressing that a referendum can be held without existing legislation. Germany, Greece, Denmark and Finland have all held binding or consultative referendums without a legal foundation, instead basing them on their respective constitutions.

The government hopes to persuade the public to recognize that, based on fundamental rights such as "people power" and "self-determination," even a referendum without a legal foundation is legitimate.

Such persuasion may be combined with social movements and local autonomy. For example, the referendums on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao and on the opening of an exit on the Taipei-Ilan freeway in Pinglin were initiated by social and local autonomous organizations. From a certain perspective, such mobilization serves to deepen democracy, since it can set off a wish among the general public to participate in public affairs. Such deepening is incomplete however, and it faces two major problems.

First, grassroots social organizations and autonomous groups often treat referendums as a tool for social movements. If a solution meeting their ideals cannot be found through other channels, they will use the referendum as a weapon to express the wish of local residents.

The crux of the problem is that there is no good mechanism for dialogue and that the policy formulation process lacks a mechanism for consensus-building.

A referendum, however, does not guarantee this mechanism. Rather, it will encourage other groups to bypass debate and dialogue and instead go directly to a referendum. Such a situation does not further the development of a civil society.

Second, although the right of citizens to hold referendums is not in doubt, the target of a referendum often involves complex legal issues. A lack of legal guidelines will lead to a complex and negative outcome. For example, opening a freeway exit in Pinglin would affect one of the sources of water for the Greater Taipei area. Should a referendum on such an issue be directed at Taipei County and Taipei City residents, or at Pinglin residents? Which referendum should be considered legitimate if public opinion in the greater Taipei area differed from that in Pinglin?

This issue should not be addressed by referendum, but rather as part of a policy debate.

The best strategy is not to urge the public to accept the legitimacy of referendums without legal foundation. It would instead be to mobilize the public and demand that legislators enact a referendum law without unreasonable restrictions.

A discriminating decision-making mechanism together with public participation is the standard method for solving conflict between policy and public opinion. A referendum should only be a last resort. In addition to requiring the support of forces in civil society, the will of the government is even more important to the successful establishment of such a mechanism.

Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.

Taiwan's foes dog its APEC agenda

By Parris Chang

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 8

The curtain fell on this year's APEC summit on Oct. 21. I was the only legislator among the consultants in Taiwan's delegation. In the past, all political parties sent representatives, but the situation was different this time. With next year's presidential election drawing near, the pan-blue camp decided to boycott this two-day meeting. Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) have decided not to send their lawmakers on President Chen Shui-bian's scheduled visit to the US and Panama later this month.

It is not right for them to politicize diplomatic affairs in sole consideration of their partisan positions while ignoring the nation's overall interests. It is deplorable indeed.

As the host of this year's APEC meeting, Thailand made an all-out effort to mobilize its citizens. Traffic and open-air activities in Bangkok were under strict control; students and public servants were ordered to take days off; the streets that APEC representatives would pass through were cleaned and spruced up; stray dogs disappeared; some refugees from Myanmar and Cambodia were repatriated; and demonstrations by human rights activists were prohibited.

Thailand's disrespect for human rights has aroused much controversy. For example, the Thai government has arrested and killed drug dealers and the "dark forces" with an iron fist, turned a blind eye to the Myanmar military regime's suppression of its people, and failed to make efforts to push for the release of Myanmar's opposition leader and democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. All this has stirred up much criticism from international human rights advocates.

Since Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra took power, Thailand has clocked up impressive economic achievements. Shinawatra has also demonstrated his ambition to become the future leader of Southeast Asia. As Indonesia is suffering political and economic doldrums and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is soon to retire, Thailand is indeed outshining its Southeast Asian neighbors. With the US and China making efforts to draw him to their side, Thaksin stands a good chance of becoming the top leader among Southeast Asian countries.

Thailand is highly valued by China. Not only did Chinese President Hu Jintao pay a state visit to Thailand, but the country has also enjoyed closer economic relations with China. A large proportion of Thai businesspeople (including expatriate Chinese and Taiwanese) invest in China. US President George W. Bush also announced that Thailand is a non-NATO ally. In return, Thailand promised to send troops to Iraq to maintain order and participate in reconstruction work.

Did China suppress Taiwan at this year's APEC summit? The impression I got from the con-

versations I had with representatives from different countries in Bangkok is: China continuously engaged in petty maneuvers. The fact that Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh, representing President Chen at the APEC meeting, could not deliver a speech at the CEO conference is a perfect example.

Because Beijing expressed its "concern," the host nation made a seating arrangement different from the past and deliberately separated Lee's seat from that of Bush. From this, one can see China's "ability." Also, Taiwan held bilateral talks with many countries but China, contrary to its past practice, refused Taiwan's offer to hold talks.

With the nation's presidential election looming, Beijing refuses to interact with Chen's administration for fear of boosting its legitimacy. This seems to prove what Chen told The Washington Post -- that Beijing was giving clandestine assistance to pan-blue parties. In 1996 and 2000, Beijing actively intervened in the nation's two presidential elections. Some say that Beijing has learned its lesson from its past failures. But old habits die hard. Although this time Beijing has chosen to give Taiwan the cold shoulder treatment, it still will not refrain from intervention.

We have seen Beijing's behind-the-scenes manipulation at the APEC summit. It won't be a surprise if China launches military exercises in the Taiwan Strait in the future, as was reported by foreign news agencies. Beijing indeed does not want a party which emphasizes the independent status of Taiwan to rule the nation. It certainly wants the restoration of the party (or parties) that advocates "one China."

Although Thailand has cooperated with Beijing in many ways and developed closer relations with Beijing, it also regards cooperation with Taiwan as profitable, especially in economics and technology. Taiwanese businesspeople have invested more than US$20 billion in Thailand, boosting the kingdom's job market and economy.

At present, more than 100,000 Thais work in Taiwan, earning a considerable sum of foreign currency for Thailand every year. Admiring Taiwan's high-tech industry, Thailand hopes to cooperate with the nation on technology transfers to boost its economy. Therefore, Lee was received with great courtesy by the Thai government during his trip to the APEC summit in Bangkok.

The high-tech industry is an important bargaining chip for Taiwan's foreign affairs. How to apply this resource is a matter of national significance.

Parris Chang is a DPP legislator.

US, EU apt constitutional models

By Wu Ming-chi

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003,Page 8

In 1781, leery of creating a strong central government that might mirror the British monarchy they had just rejected, the American colonists drew up the Articles of Confederation. Within a few short years, the citizens of this new democracy realized that the states-centered government they had established was not a viable vehicle for the dynamic times they faced.

Wary of too much centralized power, the Articles had purposely established a constitution that vested the largest share of power to the individual states. Each state retained its "sovereignty, freedom and independence." No executive or judicial branches of government were set up. Instead there was a committee of delegates representing each state that was responsible for conducting foreign affairs. But this "Continental Congress" was denied the power to collect taxes or enforce laws.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 first set out to amend the original Articles, but delegates soon understood that a new constitution was needed. The new structure of government was a form of federalism that gave more power to the national government and established a system of checks and balances within that governmental structure.

The convention had done its work behind closed doors and with its adjournment the new constitution was submitted for ratification. A rich, rigorous debate followed and newspapers filled with political essays.

Anti-federalists argued that the Constitution would come too close to making a king of the president, worried that it favored the rich, that it denied individual rights to citizens because it lacked a bill of rights. The political logjam was finally broken when the federalists agreed to add a bill of rights if the states would first ratify the Constitution.

The US Constitution has been amended many times since its inception.

The EU is currently debating a new constitution as well and the variety of views on it is as disparate as were those in the US debate. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has declared, "For me, the constitution is the most important treaty since the foundation of the European Economic Community."

Others believe the current draft is deficient. European Commission President Romano Prodi said, "Despite all the hard work we have put into this, the text that is now before us simply lacks vision and ambition." Who said democracy would be easy?

President Chen Shui-bian has called on Taiwan's relatively new democracy to follow the lead of the US and the EU and hold the same kind of rigorous debate over fundamental issues of governance. These include: choosing between a presidential or Cabinet-led executive branch, removing multiple centers of power and establishing a unified structure of governance, pruning unnecessary branches of government and redistributing their functions, deciding on single-seat or multiple-seat legislative districts and providing for the protection of individual rights.

There are those who prefer to amend the worn-out 1947 ROC Constitution, just as some members of the Constitutional Congress wanted to update the Articles of Confederation. Attempts to amend the ROC Constitution in the 1990s simply did not provide the kind of balance and clarity needed to meet Taiwan's current realities. It's time for a change.

As in Philadelphia and Brussels, Taiwan must put its best minds to work to craft the new constitution. Chen is correct to call for the involvement of all political parties, constitutional experts, academics and citizens in this constitutional process. The result will provide Taiwan with the long-term stability it needs.

Having learned from the American and European experiences, Taiwan's process of constitutional reform can be a model for the PRC. Clearly the PRC has a long way to go in its current "reform" process, as the recent announcement of a possible constitutional change from a Central Committee meeting of the Chinese Communist Party shows.

At a typically secretive annual planning session, the leaders stated their desire to see written "into the Constitution the ideology and broad objectives established at the 16th Party Congress, so that the Constitution better expresses our Basic Law." Their communique suggests that the Constitution will include private property protection as a right. This seems to reflect the approach of President Hu Jintao, but he is still constrained by the power of his predecessor, Jiang Zemin.

The National People's Assembly will be called upon to rubber-stamp this decision, presuming all the jockeying within the party's factions simmers down and they come to an agreement.

In contrast to this opaque process, Chen has proposed a transparent, open, and inclusive process that will produce a new constitution that meets the needs of all Taiwan's citizens. Taiwan has learned well from the US and Europe. Now it is Taiwan's time to shine and bring some light to its neighbor across the Taiwan Strait and to the world in general.

Wu Ming-chi is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs.