20031130

Chen touts March `defensive' vote

PLAN B: The president said that even though the DPP's legislation was watered down by the pan-blues, he was still entitled to hold a `defensive referendum'

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday that opposition efforts will not derail his determination to launch a national referendum alongside the presidential election next March.

"Though the third reading of the referendum law was dominated by the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] and the People First Party [PFP], the public should value this most significant article -- the defensive referendum -- proposed by the [Democratic Progressive Party] DPP."

"According to [the 17th] article -- the president is entitled to initiate a referendum on national security issues whenever the country is faced by an external threat that could interfere with national sovereignty," Chen said. "Therefore, I will ask the government to hold a referendum alongside the presidential election."

As head of state, Chen said he had the obligation and duty to secure and maintain the country's sovereignty, and therefore he must exercise a national referendum on March 20 at the same time as the election to defend Taiwan's sovereignty and safety.

Chen made the remarks when visiting a temple in Taipei yesterday morning. He said he believed that the gods will bless the DPP and assist it in its bid to hold a referendum.

The DPP and the Cabinet severely criticized the watered-down version of the referendum law that was passed by the legislature.

However, Chen said the passage of the law was a success for the DPP as it had realized a long-term goal of the party. He said the success should be attributed to the hard work of many DPP members over many years.

"The passage of the referendum on Thursday night was a historic moment," Chen said. "As a minority party at the Legislative Yuan, we can force the majority to follow our step and, in turn, realize our own goals. Such a achievement can be regarded as a great breakthrough for the DPP."

However, he said he was not satisfied with the content of the law because some articles advocated by the pan-blues had damaged the spirit of direct democracy and even violated the Constitution."

"The public now blames the KMT-PFP alliance for restricting the referendum law and depriving the people of their basic rights," the president said.

"It is impossible to achieve democratic reform in one step, but now we have taken our first step toward a referendum, I pledge that those [politicians] who are anti-democracy and anti-reform will be wiped out soon," he said.

In other news, Chen announced last night that US President George W. Bush had confirmed in an official letter that he supported Taiwan's entry into the World Health Organization (WHO).

"In a letter dated Nov. 18, 2003, President Bush expressed that he supported membership for Taiwan in the WHO. This is a historical first," said Chen, speaking at a dinner banquet held by the Medical Professionals Alliance and a campaign support group.

The letter was in response to Chen's letter to Bush delivered by Academic Sinica Presdient Lee Yuan-tseh during the APEC summit in Bangkok.

Chen also criticized Lien's to call at rally in Taoyuan for ethnic reconciliation.

"What ethnic problems do we have in Taiwan? The real problem is with people who do not stand with Taiwan," Chen said.

Accusing Lien of thinking only of his personal advantage, Chen asked, "What right has he to talk about reconciliation?"

China `concerned' about referendum

VAGUE THREATS: After initially saying the legislation removed the `imminent danger' of independence, China warned that it is paying close attention to how the issue develops

AGENCIES , TAIPEI AND WASHINGTON

Beijing shifted its response yesterday to new Taiwanese legislation on national referendums, expressing concern about the law and repeating previous warnings to Taiwan against seeking formal independence but stopping short of any threats.

The official New China News Agency had initially posted a commentary on its Internet site noting that the referendum legislation removed "the imminent danger of Taiwanese independence."

By Friday evening, a separate brief statement was added, quoting a spokesman for the Chinese government's Taiwan Affairs Office.

"We are deeply concerned about relevant things concerning referendum legislation in Taiwan and are paying close attention to the development of the issue," the spokesman said, adding no specifics.

The statement closed with a warning that any attempt to separate Taiwan from China "will not be tolerated absolutely." But in contrast with three warnings earlier this week of the possible use of force if a broad referendum law passed, the statement made no explicit threats.

The return on Friday to vague, albeit critical statements, was read by experts here as a sign of easing tension. A Chinese statement earlier this week had referred to Taiwan as a "shen sheng," or sacred, part of China, a term seldom used in recent years and viewed in Taiwan as a signal of great anger and intransigence in Beijing.

"I had goose bumps coming up when I saw it," said Su Chi, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) adviser on Taiwan Strait issues.

A senior Taiwanese government official on Friday spoke of an acute wariness of angering the US by allowing any crisis to develop with China when the Bush administration was already preoccupied with Iraq and North Korea.

The US State Department said on Friday that it respects the democratic process in Taiwan but opposes any attempt to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait or the use of force to solve bilateral differences.

An official said that the US advocates dialogue between China and Taiwan, which it believes is crucial to peace and stability in the region.

On Beijing's threat that Taiwan cannot use referendums or the introduction of a new constitution to move toward independence, the official said that the use of force is "unacceptable."

The US holds that the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be resolved by peaceful means, the official said.

He said that the US' one-China policy based on the Three Communiques with China and the Taiwan Relations Act remains unchanged and that Washington will not support Taiwanese independence.

Lee condemns Referendum Law

RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT: The ex-president compared the law to the KMT's preference for indirect presidential elections, saying it demonstrated a lack of trust in the people

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday said the newly passed Referendum Law puts the power of the legislature above the people, infringing on democratic principles.

"The Referendum Law was passed by force by the old power [the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP)], pressuring and ignoring public opinion," Lee said at a reunion for former students of the Lee Teng-hui School, a political academy he founded.

"How could the legislature stand on top of the people? This is against the principle of the power of the people. This is an unacceptable law," he said.

Lee compared the law to the indirect elections that the KMT used to insist on using for presidential elections instead of direct elections.

A constitutional amendment passed in 1994 provided for direct elections. However, before the amendment was passed, there was a serious dispute within the KMT's mainstream and non-mainstream factions over whether the president should be elected by the National Assembly.

Lee said the law and the use of indirect elections both sought to deprive the people of their power.

"When I read the clauses of the Referendum Law, I realized it was the same in spirit as indirect elections. I was shocked. They [the pan-blue alliance] always try to cheat and fool the people because they think the people are ignorant [of their tricks]" he said.

Lee said the new law basically deprives people of the right of initiatives, and the people would only be allowed to passively ratify whatever decisions were made by the legislature.

He also criticized the proposed referendum supervisory committee, which under the new law, would be authorized to screen the topics of referendum proposals. He said having such an oversight committee was a "joke."

"What kind of power could override the power of the people and decide what kind of topics the people want to propose for a referendum?" he asked.

"What if the people endorse a referendum proposal to veto such a mechanism? I wonder how the committee members would react," Lee said.

He said that a referendum is the final say of the people and compensates for the inadequacies of the representation system.

"When lawmakers fail to exercise the people's mandate and go against people's opinion, the people could use a referendum to counter such flawed representation. This is the final means by which Taiwan could ensure its security," he said.

In related new, Democratic Progressive Party Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan yesterday said President Chen Shui-bian's proposal to hold a defensive referendum is a democratic means to ensure Taiwan's sovereignty and national security.

Provision 17 of the Referendum Law stipulates that the president is authorized to initiate a referendum should the country come under a foreign threat to its security.

Lee Ying-yuan said Chen did not mean to say with his proposal that the country is now under such a threat.

Police school accused of squandering funds

BY MELODY CHEN

STAFF REPORTER

A Taiwan Solidarity Union lawmaker yesterday accused the Central Police University of squan-dering government money by lavishing NT$1.72 million on 14 high-ranking Chinese police officers during their 10-day stay in Taiwan for a crime-prevention seminar.

Legislator Chen Chien-ming said during the nine-day seminar on cross-strait crime prevention, the visiting policemen published seven papers and spent a total of four hours in seminar meetings.

"Each of the seven papers cost us NT$245,000 on average," Chen said.

He said the Chinese spent most of their time on their Sept. 26 to Oct. 5 trip sightseeing.

"In a banquet for the policemen at the Grand Hotel," Chen said, "a 80-member military band played to entertain them throughout the feast. It was an absolute waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money."

Chen, however, called the outlay an intolerable waste and said the university's president, Tsai Te-hui, should resign.

Chen also threatened to freeze the MAC budget for cross-strait exchange activities next year because the council was the biggest sponsor of the seminar.

Chang Ping-wu, head of the university's Department of Crime Prevention and Corruption, defended the school and the seminar budget.

The NT$1.72 million that Chen alleged had been squandered on the Chinese policemen's visit had actually covered all of the personnel fees for the seminar, Chang said.

Chang said also said the Chinese officials had spent most of their time visiting government agencies involved in cross-strait crime prevention, not sightseeing.

He said the Criminal Investigation Bureau, the Coast Guard Administration and the Hsinchu shelter for illegal female immigrants from China were among the places visited.

According to Chang, the seminars have helped Taiwan's police form a network of personal connections with their Chinese counterparts that has helped them in the repatriation of more than 5,000 illegal Chinese immigrants.

China has also repatriated some 100 Taiwanese criminals since the first seminar took place, he said.

Taiwan finally has a referendum law, although some would say, and rightfully so, that the law, as enacted, barely gave any power to the voters. Still, if the passage of a referendum law by itself is a good thing, the biggest issue on everyone's mind is how it will affect the presidential election.

It wasn't surprising that the version of the bill that passed was the one endorsed by the pan-blue camp. After all, the blue camp enjoys an absolute legislative majority. Judging from the way that the pan-blue camp is talking about this law as a major pan-blue victory, they seem to think, or at least are trying to convince others, that passing the law will help elect KMT Chairman Lien Chan to the presidency.

That is also obviously the way that the pan-blue media are trying to shape public perception, as indicated by the immediate release of an opinion poll by one pan-blue newspaper after the passage of the Referendum Law, showing Lien and his vice presidential running mate, PFP Chairman James Soong, widening their lead over President Chen Shui-bian in popular support. The credibility of an opinion poll cooked up overnight is not worth commenting on.

It is still too early to tell how the passage of the Referendum Law will affect the presidential election. If the law is to help Lien's campaign in any way, the pan-blues have to be able to take credit for it. But it won't be easy for the pan-blue camp to convince the voters that it deserves that credit.

For one thing, it is hard to erase the impression that the pan-blues went from opposing to supporting referendum rights for only one reason -- a belated realization that the public supports referendum rights, and that to win the presidential election, the pan-blues must support that right as well. Under the circumstances, people have a hard time believing that the pan-blue camp's support for referendum rights is heartfelt. If people continue to perceive this support is merely a tactic used to win the election, then they won't feel that Lien deserves any credit.

Reinforcing public suspicion of the pan-blue position is the fact that the pan-blue camp has yet to offer an ideological explanation of why it supports referendum rights.

The DPP finds itself in quite a different situation. While the version of the bill endorsed by the DPP and the Executive Yuan was not enacted, very few people can deny the DPP's enormous contributions to the law's passage. The DPP had been pushing for the recognition of referendum rights for more than a decade, long before the public embraced the right. In those days, any talk of referendums was labeled as blasphemy uttered by the forces of "radical Taiwanese independence."

In the four years of Chen's presidency, the referendum right has become a mainstream value in Taiwan, despite the fact that Chen's party suffers minority status in the legislature.

Passage of the law would not have happened so soon had the DPP not come to power and gained the ability to shape mainstream political values.

In contrast to the DPP, which shed blood and tears over the past decade to promote referendum rights in Taiwan, things were easy and effortless for the pan-blues. With its legislative majority, the pan-blue camp only had to worry about whether or not to pass a referendum law.

Even though the pan-blue camp drafted the law, they may not be able to claim much credit for it. And the pan-blues will have to bear the blame for the law's flaws. Under the circumstances, it is too early for the pan-blues to make any champagne toasts.

`Some politicians and political parties finally grasped reality, and did not dare, for once, to ignore the popular will.'

On the eve of the vote on the Referendum Law, Zhang Mingqing, the spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, issued a warning at a press conference.

Zhang said that China understands the desire of people in Taiwan for democracy and autonomy, but if a referendum law was enacted that lacked "restrictions" with respect to the issues of national flag, name and territory, and that provided a legal basis for a declaration of Taiwanese independence, then "we will without question react strongly."

He went on to remark that "China will not sit idly by as President Chen Shui-bian continues to walk down the path of Taiwanese independence."

The ruling and opposition camps went into battle over the referendum issue on Thursday, each endorsing a different version of the law.

Zhang's decision to issue such a stern threat just before the referendum duel was an effort to sway those who were less than determined to uphold the referendum right of the people, and to interfere with the passage of the law by dividing and conquering.

However, in view of the fact that China's threats against Taiwan have often incited resentment among Taiwanese and have helped the growth of Taiwanese consciousness, it was no surprise that Zhang's conduct not only failed to accomplish its intended effect, but may have fostered unanimity among the people, facilitating passage of the Referendum Law.

In the past, in the face of threats from China, people in Taiwan did not react with unity. Some politicians even used Chinese threats of war to coerce their countrymen. However, politicians and parties that betrayed the mainstream popular will in this way were rejected by the people in the end, and became gradually marginalized.

Therefore, in this battle over the referendum issue, some politicians and political parties finally grasped reality, and did not dare, for once, to ignore the popular will. They drastically altered their position overnight -- literally.

With their condescending remarks about proponents of a new constitution -- such as "ignorant" and "nonsense" -- still fresh in people's minds, they managed not only to propose a timetable for drafting a new constitution, but also proposed a referendum law with no restrictions attached. This change among certain parties and politicians was perhaps the result of election considerations, and not the result of genuine ideological change.

However, in the face of Zhang's criticisms, both the opposition and ruling camps reacted with a unified response.

Not only did the pan-green camp ask China to understand that the right to referendum is a fundamental political right of the people, but the pan-blues loudly criticized China for inappropriate behavior.

They even said that "the Republic of China [ROC] is an independent sovereign country and no foreign power should interfere with the ROC's legislative process."

This response suggests that China is being perceived as a "foreign power." Under the circumstances, such military threats -- which have never accomplished their intended purpose to begin with -- are not likely to accomplish anything this time around.

Frankly speaking, China is right in observing that, propelled by democracy, Taiwan is drifting further and further from China.

In 1949, the People's Republic of China was officially established. The ROC had been vanquished. The remnant Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces that moved to Taiwan were simply an alien regime that planned to use Taiwan as a stepping stone to retake China.

In the era after martial law, media censorship was lifted and organizing political parties was no longer prohibited. As a result of democratization and nativization campaigns in Taiwan, the government changed from an "alien" regime into a "local" regime. Thereafter, a sovereign country took shape.

Now that Taiwan has left behind the civil war between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party, it no longer has anything to do with China. Regardless of how linked the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are in terms of language, history, and culture, now both sides must face up to the reality of "one China, minus Taiwan."

If China is unwilling to face the reality of "one country on each side (of the Taiwan Strait)," and if it refuses to facilitate a harmonious and stable cross-strait relationship in a rational and peaceful manner, and instead continues to attempt to trap Taiwan with "one China," disaster will surely ensue. Including a referendum right in the Constitution is a very important reform project. Although Taiwan is an independent country, the Constitution was brought from China by the KMT. From structure to ideology to operating mechanisms, from flag to name to territory, all elements of the Constitution are built on the concept of "Great China," and are completely at odds with the current environment in Taiwan.

Though the Constitution has been amended six times, these amendments were piecemeal measures, and none succeeded in resolving the problems with the Constitution. Instead, they highlighted how broken the Constitution was, and showed an urgent need for a total reworking.

Representative democracy can longer satisfy all the country's practical needs. Some disputes in public affairs -- from national identity to local development -- require a referendum system, so as to solicit the opinion of the public and put an end to disputes.

Therefore, referendums and a new constitution have become necessary for the deepening of Taiwan's democracy and sovereignty, and for making Taiwan a "normal country."

Not only is China a totalitarian country, but its leaders are especially good at manipulating and inflaming nationalism. If a referendum right and a new constitution in Taiwan create cross-strait polarization, this is not Taiwan's fault.

Instead, it is because China is too obsessed with the concept of "one China," and incapable of digging itself out of that hole.

Recently the Chinese government has launched another wave of verbal attacks against Taiwan. From Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's public vow to ensure unification at all costs, to Zhang's comments, the barbarism and anxiety of the Chinese leaders are apparent.

We must solemnly inform the Chinese government that the passage of Referendum Law and the writing of a new constitution are the internal affairs of Taiwan. China is simply Taiwan's neighbor, and has no say so in any of these things.

Resorting to insults and threats will accomplish nothing, but instead will show China's true colors to the world. It will also create irreparable gaps between the people of the two sides. China and Taiwan will simply drift further apart, and this will harm the chances to resolve differences and misunderstandings in the future.

It is hard to believe that the Special Report series of VCDs has remained in the media spotlight for such a long time.

Special Report has given us a new perspective on the media. Broadcast and cable TV no longer have a monopoly on transmitting images. Because of their price (VCD projectors are cheaper than mobile phones) and pervasiveness (VCD viewers are as numerous as cable TV subscribers), VCDs will become a powerful medium for reporting or commenting on events.

Despite the large number of broadcast and cable TV channels in Taiwan, news coverage is often uniform; even the wording that the anchors use is similar. Guest speakers invited to participate in call-in shows are always familiar faces. Despite the great number of TV stations, the message sent to the public does not reflect society's diversity.

Using VCDs as a counterweight to the established news media can be a useful tool for the public. The content of the Special Report VCDs might not be revolutionary, but the medium is.

Since many "supervisory" institutions fail to improve the chaotic situation caused by the media and politicians, the fact that VCDs can send shock waves across the nation is worthy of notice by other organizations.

If the foundations that supervise the media, politics and the judiciary can also make use of VCDs, I believe this would result in improvement in these arenas.

Taiwan outdoes every country in the world in manufacturing VCDs and has the most state-of-the-art production technology. It can take the lead in using VCDs to push for media reform.

No matter your viewpoint on the content of the Special Report VCDs, we can turn VCDs into a driving force for progress in Taiwan. As long as the content of VCDs is factual, and not like the sheer nonsense on the talk shows and call-in programs that are aired on cable TV channels -- I believe VCDs can help to rectify the current chaos.

Lin Ching-fuh is a professor of electrical engineering at National Taiwan University.