Taiwanese people's 'pa-biang' spirit

By Hu Yuan-hui

Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003,Page 8

The people of Taiwan are facing an important choice: whether or not to hold a referendum expressing to the entire world their will for self-determination.

Today, regardless of whether one likes the ruling party, and regardless of whether one agrees with the current leaders, the referendum issue is no longer a dispute over whether Taiwan has a legal right to hold a referendum, or whether doing so is good or bad. Rather, it is simply a choice that the people of Taiwan must face.

At first, they could delay this choice and take a low profile. But in fact there is no longer any room to wiggle or take a low profile, as both the ruling and opposition parties have tightened the political screws. Even the US, the pillar of international support that Taiwan relies on, has taken a stance by issuing a warning. The people of Taiwan must make a choice.

Like other political reforms in Taiwan, the passage of the Referendum Law was a "miraculous" breakthrough, with much commotion and many twists and turns. From the establishment of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the power reshuffle in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the abolishment of Article 100 of the Criminal Code, the reform of the National Assembly and the transition of political power to the DPP, which one of Taiwan's democratization and localization processes did not face a dead end at some point before succeeding?

Sometimes there are no terms for this sort of phenomenon. It must be attributable to the abundant vitality of the Taiwanese people.

Recently, I was invited to participate in a discussion with fellow journalists with the title A Study of Taiwan's Vitality. In my speech, I used a phrase from Hoklo, commonly known as Taiwanese, to describe the Taiwanese people's abundant vitality: pa-biang (strive).

If we look at Taiwan's history, didn't we get where we are today by means of this pa-biang spirit? This has been the case in politics and in economics and culture.

We can even make a loose analogy between the ubiquitous pa-biang spirit and Taiwan's natural history. The island of Taiwan was created more than 100 million years ago by compression between the Eurasian Plate and the Pacific Plate.

Of course, we do not necessarily have to force such a personification onto nature, but how can we not marvel at the similarities between Taiwan's natural and civilizational evolutions, faced as we are with the formational process of the island of Taiwan, full as it is of change and vitality?

Embracing this pa-biang spirit, Taiwan has finally passed a referendum law this year, despite everything. One step has finally been taken, even though the law is full of holes.

Just a few months ago, people concerned about this referendum legislation found it difficult to imagine that such a law would be passed in the short term.

The problem is that the evil curse on referendums has not been lifted even though a referendum law has been passed.

A referendum in the name of defense and with self-determination as its essence has presented itself along the historical path of the Taiwanese people -- no matter if it was driven by the election or pushed forward by democracy, and no matter if it is a sudden change of concepts or an impromptu decision.

For the first time, the people of Taiwan will have to take a stand on their own future. What is even more remarkable is that they will have to do it under the Chinese regime's inevitable threats and without support from the US government.

What must come to pass will eventually come to pass. Any point in time will present choices that the people of Taiwan must face at that particular point regarding how they will determine their future. In that respect, referendums are in fact an unavoidable issue.

Some say that a referendum can be held sooner or later, not necessarily now. That is true. But under the present circumstances, not holding a referendum will be far more deleterious to Taiwan than holding one.

Some others believe there is no need to hold a referendum on a question whose answer we already know from public opinion polls.

This is a grossly mistaken view. Referendums are an expression of the people's collective will and of course they have more of a declaratory, symbolic nature than opinion polls.

Changes in history are often created when there is no other choice.

What is so morally objectionable at this particular point about directly expressing the Taiwanese people's pent-up dissatisfaction with the Chinese regime -- and indirectly declaring the Taiwanese people's will for "self-determination" regarding their own future -- by means of a referendum along the "anti-missile, pro-peace" line?

On the other hand, if we can't even hold such a referendum, then what is the point of passing a referendum law?

Politicians who merely shout to make themselves look brave or feel good are not mature politicians. They are not what Taiwan needs now.

If politicians cannot do what they should and move forward bravely on the basis of their beliefs, then how can they create new prospects for Taiwan?

The US has made a clear statement and is now awaiting Taiwan's response. The people of Taiwan, what is your choice in this situation? As a member of Taiwanese society, as a citizen who must shoulder the consequences for his decisions, I would like to say clearly to the US authorities after much pondering: "I want a referendum, and I am willing to take all the possible consequences it may bring." I hope and believe that a large number of Taiwanese people will make the same decision, and that they will eventually become the mainstream.

"The Taiwanese people were not raised to fear!" We used to say this catchy line often. We have no intention of saying it to our friends from the US, who have always had democracy, freedom and human rights on their lips. But the Taiwanese people were not raised with kid gloves either!

Pa biang is a common phrase of our past, present and future.

On April 21, 1935, an earthquake measuring 7.1 occurred around Chuolan in Hsinchu County, killing more than 3,200 people and injuring more than 12,000.

But in November of that year Taiwan held its first ever semi-autonomous local elections all the same.

On Sept. 21, 1999, Taiwan suffered the Chichi Earthquake, which measured 7.3 on the Richter scale and killed almost 2,400 people and injured more than 8,000. Six months later, however, Taiwan held its presidential election and saw its first democratic transition of political power.

In addition to natural disasters, there has been no lack of verbal and military threats from China during Taiwan's recent elections, but the Taiwanese people have never retreated. This time, they are once again walking toward an historic turning point.

I believe most Taiwanese people will be willing to shout: "I want a referendum, and I accept the consequences!" -- no matter which political party they support, and no matter which candidate they prefer.

Hu Yuan-hui is president of the Central News Agency.

How Chen charms and courts brass in military

By Lin Chin-hsing

Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003,Page 8

`The civilian world ought not sensationalize opposition to the president by certain top military officials.'

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) recently proposed a "preventive referendum" to be held on the day of next year's presidential election. According to a Dec. 14 United Daily News report, many high-level military officials do not support this idea. Officials from the Ministry of National Defense immediately held a press conference to clarify the matter on the same day.

It is difficult to tell whether Taiwan's top military officials support President Chen Shui-bian or not. But Chen has certainly devoted considerable effort to win these officials over.

Since Chen entered office on May 20, 2000, he has approved a large number of military promotions -- 10 generals or admirals, 59 lieutenant generals or vice admirals, and as many as 247 major generals or rear admirals. More than 60 of these have retired in recent years, but the number of military officials promoted to senior positions is still over 250 -- which accounts for 62.5 percent of the nation's 400-plus high-level military brass.

If we include promotions of military officials scheduled for the end of this year, more than 20 are expected to be promoted to the ranks of lieutenant-general or vice-admiral, while almost 50 are expected to be promoted to major general or rear admiral, breaking Chen's own record for the number of top military officials to be promoted in a single round.

After this round of promotions, the number of top military officials promoted by Chen will account for more than three-quarters of the total number of officials.

Although the majority of top brass have been promoted by Chen, it does not necessarily mean that all of these officials support him. But Chen always hosts promotion ceremonies in person, and has his photos taken with these officials and their family members. From my own observations, after visiting the offices and homes of many of these officials, around four in 10 publicly display their photos with the president in their offices, and as many as six in 10 display the photos at home.

These statistics are not based on a thorough investigation, and they cannot represent the precise number of military brass who are grateful to Chen. But one thing is certain: Chen has gone to considerable lengths to win their hearts.

Some officials from areas currently under green-camp control said that on the day they were promoted, DPP city and county heads personally called their parents in their hometowns to congratulate them. These local government figures even sent customary red posters featuring their signatures to their parents.

Some officials said that it was almost impossible for their aging parents not to support Chen because of this. Chen has also made them feel that they have stood out among their fellows in their hometowns, which is more precious than securing a gift of great value.

The civilian world ought not sensationalize opposition to the president by certain top military officials.

Lin Chin-hsing is a legislator who belongs to the DPP.

Chen tells China he may revoke `five noes' pledge

ARMS THREAT: The president said the launching of a missile by China would result in a cancellation of the promise and urged Beijing to renounce the use of force

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003,Page 1

President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday a referendum to ask China to dismantle its missiles is the least the country can do to defend itself, adding he will give up his "five noes" promise if Beijing steps up its military threats.

"The `five noes' promise I made in my inauguration speech is conditional upon Communist China's not intending to take military action against Taiwan," Chen said.

"But during the past three years, Beijing has put in place more ballistic missiles targeting Taiwan, expanded its military expenditure on a large scale and repeatedly threatened Taiwan," he said.

"All of these [actions] have clearly displayed its intention of using force against Taiwan." Chen said. "Therefore, my `five noes' actually cease to exist while China's wields the threat of military action.

"The reason that I still pledge to firmly maintain the `five noes' is because I am willing to make a concession, to compromise with the other side of Taiwan Strait," Chen said, adding that he could not keep making compromises without gaining safeguards for Taiwan's dignity and safety.

Chen made the remarks at a "glutinous rice ball" party to mark the winter solstice yesterday.

He said his administration had endeavored to improve cross-strait relations over the past three years, but that his humble approach had failed to get a positive reaction from Beijing.

"From this moment on, if China tries to launch any missile -- as it did in 1996 to threaten the people of Taiwan to affect the presidential election -- I will revoke the `five noes,'" Chen said.

He said he would cancel the planned "defensive referendum" should China withdraw its missiles or renounce the use of force against Taiwan.

Chen said the "defensive referendum" should be called a "peaceful referendum." He said the referendum is a basic right of all people of Taiwan, a measure to strengthen the nation's democracy and a modest request to maintain the status quo of independence.

"Some say the referendum ... is not necessary because everyone knows what the result of the referendum will be," Chen said. "Some opposition politicians even say that such a topic should be left to the Legislative Yuan.

"I want to remind them that advanced democratic countries have their own parliament and may also use referendums to make up the insufficiency of representative democracy," he said.

"When people leave their home and go to the booth to cast their votes to ask China to withdraw its missiles and renounce the use of military force, it will bring a completely different reaction and carry a significance different from that of a legislative resolution," Chen said.

"Only because we hold the peaceful referendum will the entire international community pay attention to this small island," he said. "Only through this opportunity can we make the international community understand the real situation in the Taiwan Strait.

"It is the best way to maintain Taiwan's security," he said, adding the referendum would not violate the "five noes" and is designed to maintain the status quo.

As to whether he has US support for the referendum, Chen said communication between two countries' governments is proceeding and that it takes time to eliminate misgivings or anxiety.

"I think the crucial moment in the US-Taiwan relationship is in the next three to five months," he said, adding that he believes the US is more concerned about his inauguration speech on May 20 than the defensive referendum.

Cabinet releases analysis of China's military threat

LOOKING AT 2010: Defense analysts are expecting a volatile national security situation across the Taiwan Strait for the next decade, according to a new report

By Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003,Page 2

While China is beefing up its armed might against Taiwan and the military imbalance across the Taiwan Strait is gradually tilting in Beijing's favor, it remains to be seen whether the US will lean toward the PRC in terms of its military strategy in the Asia-Pacific region by 2010, according to a national defense report released yesterday.

"The situation of the country's national security will be volatile for the next decade," Chung Chien, a professor at the Military College of the National Defense University, says in an article entitled "A national defense policy of intimidation and defense," which is included in the report.

A series of papers make up the 611-page report, Taiwan in 2010, which was released by the Cabi-net's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission yesterday.

Citing a report on China's military power released by the US Department of Defense in July last year, Chung said that the operational theory of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) has shifted from predominantly annihilative to coercive war strategies.

"PLA strategists consider shock and surprise as crucial to successful coercion," Chung said, adding that the strategy is best illustrated in the fundamental principles of "actively taking the initiative" and "catching the enemy unprepared," which form part of the PLA's operational doctrine.

"`Actively taking the initiative' stresses the necessity of attacking at the optimal place and time to catch the enemy unprepared. `Catching the enemy unprepared' emphasizes the role of concealment of intentions and capabilities through camouflage, deception, feints and the use of stratagems to allow a relatively small amount of force to dominate the enemy through surprise," he said.

"With no apparent political pro-hibitions on pre-emption, the PLA requires shock as a force multiplier to catch Taiwan or another potential adversary, such as the US, unprepared," he said.

To effectively counter the PLA's coercive strategies, Chung said that the government should educate the public about civil defense and upgrade military forces' joint combat readiness while the US' military strategy in the Asia-Pacific region remains unpredictable.

Factors affecting national security for the next 10 years could include the quality of military forces; the command, control, communication and contact mechanisms of the armed forces; the arsenal of military forces; training; logistics; and military strategy.

"If we want to strengthen our national security, we need to particularly improve the tenacity of the military forces, increase our weaponry procurement budget and make our own strategy plans, instead of letting them be manipulated by the US," Chung said.

The commission yesterday also published another book, Government restructuring, and plans to release two more, Evaluation report on government efficiency and E-Government, on Jan. 20 and Knowledge-based government by the end of February.

The series of publications is a compilation of research papers and study projects commissioned by the commission over the past three years. The commission has also launched a Chinese/English Web site about government restructuring, http://www.reform.nat.gov.tw.

Editorial: The Hong Kong media's rumor mill

Hong Kong has played the role of rumor mill in many of Taiwan's elections, sending out messages attacking pro-independence forces on behalf of China and indirectly campaigning for political parties and candidates favored by China. However, Chinese military exercises reported by the Hong Kong media in the run-up to the 1996 and 2000 elections did not result in the desirsed effect. Instead, they proved to be counterproductive. But now the Hong Kong media is up to the same old tricks.

Without quoting sources, the Ming Pao reported that China's national security agencies had exposed a massive Taiwanese spy network in mid-December and arrested 21 Taiwanese and 15 Chinese suspected of stealing information about China's ballistic missile deployments.

Taiwan's pan-blue camp immediately started dancing to this tune, saying President Chen Shui-bian had leaked state secrets by stating the exact number of missiles that China had deployed to threaten Taiwan, thereby exposing Taiwan's intelligence personnel to danger and resulting in their arrests.

The entire story is a ludicrous farce. One only needs a little common sense to see that it does not stack up. First, the number of missiles that Chen quoted is already on the record. The US frequently discloses information on China's missiles based on satellite data. The Web site of the US Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org), for one, publishes information on Chinese missile deployments.

Missile launchers can be seen clearly in the satellite images. And each launcher is normally fitted with six missiles. Taiwan does not need to use spies to get missile information that is so readily accessible. Since the number of Chinese missiles is no secret, Chen has not exposed any cross-strait military intelligence. If anything, he may have revealed a Chinese military "secret." The pan-blue camp's accusations that Chen leaked state secrets are absurd.

Taiwan's Military Intelligence Bureau has said that the report about the arrests was sheer fabrication.

Arresting spies is a big thing in the world of espionage. Arrests are not carried out until after long-term observation and planning. Sometimes, keeping spies on a long leash and tracking down the spy network is a much more useful strategy. At other times, using known spy channels to feed misinformation to the enemy and cause them to misjudge the situation is an even better tactic. It is not very often that a massive spy network is brought into custody within a few weeks.

China has no strict definition of state secrets. While Chinese intelligence personnel could have arrested "spies" who had been collecting information, they were not necessarily engaging in espionage or working for Taiwanese intelligence agencies. It would be even harder to back up the claim that Chen's remarks led to the arrests.

Some Hong Kong media outlets frequently release news without quoting sources. There is a specific political purpose behind such news stories -- to sap the Taiwanese public's morale. In the past, Taiwan's stock market would slump and the public would become restless whenever such news came out. But the public has long since become immune to such scares. Even attempts by some politicians with ulterior motives to foment fear can only have a limited effect.

Past election results tell us that the pan-blue camp's attempt to hype a political topic through Hong Kong media reports is bound to fail. Not only will it not achieve the desired effect, but it may even trigger a backlash now that the pro-China leanings of the pan-blue camp have become more obvious.

Favoring polite diplomacy

By Stephanie Wen

STAFF REPORTER

Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003,Page 4

Taipei Times: The relationship between Taiwan, the US and China is said to have entered a new stage. The White House maintains that its cross-strait policy has been consistent, while the governments of Taiwan and China are continually seeking clarification on the US position. How significant is this mix of clarity and ambiguity?

Ruan Ming: To answer this question, one should take into account the development of relations between the three nations. Comparatively speaking, the Bush administration has been America's friendliest toward Taiwan. No other US president has said, "we will be there" for Taiwan.

Now some people say that the Bush administration has made a 180-degree turn and opposed Taiwan's movement toward democracy. But in fact, the administration is just being clearer on its stance opposing unilateral change, no matter if it's China that wants that change or Taiwan. The real question is: Is this clarification beneficial to Taiwan or not?

It is obvious which side would benefit from clarity -- the side that doesn't want to change the status quo. This is because pursuit of unification is the only stance that requires change. Taiwan doesn't need to change the status quo.

It's amusing when you think about it. Seeking independence implies trying to detach oneself from a governing body. The KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] was a foreign regime, and so there was a movement in Taiwan seeking independence from this foreign power. But who can Taiwan be independent of now?

Power is in the hands of Taiwan's 23 million people. So what is there to be independent of? The country's name, anthem and flag are issues of form rather than substance and are difficult to change.

So what is the point of opposing the US for the sake of something's form? What the US supports is the substance of democracy, not the form.

TT: Some thought President Chen Shui-bian's referendum push during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's time in the US was an election strategy rather than an attempt to be a troublemaker in the eyes of the US. Your thoughts?

Ruan: The US thinks the referendum will be absolutely ineffectual. Chen is holding a referendum for the sake of holding a referendum. But there are many other ways of expressing concern over security.

I think the White House is even more concerned with Taiwan's security than Taiwan itself. It is not just an issue of Taiwan's security; it involves the stability of the entire Asia-Pacific region. The US government feels it has the responsibility to maintain peace in the region.

As far as I can see, there is only a need to hold a referendum if you want unification. Taiwan is already independent. That's why the US sees a referendum on independence or joining the World Health Organization (WHO) as pointless. It's obvious what the outcomes of those referendums are going to be. Nor is a referendum necessarily an effective means to an end.

TT: What do you think about criticism that the US government has double standards on democracy?

Ruan: It's silly to ask why the US attacked Iraq, and not China, which has weapons of mass destruction. China is a big country. It has 1.3 billion people. How do you attack such a country? The US hopes for a harmonious relationship with China, and is hopeful that China will be democratic one day. Bush also mentioned during Wen's visit that freedom was indivisible, and he pressed for social, political and religious freedom to follow economic freedom.

diplomacy

TT: Some academics say that among Chinese leaders there are "doves" and "hawks." The doves have recently been actively participating in China's international diplomacy. How does this shift in diplomatic strategy change policy toward Taiwan?

Ruan: China's leaders have changed. Wen Jiabao is a practical person. They have 1.3 billion people to deal with. The tiniest problem with a single person can be multiplied by 1.3 billion. All resources they have need to be divided by 1.3 billion, which boils down to very little. Wen knows that it is going to take dozens of generations before China can catch up with developed countries.

It is also obvious that Wen doesn't consider absorbing Taiwan to be his top priority. Developing China and solving domestic problems are. Because China is on equal terms with the US, or is a "partner in diplomacy" as Bush said, its strategy is to "be friends with the US, divide Taiwan," not "unite with the US, suppress Taiwan,".

The Taiwan-US relationship does not depend on the US-China relationship. The two are parallel. Taiwan is a free and independent country which the US respects, but Taiwan has to respect itself first.

Wen agrees with US policy on keeping the cross-strait status quo. Its friendly stance is, no doubt, pleasing to the US. Taiwan should therefore "unite with the US, make peace with China."

There is no need to oppose China. "Oppose China, defy the US" will not bring full democracy to Taiwan. It is obvious that China is concentrating on dealing with domestic problems. As is the US with terrorism and the economy. This really is the ideal situation for Taiwan in proceeding toward independence. There is no need to hinder US and Chinese affairs. Taiwan should know itself better and be more confident in itself. It shouldn't feel threatened by improved China-US ties. Taiwan's diplomatic environment is at its optimum at the moment. China's leaders want to deal with domestic issues, and will do so as long as Taiwan's leaders don't do anything to threaten their power. There is no need to go around provoking China or blaming the US.

Taiwan's basic problem is domestic. This election campaign is a mess. It used to be that two parties competed to see who could be the worst. Now the two parties compete to see who can be the most idiotic.

international role

TT: You said that the referendum on WHO membership is pointless. What should Taiwan do to make its presence felt in the international arena?

Ruan: Some of Taiwan's diplomatic problems have been inherited from a former era and cannot be solved at present. What is more important is that Taiwan should strengthen its capabilities. That is the substance in entering an organization. The WTO, for example, is not a organization of states, but if China had been capable of preventing Taiwan from entering, then it would have done so. China couldn't do this because it was thought that Taiwan would have a valued presence in the WTO.

Taiwan might be different from other countries in that it has to prove its value to an organization before it can join. But this is not necessarily a bad thing -- it can push Taiwan to improve itself. Economically, Taiwan is respected for its achievements. But Taiwan needs to better publicize its other facets, such as education, technology, culture and tourism.

I think the WTO is more important than the UN. Once you enter an international organization, however, you need to make use of yourself, exert your presence. That is to say, help the organization function better. But Taiwan hasn't made enough of an effort in the WTO. The WTO is not doing so well now, but Taiwan has merely attempted to compete with China in terms of free trade agreements, rather than finding its own path.

Taiwan should also strengthen its international perspective. This is not only done through learning English, because English is just a vehicle for communication, not an inherent capability to think in the international community's frame of mind. When you represent a country and explain your proposals to other nations, you need to be able to understand how they think in order to make your arguments convincing.

Taiwan should not think it shameful to be unable to join international committees, but rather think it shameful for those committees not to have Taiwan on board.

economy

TT: You mentioned Taiwan's economic strength. But now that the Chinese market has been opened up, a number of international and Taiwanese companies have left to exploit that market, emptying Taiwan of its financial resources.

Ruan: But Taiwan should not be discouraged by the flow of manufacturers to China. Water flows downwards. People climb upwards. By the time the water downstream has run dry, people can still draw water upstream. Taiwan should learn from this experience, and strengthen its advantages, utilize what it has and focus on developing other technology, for example.

TT: What should Taiwan do to develop a more democratic country?

Ruan: I think a referendum on the Constitution is a must after the presidential election. The US Constitution is a mere 4,300 words, but it specifies the necessary division of power: judicial, executive and legislative, while the rest are just procedural articles. Taiwan's Referendum Law has so many articles, yet it's effectively unworkable.

Taiwan's politicians lack an understanding of democracy. Taiwan is by far the most media-conscious nation in the world, with so many newspapers, news stations and call-in TV programs on such a tiny island. Yet, despite all the chaos, it's not necessarily a bad thing. At the very least, all the public concern is likely to evolve into something better.