Referendum law facing challenges

WITH BOTH BARRELS: Both the Cabinet and DPP lawmakers seek changes to the new legislation, but by following different routes

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 09, 2003,Page 1

The Cabinet yesterday decided to file a motion to overturn 12 articles of the recently passed Referendum Law and amend others after the law is promulgated, Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung told the press conference yesterday afternoon.

Also yesterday the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus said it would request the Council of Grand Justices to rule on articles in the controversial law which the caucus maintains are unconstitutional.

"Since overturning a law can only abolish articles, we're taking different approaches to make the law better," Lin said at a news conference yesterday afternoon.

The Cabinet is scheduled to officially approve its proposal tomorrow during the weekly Cabinet meeting. According to the Constitution, the Cabinet has to file a request for the legislature to reconsider the articles before Friday and the legislature has to reach a resolution before Dec. 27.

Articles the Cabinet decided to overturn include the clause empowering the legislature to initiate a national referendum and those in relation to the establishment and responsibilities of the Referendum Supervisory Committee.

The Cabinet argued that the article allowing the legislature to initiate a national referendum should be annulled because it expands the legislative power.

The Cabinet wants the supervisory committee, the function of which, it argues, overlaps with that of the legislature, to be abolished.

Articles the Cabinet seeks to amend include the 5 percent threshold set for the citizenry's right to file a petition to launch a national referendum.

The law mandates that signatures amounting to 5 percent of those who voted in the most recent presidential election, or 770,000 signatures, are required to initiate a national referendum. The Cabinet would like to lower the threshold to 2 percent in line with the number of signatures needed to register as a candidate in a presidential election.

Others articles the Cabinet want to overhaul are those which ban the Cabinet from initiating a referendum, including an advisory one, and those meting out punishments to Cabinet officials violating these rules. The Cabinet argues that the legislation encroaches on the authority of the executive.

The DPP legislative caucus, on the other hand, thinks that some of the articles violate the Constitution and will request a constitutional interpretation on the articles which denies citizens the right to initiate constitutional amendments and yet grant them the exclusive right to repeal such amendments.

Although the DPP does not enjoy a majority in the legislature, Lin said that the government was "not pessimistic" about wining the backing of the legislature.

"As the Constitution mandates that more than half of the legislature is required to endorse or reject our veto motion, the opposition camp has to garner sufficient votes to successfully overturn our request," he said.

If the Cabinet loses its bid to overturn the legislation, Lin said that Premier Yu Shyi-kun does not have to step down to shoulder any political responsibility -- as requested by the opposition.

The Constitution mandates that if more than half of the legislature vetoes the Cabinet's request, the Cabinet must accept the law or resolution, which would then go into effect three days after it is promulgated by the president.

If lawmakers are upset by the Cabinet's attempt to reject a law, they can then call for a no-confidence vote against the premier. However, a petition to call such a vote must be endorsed by one-third of lawmakers. A no-confidence vote must be called within 72 hours of the petition being filed.

Responding to the opposition camp's threat to return the Cabinet's request, Lin said that the legislature is required by the Constitution to decide whether to endorse or reject the Cabinet's request 15 days after receiving the Cabinet's veto motion.

"They still have to make a decision even if they return our request," Lin said, adding that the opposition's threat reflects their political motive to hijack the "preventative referendum" guaranteed by the Referendum Law.

Foreigners recount life under martial law

LOOKING BACK: Some of the non-Taiwanese who played a role in the nation's democracy movement have been invited back to tell of their experiences

By Debby Wu

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 09, 2003,Page 3

Several foreign figures in Taiwan's democracy movement yesterday recalled the dark days of martial law as part of a series of human- rights activities the government is organizing to fill in historical gaps and to tell forgotten stories.

The figures, including well-known human-rights activist Linda Gail Arrigo and Munakata Takayuki, who helped secure the release of then-dissident Peng Ming-min from prison in the 1960s, came from several countries, including the US, Japan and the Netherlands. Many of them had been blacklisted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration because of their involvement in the democracy movement.

President Chen Shui-bian told the visitors that Taiwan's democratic movement was a result of long-term efforts, and the help of foreigners in writing letters to secure the release of political prisoners was very important.

"We can forgive historical mistakes, but we cannot forget the truth," Chen said.

Chen said that Taiwan had invited these friends back to tell their stories. Most importantly, he said, their families had also been invited so they could understand what their loved ones had done for Taiwan.

Part of the conference -- titled"A Journey of Remembrance and Appreciation" -- organized by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, was devoted to the role played by churches in the nation's democratization, especially the Presbyterian Church.

One participant, American priest James Collignon, first arrived in Taiwan in 1957. During a time when the Roman Catholic Church was on good terms with the KMT administration, he chose to associate with Protestants, including pro-independence Presbyterians.

"I was not a political person, and my problem with the administration was not a political one but rather a moral problem," Collignon said.

"The administration was telling a political lie -- it told people it was going to retake China," he said.

Collignon said that back then the government controlled the media and had ample ways to persuade people to believe their lies. But when persuasion failed, the government resorted to force.

He said he felt sorry that the Catholic Church at that time was cozy with the government and stood by and tolerated everything the KMT did.

An American, Presbyterian minister Donald Wilson, came to Taiwan in 1959. He was first told by his mission committee to study Mandarin. But after a while, the local church committee asked him to start studying Taiwanese.

"Our mission office worker, who was Taiwanese born, told me that when he heard someone speak [Mandarin] his initial reaction was to take two steps backward because for him Mandarin was equal to oppression," Wilson said.

Wilson also knew Peng, the forerunner of the Taiwanese democratic and independence movement. When Peng was imprisoned, he would visit Peng's wife. Later, when Peng was put under house arrest, he continued to visit them.

However, when Wilson and his family returned to the US in 1967, he was informed that he had become persona non grata. He had to wait until 1980 to return to Taiwan, although still under the strict surveillance of security agents.

Japanese Kobayashi Masanari, who was arrested for aiding the democratic movement, told of his experience behind bars.

Masanari was arrested in the 1960s for helping to distribute pro-democracy flyers. He was put in a cell next to Hsieh Tsung-min, a student of Peng's who had co-authored the 1964 Declaration of Taiwan Self-Salvation.

"At the time Hsieh was tortured. I could also hear the howls of other students who were tortured. When I heard that sound I felt pain as if I had been beaten myself," he said.

After his release, Masanari helped deliver Hsieh's letters to Peng, who by then was in the US. Masanari said that when Peng heard of Hsieh's death sentence, Peng decided to release the letters to The New York Times. Publication of the letters and the resulting pressure from US congressmen deterred the KMT government from carrying out the execution.

Reporter's absence from conference queried

BY Stephaine Wen

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 09, 2003,Page 3

The absence of American reporter Tina Chou from the conference held by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy has triggered speculation that she cancelled her trip because of pressure from the People First Party (PFP).

Chou was an Associated Press reporter when democracy activist Chen Wen-chen, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, was found dead in July 1981.

Chen's body was found on the lawn of the Graduate School of Taiwan University after he had been picked up by the Taiwan Garrison Command.

The police claimed that Chen had committed suicide, but Chou's reporting placed the police under suspicion when it noted that an autopsy performed by American forensic experts suggested his death was not suicide.

Chou's press credentials were cancelled and she was prevented from working as a journalist in Taiwan by the Government Information Office (GIO).

The head of the GIO at the time of Chen's death was James Soong, now PFP chairman.

However, the foundation would not confirm whether the Chou's decision not to attend was because of objections by the PFP members on its board.

When asked about Chou's absence, PFP Legislator Sun Ta-chien replied: "The foundation would not have been established without my assistance. Yet I had not been informed about this conference or the guest list until a week ago. I question why the conference was not held in previous years but instead now, during a sensitive period in the presidential election campaign."

Robert Lihtorng Chen, a spokesman for the foundation and a board member of the Administrative Tribunal to several governmental departments, said the conference was being held to mark International Human Rights Day, which is tomorrow.

"It could not have been held in previous years because the foundation was only established this year," Chen said, adding that the organization had been an idea of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

"It could not have been established before the DPP took over the government," Chen said.

Talking about the significance of the conference, Richard Kagan, who once worked as courier for the "radical political activists" when he visited Taiwan in the 1970s, said that "this conference is about the openness of freedom of speech and freedom of documents."

He urged the people to call upon the government to make records available for them to find out the truth about what had happened.

While most of the victims of political persecution could be categorized as pioneers of the DPP, notably senior advisor to the president Peng Ming-min, Sun said that "the foreign guests are also friends of the KMT-PFP alliance and I welcome them on behalf of the KMT."

China's premier prepares to go to hub of capitalism

REUTERS , New York

Tuesday, Dec 09, 2003,Page 1

China Premier Wen Jiabao prepared to hit Wall Street yesterday, cosying up to America Inc in a bid to highlight a desire for greater cooperation between the world's fastest growing economy and its biggest.

But Wen, in charge of China's wrenching economic reforms, will come under US pressure to pare its massive trade surplus with the United States and ease its grip on the tightly held yuan currency.

The visit takes place against a backdrop of tension over Taiwan, which Beijing fears is creeping towards independence under President Chen Shui-bian, who has said he plans to use a new referendum law at polls in March.

Arriving on Sunday, Wen went to the UN where he issued a warning that Taiwan should not use democratic procedures, like the upcoming referendum, as a cover for separatism.

Wen intends to visit the site where the World Trade Center was demolished in attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. China swiftly backed the US-led war on terror.

But his other New York events were strictly business, a reflection of concern over trade tensions with Washington which slapped sanctions on Chinese textiles and televisions in November.

State media sought to play down the trade tensions. "It is important for China-US economic relations to remain on track despite recent trade spats between the two countries," the China Daily said on Monday.

Wen was scheduled to ring the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.

Technology a boost to monitoring the media

POPULAR REVOLUTION: The ease of digital recording and the rapid growth in Internet access have made it easier to keep track of what officials and journalists say

BY Cody Yiu

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 09, 2003,Page 3

Technology breakthroughs are changing the nature of news reporting as well as enabling public supervision of the media, said a group of social, technological and cultural experts yesterday at a seminar in Taipei on the impact of the Special Report VCDs.

"From the Internet to BBS, to broadband access, to digital media, technology is rapidly changing to better suit the needs of the people, resulting in a media revolution," said Lin Yi-fang, the chief executive officer of Taiwan Voice.

"To put it bluntly, news anchors are no longer needed to report stories as long as there are news tickers running across the TV screen" Lin said.

Digital technology offers the public a simple media-monitoring tool.

"Current online technology enables anyone with broadband Internet access to digitally record TV news or current affairs talk shows and to catch the many slips of the tongue that occur. That's exactly what the production team for Special Report did," Lin said.

Lin said he didn't think much of the VCDs, but saw them as a true narrative of the thoughts of the Taiwanese people.

"I don't think the Special Report [VDCs] are such a big deal or contribute that much to society. However, they do present the bare thoughts of the people without any additional packaging," Lin said.

Online circulation of clips of TV recordings is a revolutionary way to monitor the media.

"In the wake of the Pachang Creek incident in 2000, a Web site,KO-Media [www.socialforce.org], was established to keep the speeches made by public figures in check by posting recorded clips online," said Lu Shih-hsiang, chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence.

"Today, this Web site is very popular among media professionals," Lu said.

Many people at the seminar hosted by Taiwan Northern Society believe the Special Report VCDs signified a technological and social breakthrough for the media industry.

"It used to be that a political point of view needed a medium as a source of circulation. Normally, such a medium requires a large capital investment to be established," said Liu Chin-hsin, an engineering professor at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.

"Today, however, people can take full advantage of technology to voice their opinion without investing too much money," Liu said.

Seminar participants said there is a need for the public to monitor the media because of the lack of media ethics.

"The New York Times has a weekly column dedicated to making corrections of its reporting errors -- this is an example of responsible journalism. Although the Apple Daily is criticized by some groups for its contents, it is the only newspaper in Taiwan which makes an effort to make corrections everyday," Lu said.

"Taiwan's media does not treat fact-checking seriously. The US press refers to responsible journalism as reporting the truth and checking facts. Clearly this ideology has no parallel in the Taiwanese press," Liu said.

US' origins like Taiwan's

Should Washington propose, as seems more and more likely, a policy of outright opposition to Taiwanese independence and any perceived or real moves in that direction (such as referendums), perhaps it should first consider how the United States came into being.

The US as a concept relies heavily on the history of the country's foundation by groups of British and Irish citizens, who fled a land where they opposed the existing regime and faced persecution, and built a new nation for themselves across the waters, which through economic expansion and democratic principles they made their own, and in which they eventually came to live in harmony alongside the native peoples of that land.

Hasn't the modern Taiwanese nation, if we decide to radically simplify a very complex history, come about in the same way?

If only the irony of these two countries' strikingly similar backgrounds were to reach the American consciousness, would the American people themselves oppose any democratic move toward independence? No. Would they empathize? Yes.

The US administration has, in the case of Taiwan, prioritized its own unstable, unpredictable, and now more than ever invaluable relationship with the Chinese government. This relationship is understandably important to them not only in terms of trade, but with regards to the US' position in Iraq and in the North Korean talks. But in doing so it is forgetting all the principles on which its own freedom was built.

To the Taiwanese government and media: Feel free to make the position of your people and their right to direct democracy known to the world. Educate the international public and then sit back and watch the kind of democracy you crave work its magic as citizens of the US fight against their government's policy of bowing down to China.

Japan shifting Taiwan policy

For the first time in a few years China has issued a warning about possible military action if Taiwan were to declare independence.

More significantly, however, according to some analysts Japan is in the middle of a review of its Taiwan policy. In certain quarters it is being said that the policy of appeasing China is yielding no real results and that, since China is an emerging superpower in the region, they had better play the Taiwan card more strongly.

They have also criticized Japan's (in their view) semi-tributary policies toward China on the Taiwan issue. This will no doubt arouse China's attention and possibly its displeasure, even as the Japanese cut back their aid to China.

Japanese aid has in the past sometimes served as leverage over China, and lowering the level of aid could mean an increased possibility that China would start making decisions without being as concerned about Japan's interests as they are now.

This also comes at a bad time for China-Japan trade relations. China is threatening to slap tariffs on Japan, the US and South Korea for imposing quotas on their textiles exports and, from the US, steel exports. Economics and political agendas are crossing swords at an awkward moment.

Curing the chaos

Politically Taiwan is in chaos. The ongoing irrational confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps has resulted in gridlock in the Legislative Yuan. Taiwan's people are the victims.

If the confrontation cannot be resolved in the next election, predictably, no matter which camp wins or who is elected president, the chaos will be there to bring Taiwanese four more years of nightmare.

To cure the chaos in Taiwan, the confrontation has to be ridden out and replaced by reconciliation and competition. Since the confrontation resulted from the difference of ideology regarding Taiwan's national identity, the issue has to be resolved in the next election, so that Taiwan's next president will not suffer an outrageous boycott from its opposition party.

This would allow Taiwanese to live with more ease and hope over the next four years.

Luckily the controversial "birdcage referendum" law provides a possible solution to end all this confrontation and nightmare for the Taiwanese.

That is provision 17, as pointed out by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Taiwanese will be given a chance to have a say about the country's future and to express displeasure with the current chaotic situation.

Provision 17 is defensive, not offensive. Taiwanese can no longer escape their responsibility and hope society will be peaceful and stable or that the problem will go away by itself.

The real judge is the people of Taiwan. They are the master of their own fate, not the parties, China or the US.

The world is watching. If the Taiwanese cannot even vote for a defensive referendum due to China's threats, then they are betraying themselves and might as well prepare to live with the consequences: They might as well put on the shackles and kowtow to China.