President details missile threat

CROSS-STRAIT MENACE: Chen Shui-bian, looking to win support for a `defensive referendum' on sovereignty, said China has 496 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan

AGENCIES , TAIPEI

Tuesday, Dec 02, 2003,Page 3

President Chen Shui-bian has detailed the arsenal of Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan in his latest move to build a case for a contentious sovereignty vote next year.

Chen said late Sunday it was the first time he had specified the location of bases within 600km holding 496 ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan. The move is likely to inflame already tense relations with Beijing.

His latest comments, at an election rally, have already prompted criticism from the opposition camp, which claimed he had leaked military secrets.

His speech is seen as part of a plan to rally support for a referendum on unspecified sovereignty issues to run alongside the presidential elections on March 20.

Beijing and Chen's political opponents claimed they had dealt the president a telling blow at a legislative vote last week when they effectively blocked his plans for a series of referendums.

However, Chen has tried to cite a clause in the new law that allows him to stage a ballot on "issues of national security concern" in the event of a foreign threat. Over the weekend, he sought to depict China as a clear and present danger to the nation.

Pinpointing the numbers of missiles, Chen said China had deployed 96 missiles each in Leping and Ganxian of Jiangxi Province, Meizhou of Guangdong Province, as well as 144 in Yongan and 64 in Xianyou of Fujian Province.

"And they often held war games threatening to attack Taiwan ... this is the ongoing threat toward Taiwan," Chen said while addressing a group of supporters.

Chen said he could not work out why Taiwan had to accept an imposed political design of "one country, two systems" or face an invasion.

However People First Party (PFP) Legislator Lin Yu-fang said yesterday Chen should not have leaked military secrets for political reasons.

"I have never seen a `big mouth' president like Chen. He did this only to fan the sentiment of his supporters," Lin said, adding that Chen's remarks might reveal the source of Taiwan's military information.

Asked by Lin if Chen had broken the nation's intelligence law by disclosing information about China's missile deployment at a Legislative Yuan committee meeting, Vice Defense Minister Lin Chong-pin said the president is the armed forces' top commander. According to the basic operation rules of democracy, Lin said, the military is not in a position to comment on any of the president's statements.

Commenting on Lin Yu-fan's criticism, James Huang, a Presidential Office spokesman, said yesterday that what Chen had revealed was China's national secrets, not Taiwan's.

Chen keeps up offensive against Lien

ELECTION RHETORIC: The president said the KMT head should show he is truly sorry for his party's murderous past by giving back all its ill-gotten gains

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 02, 2003,Page 1

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday urged the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to prove its sincerity in apologizing for its past mistakes when ruling the country, saying that the KMT should immediately return all property it illegally stole from the country and the government.

"We are glad to see that KMT Chairman Lien Chan was willing to apologize for those mistakes. However, an apology is not enough," Chen said. "We want to see Mr. Lien and his party's resolution and boldness in correcting their faults."

"First, they should return party assets that were illegally seized from the public and the country since the KMT fled mainland China and began ruling Taiwan," Chen said.

The president made the remarks at the opening ceremony of the "Cultural and Historical Relics of Taiwan's Human Rights" exhibition at the Presidential Office yesterday.

Chen reminded the public that leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) had experienced the 228 Incident, during which the former KMT government used military force to oppress Taiwanese, and the White Terror era. Therefore, he said, the party had devoted itself to improving the country's human rights protection since it took power in 2000.

"The KMT's leader told the public that he would like to propose ethnic reconciliation and is willing to apologize for the mistakes his party made during past decades," Chen said. "We hope to see whether he and his party can take concrete action rather than just pay lip service to cheat the people of Taiwan again.

"If they are really sincere in admitting their faults, there are so many things to do," Chen said, adding that the public is waiting to see how the party will realize its promise of dealing with its party assets.

Chen yesterday also attended a ceremony to mark the completion of a flood-diversion tunnel on Chufeng River in northern Taiwan, during which he commended the Cabinet for its superior efficiency compared with the former KMT government, especially the former Taiwan Provincial Government under then governor James Soong, now the People First Party's chairman and Lien's running mate in next year's presidential election.

"Hsichih Township has suffered flood damage from the Keelung River during the typhoon season since 1987. However, the former Taiwan Provincial Government declined to dredge the river because they lacked the money," Chen said.

"It was support from former KMT premier Vincent Siew before the power transfer and the efforts of the DPP government that allowed restructuring of the entire Keelung River, costing NT$31.6 billion, to be finally carried out," Chen said.

"Now Premier Yu Shyi-kun's team has demonstrated its high efficiency in accomplishing this construction of a flood-diversion tunnel," Chen said.

Chen stressed that the Legislative Yuan should learn from the experience of the flood-prevention work and legislators from all parties should support the Cabinet's recent "investment of NT$500 billion in the new five-year national infrastructure plan."

"Just like the Keelung River's renovation, if we do not pass the plan right now, we will regret it in the future," Chen said.

Cabinet defends Chen's right to hold referendum

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 02, 2003,Page 1

A "defensive referendum," which President Chen Shui-bian has pledged to hold on March 20 next year to coincide with the presidential election, does not require the approval of the Referendum Supervisory Com-mittee, Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung said yesterday.

"Those who have any basic democratic beliefs would not have such reactionary thinking and consider using such a technical problem to prevent the people from exercising their right to direct democracy," Lin told reporters at the Executive Yuan yesterday afternoon.

"I'm calling on those jumping on the referendum train to do as the people demand instead of hijacking the train and going in the opposite direction or even trying to derail the train," he said.

Lin was referring to remarks made by Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou, who said that the approval of the Referendum Supervisory Committee, which was created by the referendum law passed last week, is necessary if a "defensive referendum" is to be held.

The referendum law empowers the president to initiate a "defensive referendum" to enforce the country's sovereignty when the country faces external threats to its security.

Although the law stipulates that the initiative requires the approval of the Executive Yuan's weekly plenary Cabinet meeting, it fails to specify whether such a referendum needs the approval of the Referendum Supervisory Committee.

Lin said that the clause on "defensive referendums" was a special regulation which clearly stipulates that the issue has to be "handed over to the people," not to the Referendum Supervisory Committee.

Although the Referendum Supervisory Committee was created to screen the eligibility of proposed referendum topics, it does not include the "defensive referendum," he said.

"The law stipulates that the initiation of a defensive referendum requires the approval of the Executive Yuan's weekly plenary Cabinet meeting. Therefore, it does not make sense for the Referendum Supervisory Committee, which is an ad hoc unit and has lower administrative status than the Cabinet, to review and approve the defensive referendum," Lin said.

Time is essential when holding a "defensive referendum," Lin said, and it would be time-consuming if the Referendum Supervisory Committee were to call a meeting to review the eligibility of the "defensive referendum," Lin said.

"What equally worries us is that the committee may become a battlefield for partisan feuding because the committee is composed of political parties in the ratio of the parties' representation in the legislature," Lin said.

Dismissing suggestions that the "defensive referendum" would be a one-off event, Lin quoted Premier Yu Shyi-kun as saying that the government can hold such a referendum in response to the cross-strait situation.

Lin also explained why Chen picked March 20 as the date to hold the "defensive referendum."

"I think the public should've asked `why not March 20' instead of `why March 20,'" Lin said. "How come we cannot hold the defensive referendum while China has over 400 missiles targeting us and claims it has the ability to stage an invasion in 2006?"

Besides, the "defensive referendum" would not be held to change the status quo, as the opposition bloc claims, but to maintain the status quo, Lin said.

"Such suggestions of equating the `defensive referendum' to provocation is simply reactionary and overreaction," he said. "While the onus is on the president to ensure the security of the nation and the people, what good does it do to provoke a war across the Taiwan Strait?"

Freedom of speech is a right but has limits

By Frank Wu

Tuesday, Dec 02, 2003,Page 8

Democratic politics is noisy and quarrelsome. It is therefore not very strange that everyone claims to be right and claims that everyone else is wrong. Nor is it very strange that some people will risk a lawsuit in order to insult or slander someone else.

However, in the midst of all this noise and quarreling, a certain level of social order must be maintained. Laws have to be followed, or we are no longer dealing with democracy, but with mob rule.

The Special Report VCDs have brought disorder to Taiwan. Many friends who have been involved in the media for decades have reprimanded me for remaining silent on this issue. It is, in fact, my right to keep my silence. But now that I am going to speak up, I wonder how many people will want to listen to what I have to say.

Judging from the progress of human civilization, freedom of speech is an exalted value. Once a society manages to progress to the point that it implements freedom of speech, it is only natural that it will do its utmost to protect that freedom. Today, no one in Taiwanese society dares refute the value of the freedom of speech, and this is a very positive phenomenon. We must therefore make sure that every citizen has the right to enjoy their freedom of speech through a variety of channels. This is the first layer of the Special Report issue.

The second layer consists of restrictions to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to replace right with wrong, or to insult or slander other people. This is not only the case from a legal point of view, but it is also the case from a moral standpoint. Even though legislators enjoy constitutionally guaranteed parliamentary immunity, that immunity is only guaranteed in the context of public discourse. It does not include immunity in cases of slander, insult or malicious fabrication outside of the public discourse.

That is why the producers of the Special Report VCDs do not enjoy immunity against legal action or moral condemnation if the VCDs are suspected to contain slander or fabrications.

The third layer is the relationship between freedom of speech and social responsibility. If freedom of speech is a matter of lofty, beautiful words spoken in private, then there is no problem at all. But if it is a matter of making public statements, then we have the corresponding issue of social responsibility. The precondition for making a public statement should be to first state one's full name, regardless of who the person making the statement is. Whether or not that statement actually has substance is of secondary importance.

I have observed the reactions in Taiwanese society to the Special Report VCDs. It seems that those who like the VCDs like them very much, and that those who don't like them have an extreme dislike for them. This sort of division is the most worrisome problem in Taiwanese society.

I have long publicly opposed the government's efforts to encourage people to report those who don't abide by the law, as well as its efforts to encourage its enemies to give up. I believe that such government behavior is diametrically opposed to the attempt to build an open and fair society in Taiwan. As for the Special Report VCDs, there are three things to be said.

First, the production of VCDs to express an opinion is a matter of freedom of speech. Second, freedom of speech does not include unrestrained transgression against limitations, or harming other people. Third, anyone who wants to make a public statement should fulfill their social responsibilities by clearly stating who they are.

Frank Wu is chairman of the Public Television Service Foundation.

Editorial: McCarthyism reborn amid VCD flap

The McCarthyism that was prevalent in 1950s Hollywood is being replayed in Taiwan. Actor Lin Fu-chin, better known as Andy, may face revocation of his membership from the Entertainment Union today because of his involvement in the Special Report VCDs and his campaigning for President Chen Shui-bian's re-election bid.

Few entertainment people in Taiwan have ever faced criticism of their performances from people who didn't like their work. Under Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, as both show business and the news media were controlled by the KMT and the Government Information Office (GIO), artists and media workers used to sing along with the mainstream tune, rarely rolling out off-key productions. If artists, journalists or writers did not cooperate with the machine, they were arrested by the Taiwan Garrison Command and charged with treason. As a result, the Entertainment Union did not need to deal with dissidents.

Former GIO director-general and KMT secretary-general James Soong knows well how this mind-control mechanism works.

Andy has suffered from attacks from the pan-blue camp, with special hostility coming from the People First Party (PFP), owing to his role in the Special Report series. There is no evidence of a direct relationship between his union troubles and Soong, but in light of the "special" rapport that Soong has built over the years with entertainment figures, suspicions are reasonable.

In response to the criticism of Soong that the character played by Andy voices in Special Report, Soong described the series by using the word "vulgar" six consecutive times, and his wife said that the "Special Report VCDs are scarier than nuclear bombs." Despite the Soongs' resentment of the VCDs, they should not isolate the character from the context, nor ignore balancing remarks by other actors and actresses in the series.

Even if Soong is unhappy with the plot and dialogue, he should file lawsuits against the writers and producers, rather than venting his anger on the artists who simply followed scripts and performed. Soong's inability to distinguish between the acting world and the real world, and his repeatedly throwing tantrums in public, have shown that his ability to manage his emotions is seriously flawed and that his democratic instincts remain at the low level of the authoritarian era.

KMT Chairman Lien Chan, on the other hand, who is similarly satirized and criticized in the Special Report VCDs, has displayed more tolerance towards differences of opinion.

Artists' right to work was restricted on account of their political stands when McCarthyism was prevalent in Hollywood. Many outstanding playwrights and artists were therefore forced to leave the entertainment business. This was a tragedy of the era. The US has learned its lesson. The concept of free speech has been internalized in American democratic values and tolerance has become an attitude necessary in daily life.

The union will decide how to deal with Andy's case today. Any punishment he receives will be a blow to Taiwanese democracy because this is an obvious example of politics interfering with matters it should stay out of. It will also indicate that Taiwan still has a long way to go before it becomes a real democracy.

Andy announced yesterday that he would drop out of the union, so any decision the union makes will have no real influence. And luckily the union, given that it is an organization that primarily provides social opportunities for artists, has no control over artists' opportunities to work. Andy's livelihood will not be affected.

The resurgence of McCarthyism in Taiwan has added an absurd footnote to the already disorderly 2004 presidential election.