Date set for review of referendum law

LEGISLATIVE DRAMA: After months of stalling, the pan-blue camp has said it will sit down in a special session to discuss the controversial measure

By Fiona Lu

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Nov 14, 2003,Page 1

Ruling and opposition lawmakers yesterday agreed to an end-of-November deadline to pass a referendum law.

After cross-party negotiations, the legislative caucuses agreed to review competing versions of the law in a two-day special sitting starting on Nov. 26.

The legislature will review bills presented by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party caucus (DPP) and the Cabinet, and a version drafted jointly by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP).

A bill presented by DPP Legislator Trong Chai and endorsed by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) will also be reviewed.

Referendum legislation had been stalled after lawmakers failed to meet their own deadline to pass the law in July.

The parties have been divided over whether to allow the government to initiate referendums and whether the nation should have a referendum coinciding with major elections.

Legislative leaders will try to iron out these differences in four rounds of inter-party negotiations.

The KMT and PFP disagree with the pan-green camp's view that the government should be able to propose referendums, saying that only the people should be allowed to initiate referendums.

The version offered by the KMT and PFP prohibits referendums on sovereignty issues, such as changing the nation's name, flag or anthem.

It also includes no provision for "defensive" referendums, as the Cabinet's version has, which would allow the government to hold a referendum on independence if the country is attacked.

But KMT and PFP leaders at the legislature have softened their tone on some issues.

"The KMT and PFP caucuses plan to bring up an amendment to the joint draft referendum law, relaxing restrictions on referendum topics," KMT whip Lee Chia-chin said yesterday.

The KMT could rephrase its version of the law to allow referendums on all topics as long as the possible results comply with the spirit of the Constitution, Lee said.

PFP whip Chou Hsi-wei said: "The revision would do the most to relax the original restrictions, including on the ban on including issues of sovereignty, to meet the need to protect the people's right to initiate referendums."

Chou said the pan-blue alliance's compromise should not be interpreted as agreement with the DPP's stance.

"The KMT-PFP alliance decided to relax this provision because we decided to be open-minded on referendum topics to safeguard the people's right to have referendums. The change of view was not the result of deciding to side with the ruling party's pro-independence position," Chou said.

Meanwhile, the KMT said it would be willing to hold a debate between its chairman and presidential candidate, Lien Chan, and President Chen Shui-bian on the referendum issue.

The KMT made the suggestion in response to an offer from the DPP to hold a public debate between DPP and KMT representatives, including Taipei City Mayor Ma Ying-jeou.

Controversial VCD set to hit the streets

STIRRING IT UP: The latest in a series of VCDs that has outraged the blue camp for its parodies of PFP Chairman James Soong is ready to be released

By Cody Yiu

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Nov 14, 2003,Page 3

The makers of the Special Report series of VCDs are undeterred by the Taipei City Government's crackdown on freedom of speech, vowing at a press conference yesterday to release Part III of the series as early as today.

The city government confiscated copies the VCD after it touched a nerve by mocking Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's blue-camp ally People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong.

The city government said the VCD violated the Broadcasting and Television Law.

"The production company of Special Report is planning to release Part III as soon as tomorrow," said Johnson Chuang, a lawyer representing the anonymous VCD production company.

Chuang also hinted at the content of parts III and IV.

"These two parts of the series will focus on politicians such as Democratic Progressive Party legislators (DPP) You Ching and Tsai Huang-liang, PFP Legislator Fu Kun-chi and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Kwan Yuk-noan.

These politicians, regardless of their political stripe, will be rated according to their performance, Chuang said.

Chuang defended the legality of the VCD.

"The production company has registered with the Government Information Office (GIO) in Taipei City and Kaohsiung City Government and therefore is licensed and legal. Furthermore, the VCD is not for commercial purpose as it is being distributed free of charge," said Chuang said.

Chuang said the reason the license number of the production company has been concealed was due to potential threats.

"Chen Si-yu, a Miss Taiwan who acted as the narrator in the VCD program, received a threatening phone call last night. She was warned that if she dared to make an appearance at the press conference today, explosives would be hidden at the press conference location," Chuang said.

Chuang failed to identify the man who made the threat.

According to Chuang, after receiving the phone call, Chen informed the police and decided not to show up at the press conference.

Police searched the room for explosives ahead of the press conference.

"According to Article 29 of the Broadcasting and Television Law, all programs, except for news, have to be sent to the GIO for review before airing," Chuang said.

"However, this VCD is not a program meant for broadcast. Therefore, the seizure of the copies VCD has no legal basis."

Chuang urged Ma to examine regulations more carefully.

"Next time, before Ma makes any crackdown, he should first check with legal experts for a careful analysis," Chuang said.

"It is unfair that a VCD, which was produced by a civil entity, has to be seized by the government," Chuang said.

Chuang denied allegations that the companies Taiwan's Shop or Taiwan Voice were the producer of Special Report.

Huang Hui-chen, director-general of the GIO, said the VCD clearly trampled on the Broadcasting and Television Law because it did not go through due administrative process to obtain a circulation license from the GIO.

"We've ordered local governments to confiscate copies of the VCD. Local governments therefore have to enforce a ban on this VCD according to the law," Huang said yesterday.

While the GIO does not have the power to order law enforcement officers to crack down on particular VCDs, Huang encouraged those who consider their reputation as smeared by the VCD to file a civil suit.

Huang was responding to questions from KMT Legislator Lee Tung-hao during the question and answer session at the legislature's diplomacy and overseas affairs committee yesterday morning.

Visibly disappointed with Huang's answer, Lee said Huang had failed to take appropriate actions over Special Report.

"If all civil servants were as irresponsible as you, I don't see any future for this country," Lee said.

Two people detained over suspected spying for China

By Brian Hsu

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Nov 14, 2003,Page 3

A former official with the Military Intelligence Bureau (MIB) was yesterday taken into custody by law enforcers for alleged attempts to collect intelligence for China, the Ministry of National Defense (MND) said.

Also arrested was an incumbent official with the MIB, suspected of having provided information to his former colleague, the MND said.

"Although the two have current or past work connections with the MIB, their alleged espionage was discovered early and damage caused to the country has been contained," it said.

The two suspected spies were identified as 58-year-old Tseng Chao-wen, the ex-MIB official, and 55-year-old Chen Tsui-chung, Tseng's former colleague at the MIB and now still working for the bureau.

Tseng left the MIB 15 years ago because of what was described as "personal misconduct."

In the bureau, Tseng worked in the first department, which handled affairs not related to intelligence such as educational training, congressional liaison, and administration.

By the time Tseng left the bureau, he had already worked there for 16 years. He entered the MIB as a civilian employee without any military status. He did not have access to any classified information, the MND said.

Investigations by the military indicated that Tseng had been recruited by Chinese intelligence authorities in recent years during his travels to China and that he took advantage of his former connections with the MIB to collect information for Beijing.

Incumbent MIB official Chen was found to have close contacts with Tseng, although evidence proving he passed classified information to his former colleague has yet to be found.

The military's counter-intelligence units had been watching Tseng and Chen for some time before they took action to apprehend the two on Wednesday. After questioning, the two were held in custody yesterday on suspicion of spying.

Foreign media leaving Taiwan, legislator says

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Friday, Nov 14, 2003,Page 3

Many mainstream foreign media groups have withdrawn from Taiwan and relocated to China and other Asian countries, diminishing the nation's international profile, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Hsiao Bi-khim said yesterday.

"While the government vows to build the nation into an information hub in the Asia-Pacific region, such internationally acclaimed foreign media as Far Eastern Economic Review, Newsweek and Time magazine have left Taiwan for Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore," Hsiao said.

Hsiao made the remark yesterday morning during the question and answer session of the legislature's diplomacy and overseas affairs committee.

According to Michael Chen, director of the Government Information Office's (GIO) Information and Liaison Office, operating costs have played a pivotal role in the foreign media's moving or closing down their bureau offices in Taiwan.

"Since Dow Jones purchased the Asian Wall Street Journal, it made its correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review double up as the correspondent of that journal to save costs," Chen said. "Time magazine used to have a bureau office and a correspondent here, but the office was later closed down and that person became a freelancer."

Regarding Newsweek, Chen said that it belongs to the Washington Post group, which has never set up a bureau office here but instead dispatches reporters from Hong Kong to cover important events in Taiwan.

Fewer bureaus

A study conducted by the GIO indicated that, as of last month, 12 European and American mainstream foreign media have bureau offices here, while 61 have bureau offices in Beijing, 35 in Tokyo, 31 in Bangkok and 19 in Hong Kong.

In a bid to lure back foreign media, Hsiao proposed setting up an international press center offering preferential rental fees.

Pledging to study the suggestion, Lee Cher-jean, deputy director-general of the GIO, said that while costs may play a role in the foreign media's moving or shutting down their bureaus here, it was not the sole factor.

"Newsworthiness matters more, I reckon," she said. "The government's policies may sound important to local media but they may not be much of a big deal for international media."

While it was rather difficult to invite foreign media, especially those from the US, to visit and report on Taiwan-related issues, Lee said the GIO is looking at alternatives.

"We're thinking of beefing up efforts to invite renowned European academics and European media groups' correspondents based in Asia to visit Taiwan," Lee said.

"In addition, we're working on exploiting newsworthy issues, collecting related information and informing headquarters of international media and their overseas bureaus," she said.

Press freedom

In related news, Taiwan's world ranking in press freedom slipped from last year's 35th to 61st this year, according to the France-based Reporters Without Borders' worldwide press freedom index.

According to the report, Taiwan's decline had much to do with the government's seizure of Next magazine for disclosing an alleged secret account of former president Lee Teng-hui, the prosecution of a journalist for revealing military secrets and of the editor of Scoop magazine for distributing a secret video of a woman politician having sex.

The six bottom-ranked countries were North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Laos, Eritrea and China. The top three ranking countries were Finland, Iceland and the Netherlands. The UK was placed 27th, while the US was 31st.

Time to put an end to fallacy of `one China'

By Ruan Ming

Friday, Nov 14, 2003,Page 8

World history has a Republic of China (ROC) and a People's Republic of China (PRC) but no "one China."

The emergence of the "one China" concept has been a self-deceiving fabrication from the beginning. It is a play with words and a case of international fraud.

From the provisional constitution passed when the ROC was established in 1912 to the current ROC Constitution, there has been no mention of "one China," only the ROC. Before the PRC was founded in 1949, no one had ever said that the "one China is the Republic of China," just as no one has ever said that the "one America is the United States of America" or the "one UK is the United Kingdom."

Only after the Chinese Communist Party defeated the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and announced the abolition of the ROC Constitution and the replacement of the ROC with the PRC did the concept of "one China" emerge.

The KMT government, forced into exile in Taiwan, then borrowed two "shells" from the already extinct ROC to put into place in Taiwan -- the "shells" of the national title of the ROC and the ROC Constitution. The government also claimed that there was only one China in the world and that the ROC was the only legitimate government representing China.

At that time, the world was divided into two blocks. The US supported the ROC government in Taiwan, which opposed the communists and resisted Russia, and represented China as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The US refused to let the PRC enter the UN. This situation lasted for 22 years. At that time, the illusory "one China" was apparently advantageous for the KMT government in Taiwan.

The world changed in the 1970s. As the Nixon administration adopted the strategy of "uniting with China to contain Russia," the fabricated content of the "one China" concept was altered as well. In 1972, the US and China signed the Shanghai Communique to settle their dif-ferences over the Taiwan issue.

Former US secretary of state and national security adviser Henry Kissinger came up with his famous statement: "All Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States government does not challenge that position."

From then on, an international scam created by the "one China" policy or "one China" principle has long dominated the relations between Taiwan, the US and China. It is increasingly unfavorable to Taiwan.

On Jan. 1, 1979, the US announced it would sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan, withdraw its troops, abolish treaties and recognize "the government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China." The idea that "one China is the ROC" was no longer tenable in the international community.

The basis of the US government's "one China" policy is that it does not challenge the position that "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China." Once the 23 million people on this side of the Strait renounce the fictitious concept that "one China is the ROC" and give "China" back to the 1.3 billion Chinese on the other side of the Strait, the US government's "one China" policy will collapse without being attacked.

This is neither provocation nor a change in the status quo. This is facing up to the fact that there is one country on each side of the Strait, bidding farewell to the self-deceiving illusion of "one China" and putting an end to the meaningless play on words and ludicrous international scam.

Ruan Ming is a visiting professor at Tamkang University and a former special assistant to late Chinese Communist Party secretary-general Hu Yaobang.

Editorial: Lee sets an example for pan-blues

On Wednesday, former president Lee Teng-hui became the first former head of state to take the witness stand in an open court. He testified in the case of former China Development Holding Corp chairman Liu Tai-ying, who is being tried on charges of theft, corruption, breach of trust and forgery, among others, over various corporate scandals, including one implicating Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) investments in Zanadau Development Corp.

Lee had already served as a witness in a closed-door investigative hearing for the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal, in which People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong is accused of embezzling KMT funds during his term as the party's secretary-general. While unusual, Lee's testimony behind closed doors was far less significant than his appearance in court on Wednesday.

The importance of this event can only be understood when considered in relation to the history of Taiwan's political culture. Traditionally, KMT leaders were held in a regard by some that almost amounted to worship. This is well demonstrated by the emotional response of some -- crying, wailing and crawling on their knees -- to the recent death of former first lady Soong Mayling. These people cannot tolerate anything less than praise for Chiang Kai-shek and his family members, let alone face the prospect of them testifying in court. No, that would be blasphemy.

Lee, by contrast, has served as a role model by demonstrating the level of maturity of the nation's democracy. He asked for no privileges in performing his civic duties as a citizen of this country. Just like any other citizen, he did what was asked of him, arriving in court around 9am and enduring a lengthy wait while Liu and Zanadau's majority shareholder, Su Hui-chen, testified. It wasn't until 1pm that Lee was called to testify.

Even more inspirational is the fact that Lee, who is in his 80s and has undergone several operations on his heart, insisted on standing throughout the three-to-four-hour session, despite the court's offer to let him answer questions seated. This was his way of showing respect for the court.

After he left court, Lee also made some very meaningful remarks, which serve as food for thought for some people who continue to dwell in an outdated era. Lee said he was happy to testify because the rule of law is imperative to democracy.

In response to Lee's candor, both the KMT and the PFP legislative caucuses said that Lee should tell everything he knows about the case and that prosecutors must prosecute the case to the fullest extent.

One cannot help but wonder why the pan-blue camp doesn't demand the same from themselves in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal.

They have been consistently uncooperative ever since prosecutors reopened the case, dismissing the investigation as political oppression. But the fact that even Lee, who obviously has a close relationship with the Democratic Progressive Party, is being summoned to testify in corruption and bribery cases more than amply demonstrates the independence of our judiciary and prosecutors.

It was only after Lee testified in the Chung Hsing case that Soong finally asked the prosecutors' office to let him put his side of the story in a face-to-face meeting with Lee. Moreover, at least one key figure in the case, Soong's sister-in-law Chen Pi-yun, who is expected to be called to give evidence soon, appears to be missing. This kind of attitude is worlds apart from the example set by Lee.

Alex Tsai's historical contortions

By Lee Hsiao-feng

Friday, Nov 14, 2003,Page 8

On Nov. 4, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Alex Tsai said that "The blue camp has already completed the redrafting of a strategy: `attack Bian [President Chen Shui-bian], oppose Lee [former president Lee Teng-hui] and ignore Lu [Vice President Annette Lu].'"

"The reasoning." he said, "is that Lee is the convener of the National Organization for the Support of A-bian and has placed himself in the line of fire by criticizing Lien [KMT Chairman Lien Chan] and Soong [People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong]. Looking at the general atmosphere of the campaign, Lee seems to be Chen's vice president and partner. There is no longer any need for the blue camp to be polite towards Lee, who has now allied himself with Chen. When he does something worth criticizing, he will be criticized. I will be tough."

Tsai talks with considerable gusto and style, almost like the vagrant street quacks I saw as a child. But even if being tough means having great style and character, simply spouting ran-dom criticisms like a Don Quixote charging at a windmill will only expose Tsai's shortcomings. His ugliness will overwhelm everything else and make him look childish and ridiculous.

Indeed, the ugliness jumps straight out of Tsai's mouth. He has said: "Chen and Lee's frequent attacks on Lien and Soong using the issues of ethnicity and independence are in fact only attempts at stealing the Minnan [Hokkien-speaking] vote. But since people have already seen Lee's true face, plus the fact that Lien Chan is a Minnan person through and through, the blue camp can only score points by meeting Lee head-on and criticizing him." After reading this, I almost lost my lunch.

Our brave and bellicose Mr. Tsai only cares for criticism for its own sake and never spends any time trying to understand the meaning behind what he criticizes. Starting with the Feb. 28 Incident in 1947, the Taiwan independence and nation-building movement has had a history of more than 50 years. The ignorant, narrow-minded Tsai has belittled the demands of this movement by labeling it as a means of stealing votes. Even worse, he has conflated the independence issue with the issue of ethnicity, in yet another vicious and hurtful remark.

The independence issue is not an ethnic issue. If it were, then why are not Tsai, KMT Legislator Lee Chuan-chiao, KMT whip Lee Chia-chin, KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng, deputy chief of the KMT's cultural and communication department Kuo Su-chun and PFP Legislator Chiu Yi born-and-bred Taiwanese every one of them -- independence activists? In reality there is no likelihood of these people acknowledging Taiwan to be their country.

On the other hand, many so-called "mainlanders" (they really ought to be called "new resi-dents") have joined the ranks of proponents of Taiwan's independence and nation-building.

As early as 1971, for example, Taiwan democracy activist Lei Chen, originally from Zhejiang Province, advocated that the national title be changed to "Democratic Chinese Taiwan" and said that "founding a new country on Taiwan is the natural way of things and a glorious undertaking."

Other examples are the late Liao Chung-shan, originally from Henan province, who in 1992 joined almost 100 so-called "mainlanders" to form the Association of Mainlanders Advocating Taiwanese Independence, as well as the late National Taiwan University professor Chang Chung-tung, originally from the city of Wuhan, who also participated in the nation-building movement and advocated the changing of the national title to "Republic of Taiwan."

These days, professors Chen Shih-meng and Shieh Jhy-wey, authors Chin Heng-wei and Tseng Hsin-i and other so-called mainlanders clearly recognize Taiwan as their country. They are all proponents of Taiwan independence. Are they all running around inciting ethnic conflict?

Even more commendable, Ruan Ming has in recent years abandoned Communist China to join our free Taiwan to become a new Taiwanese. Authors from the Chinese diaspora such as Paul Lin and Cao Chang-ching support Taiwan's independence and nation-building. Stubborn attempts at turning Taiwan's independence into an ethnic issue stems either from ignorance or from ill intent.

I would ask Tsai that he let himself go and criticize the following professors, who have all written books on the theory of Taiwan's independence and nation-building -- Peng Ming-min, Ng Chiao-tong, Chen Lung-chih, Hsu Shih-kai, Lin Shan-tien, Hsu Ching-hsiung, Shih Cheng-feng and Chang Tsan-hung. Which book, what utterance by any of these people incites ethnic conflict? Alex Tsai, please, assert yourself. Let us all know.

Thirty-nine years ago, Peng Ming-min advocated "one China and one Taiwan" in his A Declaration of Formosan Self-salvation. He also stressed "uniting the power of 12 million people [the population at that time] -- regardless of which province they come from -- to do their best to work together, build a new nation and establish a new government. To write a new constitution, guarantee basic human rights, forge a government that is effective and responsible before the parliament and implement true democracy. To rejoin the United Nations as part of the free world."

By stressing "regardless of which province they come from," Peng's declaration clearly broke the chains imposed by the concept of provincial belonging. Was he also inciting ethnic conflict?

Unfortunately, such calls for disregarding ethnicity in founding a new nation angered Chiang Kai-shek and his government, to which Tsai still pays his allegiance, and so Peng and many others were jailed. Does the violence committed by that government not concern Tsai?

Another issue to be examined is writing a new constitution. Many intellectuals have already tried their hand at this. I can recall that Lin Yi-hsiung, Hsu Shih-kai, Ng, and Lee Hsien-jung have written different versions of a draft constitution for a Republic of Taiwan. In August 1991, the People's Constitutional Conference passed "A Draft Constitution for Taiwan," and in June 1994, the Second Taiwanese People's Constitutional Conference passed "A Draft Constitution for the Republic of Taiwan."

The fact that so many draft constitutions have been produced contradicts Lien's smear that "changing the national title and writing a constitution are things which are always bandied about when election time nears."

Could we ask Tsai to please gather up some courage and point out which article, in which one of these constitutional drafts, incites ethnic conflict? Every draft Taiwanese constitution I have read stresses equality and mutual respect between ethnic groups.

There will be none of the ethnic segregation which the "Chinese" Nationalist Party government created during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s through housing war veterans in their own communities, or through the careful suppression of local languages, or the near-monopoly mainlanders enjoyed in holding important positions at different levels of government (local police chiefs, principals of junior high schools and so on). Even high school exams applied different standards to mainlanders and Taiwanese.

So if we want to talk about ethnic discrimination, how can we trump the activities of the "Chinese" Nationalist Party to which Tsai swears loyalty?

Let's take one last look at the little lie that Tsai likes to tell us. He says that Chen and Lee's "attacks on Lien and Soong using the issues of independence or ethnicity are in fact only attempts at stealing Minnan votes."

Tsai, bearing not one shred of identification with Taiwan, is always going on and on about what "Minnan" is. This is rather strange. In the area currently under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China, only Kinmen and Matsu are part of the area that can be considered to be "Minnan," that is, south of the river Min in Fujian Province.

So when Tsai talks about stealing Minnan votes, is it because he is being stupid, or does he think others are stupid?

Even more laughable, he says that "Lien Chan is a Minnan person through and through." Lien in fact was born in Xian, China and later came to live in Taiwan. He did not grow up in southern Fujian Province, yet he is said to be a Minnan person. Strange indeed.

According to Tsai, wouldn't that make former US president Ronald Reagan actually Irish? Or former Singapore president Lee Kuan-yew Cantonese? Or the late Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos Fujianese? With such wit, it's not at all surprising that Tsai has no inkling of the history and significance of Taiwan's independence movement.

If Lien wants to avoid becoming a laughing stock, I urge him to hire a spokesman who has not only a smooth, sharp and mean mouth, but also a precise, insightful and logical mind.

Lee Hsiao-feng is a member of the Association of Taiwan Professors and the Northern Taiwan Society.