VCD will break KMT's media grip: Lee

SPEECH: The former president said that the pan-blue's grip on the media in Taiwan is too strong, but that VCDs such as the `Special Report' series will help undermine it

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

"The uproar over Special Report series of the VCDs was not a simple social event."－Lee Teng-hui, former president

Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday said that the uproar over the Special Report VCDs is part of a process that will eventually break the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) domination of Taiwan's media groups.

"The uproar over the Special Report series of the VCDs was not a simple social event," Lee said at the Lee Teng-hui School, a private academy established by Lee.

"It signifies the process of ideological liberation to counter the media groups dominated by the KMT. The media used to support the KMT, but the people could not endure such a situation," he said.

Lee said he hadn't watched the VCDs yet, but was aware of their influence as it signified a solution to the problem of a pro-KMT media whose owners were heavily invested in China.

Lee said when he was president, he advocated casting off the political influence off the military and the democratization of the country.

However, Lee said that in the media and education systems, the KMT's grip on power was still evident. Lee was referring to attacks by some sections of the media on the Democratic Progressive Party and a perceived lack of a Taiwanese angle in school text books.

Lee also commented on the recent visit of Chinese dissident writer Cao Chang-ching, who supports Taiwanese people's right to self-determination.

"Cao's speech stands for the support for Taiwan's democracy, movement of localization and truthfulness," Lee said. "However, not many people dare to speak the truth.

"The VCD uproar reflects the liberation of people's minds. This is a revolutionary change and there is nothing to be afraid of," Lee said.

VCD controversy a `revolutionary event'

`SPECIAL REPORT': The uproar generated by the release of the VCDs has accentuated the chaos in Taiwan's politics and the lack of variety in the media, observers say

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

The controversy over the Special Report VCDs could be regarded as a revolutionary event in Taiwan's media. Following through on this revolution will require concrete support from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), according to local political analysts.

"Taiwan's media lacks variety of opinion. The tendency is for overwhelming support for one position or another. This situation has been the driving force behind the creation of the Special Report VCD by people outside the media establishment," said senior political columnist Hu Wen-huei.

"Although the release of Special Report has had legal consequences for the publisher related to the alleged violation of privacy rights and slander, the public's response and their support for this publication should be viewed in a positive light," Hu said.

"That the release of the VCDs has become such a high-profile event reflects the chaos within the structures of government and within the media. Over the past three years, the opposition has held press conferences attacking every aspect of the government, and most media outlets are controlled by a small number of people whose political views are quite clear, or financial groups who either protect or attack specific political targets," Hu said.

Hu emphasized that legislators' rights to immunity from prosecution has led to irresponsible attacks on all and sundry; at the same time, the media's ability to publicize views has led to indiscriminate attacks, but the right of free speech should not be exclusive to these groups.

"If a legislator can speak his mind, why can't a citizen? If the media can, why can't you or I? There is no reason for this," Hu said.

"Special Report is simply following the example of legislators and the media. While there might be a difference in quality, it is fundamentally the same sort of action. The people controlling the media are all hypocrites, and the `little people' are tearing away their masks. In Europe and the US, where freedom of speech is an accepted right, this kind of conflict happens all the time," Hu said.

Lee Yung-chih, a history professor at National Taiwan University, said that the publication of Special Report should have been seen as an indictment of the media in Taiwan, but, because of the furor over the upcoming presidential election, the debate has been used as a weapon in the battle between the pan-blue and pan-green camps.

"The strategy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) is very simple: They portray the Special Report VCD as a `poisoned letter,' a slur campaign and a `behind-the-scenes policy' on the part of President Chen Shui-bian, so that people who have not even seen the VCD will `feel' antipathy toward the DPP and disappointment with President Chen," Lee said.

"The DPP should not try to distance itself from this issue. The party should take advantage of the current discourse that surrounds the VCDs and emphasize its role as part of the common people's supervisory role in the media. The DPP should put it in the perspective of Taiwan's sovereignty and a critical attitude toward the media," Lee said.

According to Lee, if the DPP ignores this issue, it will fail to mobilize its power to highlight criticism of the media and become a liability in Chen's election campaign.

Senior political commentator Chen Sung-shan also said that Special Report was originally targeted at residents of central and southern Taiwan, aiming at grass-roots consumers shopping at local night markets. It was only because of the over-reaction of James Soong and the PFP that it became such a major issue and has got totally out of control. He added that the result cannot do the pan-blue camp any good.

"There has not been much of a shift in the level of support for either Chen or Lien Chan as a result of the Special Report VCD. It has only led to disappointment with both camps and a falling off in the interest people feel for either the election or politics in general," Chen said.

DPP says KMT should apologize for buying votes

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

A Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator yesterday said the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) should apologize for its former "black gold" politics practices after the father of President Chen Shui-bian's son-in-law recently disclosed that he had been forced to conduct vote-buying activities in previous elections during the KMT's administration.

Chao Yu-chu, the father of Chen's son-in-law, revealed on Thursday that, during his past tenure as the principal of an elementary school in Tainan County, he had been forced to take part in KMT vote-buying activities while the party had been in power.

DPP Legislator Charles Chiang said yesterday that the KMT should face up to its previous vote-buying activities, as Chao's confession was hard evidence of the KMT's history of election bribery. He urged KMT Chairman Lien Chan to apologize for the party's wrongdoings and to help eradicate this illegal practice for good.

Chiang yesterday held a press conference with a resident of Changhua County who had successfully exposed a KMT vote-buying scam in a previous election.

More than 200 people were implicated in the ensuing scandal.

"Chao spoke the truth about KMT corruption. Instead of admitting to the wrongdoings, the party said it never asked elementary school heads to bribe people. Lien should apologize to the public," Chiang said.

Chao had been an elementary school principal for 20 years. He retired from the Ta Chiou Elementary School in Tainan County in February last year. His son Chao Chien-ming married the president's daughter Chen Hsin-yu in 2001.

Speaking at the establishment of a local support group for Chen's reelection bid on Thursday, Chao said that he had been forced to join the KMT before he could be appointed as the school's principal.

He said that, during elections, local elementary school principals were asked to become "vote-buying captains" to deliver bribes for the KMT's candidates, and were allowed to keep any money that was not spent.

Chao said the bribe money usually came from the KMT's headquarters or the KMT-dominated reserve military system.

"I joined the KMT to escape poverty. I've lost my dignity as a school principal and I shouldn't have done so," Chao said.

He said he is not a KMT member anymore.

Chao said that, during the 2000 presidential election, the KMT did not give bribe money directly to local vote captains, but did it by means of subsidies to elementary school heads.

In response to the accusations, KMT spokesperson Alex Tsai said that Chao should turn himself in and reveal who had asked him to carry out the alleged bribes.

The KMT's Tainan County chap-ter director, Shen Jung-feng, filed a libel suit against Chao on Friday, and the Tainan Prosecutors' Office has decided to summon him for questioning soon.

Shen denied that the KMT had ever asked headmasters to buy votes.

Chao Chung-yueh, deputy director of the Tainan Prosecutors' Office, yesterday said pro-secutors would investigate Chao's claims about the presidential election in 2000.

Pint-sized patriots

A child unit of the Hezbollah group takes part in a military parade to mark Al-Quds Day (Jerusalem Day) in a suburb south of Beirut on Friday. It is held to coincide with the last Friday of the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah warned a mass rally that Hezbollah will respond harshly to any Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Why blues jumped on constitution bandwagon

By Liu Kuan-teh

Admit it. It all has to do with electoral strategy. When Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan slapped his own face by proposing a KMT constitutional plan last week, the first impression that struck the voters was surprise, surprise.

Lien has long been portrayed as conservative, stiff and always backward, so his announcement that he wanted to initiate a referendum for a new constitution astonished pan-blue supporters. His about-face also confused leaders in Beijing and Washington as to who is fanning the flames across the Taiwan Strait.

Less than two months ago, when President Chen Shui-bian called for a push toward a new constitution in 2006, Lien's instant response was "nonsense." The KMT launched a series of TV ads that aimed to persaude voters that Chen's efforts were part of a push toward independence and that a war between Taiwan and China would be imminent if Chen were re-elected.

Lien has enjoyed a lead in the polls since he teamed up with PFP Chairman James Soong eight months ago, but Chen has been catching up. Who knew that Lien would eat his own words to boost his declining approval rate?

Lien owes the voters a fair explanation of why he changed his position.

The two most popular theories to explain his flip-flop are that it has to do with American influence; and that he decided to take a radical position in order to outpace Chen.

The suspicion that Washington has been employing a "two-handed" strategy with Chen and Lien has been widely circulating within the pan-blue camp. The improved treatment that Chen received during his trip to New York and Alaska reinforced such speculation.

According the pan-blue camp, Chen should not receive such good treatment when he travels. Instead, the Americans should punish him for causing trouble.

Chen's trip not only helped narrow the Lien-Soong ticket's lead in the polls, but has also been seen as an expression of the US' "tacit consent" to Chen's recent policies. The pan-blue camp felt stabbed in the back and decided to punish Washington for its interference in Taiwan's domestic politics.

But this theory doesn't hold water. First of all, not long before Lien's visit to Washington in mid-October, the US publicly announced that it would not get involved in Taiwan's election. The State Department further called Chen's trip "very good" because the US had provided Chen a comfortable, safe, convenient and dignified stopover. Washington is taking no sides when it comes to the question of how it treats Taiwan's leading presidential candidates.

The second explanation regarding Lien's new pledge has to do with the tempo of the campaign: that by offering a bolder and more radical alternative on constitutional reform, the pan-blue camp could take back control of its slow and inactive campaign. Lien's proposal for three-stage constitutional reform must be completed two years earlier than Chen's proposal. even though this goes against the blue camp's previous positions.

Lien has provided a quicker solution to Taiwan's constitutional inadequacies but that does not mean it is a better solution. Besides, Lien's announcement fell short of generating a consensus within the pan-blue camp. It was nothing but a one-man decision.

The amendment of the constitution is a huge national reform project. Consensus is required before a schedule can be set up. If Lien's goal is merely to outdo Chen, without taking into consideration the need for public education and debate, his proposal is doomed to fail.

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.

Green camp flusters one-China

By the Liberty Times editorial

The pan-blue camp, which had initially vowed "to stop the national referendum on the issue of independence or unification, even if it meant losing the election," has taken a U-turn by announcing "ten principles on amending the Constitution." The pan-blues are now in favor of incorporating the right to a national referendum within the Constitution next year, and then approving a new constitution via a public referendum in 2005.

As a result, the issue of a new constitution has once again become the focus of debate between the ruling and opposition camps. What caused the pan-blues to hastily propose such a short timetable for the new Constitution? Obviously, it is a move made as a result of the pan blues' inability to gain control of the campaign's issues.

It has been suggested that if the opposition adopts policies that are identical to those of the ruling party in every respect, the voters will be forced to distinguish between the two parties by comparing the ruling party's policy implementation with that of the opposition party when it was in power. This way, the opposition might have a shot at winning the election.

The point is to confine the scope of the debate so as to trap the ruling party in quicksand and thereby accomplish the opposition's goal of defeating the ruling party. Therefore, no wonder the pan-blue camp has gone from opposing public referendums, to proposing an ultraconservative referendum bill. to shortening the timetable for a new constitution.

Although the pan-blues have proposed a bill in support of national referendums, the restrictions they have set -- amending the Constitution instead of writing a new one, insisting that the basic principles of the new constitution must be the same as those of the current one -- reveal conservatism and insincerity.

The pan-blue camp is simply using support for national referendums as part of its campaign strategy.

Whether the pan-blue camp indeed is thinking of nothing but the long-term welfare and future of Taiwan or simply trying to leave behind the "one China" curse is something that China knows best. On Nov. 17, the head of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China issued a coercive declaration on the hotly debated issue of a new constitution for Taiwan, with President Chen Shui-bian as the target of the warning. The declaration discussed Chen's "attempt to establish the so-called state of Taiwan and materialize Taiwan independence through public referendums and the drafting of a new constitution, which is very dangerous separatist conduct, an open provocation against `one China,' a disruption of the cross-strait relationship, and a threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the Asia-Pacific region."

He went on to warn that "anyone who tries to separate Taiwan from China will be struck head on by the 1.3 billion Chinese including the Taiwanese comrades." From this declaration, it can be seen that while the issue of drafting a new constitution will necessarily become the subject of discussion and decision-making by the people, and that no substantive conclusion has been reached just yet, the Chinese government has already concluded that Chen will push for a public referendum on the issue of Taiwan's independence and the establishment of a Taiwan Republic. This is why Chen became the target of Chinese threats.

The most up-to-date campaign strategy of the pan-blue camp is to adopt a new constitution through a national referendum, while still emphasizing the independence of the Constitution and the sovereignty of the Republic of China (ROC). Therefore, the formal title of the Constitution will still be "ROC Constitution."

The pan-greens, on the other hand, leave the issues of the national flag and name open to discussion among all the political parties and the people via a referendum.

On the surface, the proposals pitched by the two sides contain only very minor differences on the issues of Taiwan's sovereign status and a new constitution. Obviously, the new constitutions advocated by both sides violate the "one China" principle used by China to trample Taiwan. The Chinese government has vowed to hit the pan-greens head on regarding issues on which the pan-greens have no fixed position.

Meanwhile, China has turned a blind eye toward the pan-blues, who also support using national referendums to amend the Constitution and reaffirm the existence of the ROC on Taiwan. One cannot help but feel skeptical about the ulterior motives of China. In fact, only two possible explanations exist. Either China favors the pan-blues, even though the pan-blues are also violating the "one China" principle with their new position on the issue of a new constitution. Or China has seen through the pan-blues' trick -- Beijing understands that the pan-blues' proposal to amend the Constitution via a national referendum is nothing but a smoke screen that plays the voters for fools, which means that there is no need for China to worry that the pan-blue camp will disrupt the cross-strait relationship.

Evidently, the "one China" policy previously proposed by the pan-blues must have made quite a favorable impression on China. Regardless of the reasons, the pan-blues' tactics may create divisions within Taiwan and further endanger democratic and constitutional developments.

China uses military threats to interfere with the Taiwanese people's right to decide things for themselves. If the pan-blue camp is really serious about pushing for national referendums and amending the Constitution, it should join the pan-greens in saying "no" to China, and in protesting China's trampling on Taiwan with its claim that "Taiwan is part of China's sacred and indivisible territory."

The people of Taiwan should express their repulsion at the Chinese Communist regime through their votes in elections and national referendums. Therefore, the ruling and opposition camps should quickly pass the national referendum law, and give top priority to the issue of unification, not independence, as the topic of a national referendum. Send a message to the other side of the Taiwan Strait that it is the popular will of Taiwan that Taiwan belongs to the people of Taiwan, rather than to the comrades on the two sides; that Taiwan belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, Penghu and Kinmen, instead of the 1.3 billion Chinese.

The pan-blues must also understand that if the process of amending the Constitution is confined within the framework of a non-existent "ROC sovereignty," it will probably be difficult to resolve the problems in the current Constitution. After six rounds of amendments, the Constitution is incapable of meeting the country's future needs.

Taiwan, replaced and crowded out by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the international community, finds that the international space in which it can survive narrows by the day.

To keep up with globalized competition, and to make sure democracy becomes deep-rooted, a grave need exists to break away from the old framework and mind-set and establish an efficient and responsive political system.

To examine and reform the existing framework of the Constitution is a step in the right direction.

Leave investigating to prosecutors

The melodrama surrounding the Special Report VCDs reached a new phase when PFP lawmaker Chiu Yi publicly apologized to cartoonist Yu-fu and Soochow University professor of politics Shieh Jhy-wey for wrongfully accusing the pair of playing a part in the making of Special Report. However, Chiu continued to vow he will get to the bottom of things even if it means quitting the Legislative Yuan. Upon hearing this, one cannot help but call out to Chiu that "enough is enough." Let the Prosecutors' Office take over the investigation before more innocent bystanders are hurt in Chiu's alleged pursuit of the "secret mastermind" behind Special Report.

Chiu's apology is reminiscent of the tearful apology made by PFP lawmaker Diane Lee when the truth finally came out that she had erroneously accused the then acting director-general of the Department of Health (DOH), Twu Shiing-jer, of sexually harassing a man.

The stories of Chiu and Lee highlight a problem -- a large number, if not a majority, of Taiwan's lawmakers for some unknown reason seem to hold the delusion that they have the blood of detectives in them.

The standardized script goes as follows:

A press conference is held in which the lawmaker names the names of supposed wrongdoers. The lawmaker then puts on a heroic one-person show in which he or she plays the role of Sherlock Holmes hot on the trail of evidence of the crime, with herds of reporters and TV cameras following him or her like bloodhounds.

When the truth finally comes out that the wrong person had been named, then comes the grand finale in which a tearful apology is made.

Mistakes of this sort hurt not only the persons wrongfully accused but also their accusers. Before her fiasco involving Twu, Lee was favored as the next pan-blue mayoral candidate for Taipei City. With her credibility and image tarnished by the incident, she has a long way to go.

It is amazing that Chiu has not learned from the harsh lesson of his colleague -- and he used to be a professor. Chiu has indicated he is willing to leave the Legislative Yuan after this. Well, he may not have much of a political career left anyway, in view of the long list of people he has accused and sued thus far without any evidence to back him up.

He has many more apologies to make in the immediate future.

Moreover, no number of apologies can take away or make up for the injuries suffered by the persons wrongfully fingered. In a society whose politics are as polarized as are Taiwan's, it is not surprising that so many people have become victims of harassment and threats by radical pan-blue supporters.

The sad thing is that although the Prosecutors' Office has already begun investigating the libel case, and several of the actors who appeared in Special Report have been summoned to give testimony, Chiu intends to continue with his own investigation.

Does he seriously expect to get anwhere with an investigation carried out by him and a dozen other PFP lawmakers, with reporters and cameras following them everywhere? If there is really any so-called secret mastermind behind Special Report, he or she has destroyed all evidence after the charade put on by Chiu. Besides, why does the pan-blue camp insist that there is such a secret mastermind, or even an entire crime ring, when the people and the company that made the VCDs have already stepped forward?

Put an end to this circus. Let the prosecutors do their job. Please.

Threats won't silence voters

I concur with the sentiments expressed in your editorial on human rights in Taiwan and China ("China-Taiwan rights gap tells tale," Nov 20, Page 8).

Once again, the Chinese government is playing their favorite (but naive) game of making verbal threats and seeking to instill fear in voters in Taiwan. With the presidential election less than four months away, Beijing surely has to feel fearful, for the chances of President Chen Shui-bian being re-elected look good. To constantly use words or phrases such as "war is inevitable" and "bloodshed" speaks poorly of the Chinese government.

Since May 2000, Chen has repeatedly sought dialogue with the Chinese government, who in turn have either refused flatly or made the condition that Chen's administration has to satisfy the prerequisite of recognizing only one China before talks could even be considered. Talks should be held under warm, cordial and open conditions, with no preconditions made by either party.

China's actions remind me of Malaysia's actions last year regarding talks over the price that Singapore would pay for water from Malaysia. Despite having signed two water agreements to supply water to Singapore for a fixed price, Malaysia decided that it wanted to charge a higher price. Singapore was willing to review the price, although, legally speaking, it was not obligated to do so. Malaysia demanded several conditions for talks on the matter.

The Chinese government has been obstinate in its refusal to recognise the fact that China and Taiwan formally split in 1949, since which time both countries have pursued their own destinies and paths of development. It is not wrong for China to harbor a desire to reunite with its "brothers," but this is akin to the case of a divorced husband wishing to reconcile with his ex-wife, something that both parties have to agree to. Force and threats are indications of desperation, bad faith and poor taste, and can only speak negatively of the aggressor whose behaviour resembles that of a barbarian.

Only the Taiwanese can express their preference on how to chart the destiny of their country. It seems to me, a foreign observer, that the choice in the election next March is clear: a president who has consistently worked for the best interests of Taiwan versus a candidate whose ideology seems to be based on convenience -- someone who is always ready to modify his views and perhaps his character to further his goal of getting elected president.

Perhaps to many Taiwanese, the choice is blurred by the fact that, prior to 2000, they experienced five decades of KMT rule. But with former president Lee Teng-hui, the father of Taiwanese democracy, having advocated for Chen -- and considering the actions of China in recent months -- isn't the choice clear?

Then again, perhaps there is really no choice: only a Chen victory would safeguard the interests of 23 million Taiwanese. I plan to be in Taiwan on March 20 to see firsthand the choice that the Taiwanese make.

A resounding victory for Chen is necessary to drive home the message to China that in a democratic country, the voters' voices will never be silenced by threats.

Jason Lee Boon Hong

Singapore