|
|
|
Name
is "Taiwan"on Sep 08, 2004 Foreign
ministry: name is "Taiwan" DPA
, TAIPEI Foreign
Minister Mark Chen yesterday confirmed the ministry's decision to simplify the
nation's name, saying Taiwan's formal title remains ROC, but its simplified
title is now Taiwan. "I
hope we can use Taiwan as much as possible. The Foreign Ministry will discuss
what we will call ourselves in official documents," Chen told reporters. "But
in our contacts with countries that don't recognize us, it is more appropriate
to use Taiwan," he said. According
to a local newspaper yesterday, to avoid confusion with China and to simplify
its name, the official title of "ROC" will gradually be replaced with
the title "Taiwan." "In
response to President Chen Shui-bian's remark that the simplified name for the
nation is `Taiwan,' the Foreign Ministry has called an emergency meeting and
decided to use `Taiwan' as the first choice in international contacts," a
Chinese-language newspaper said. "In
future, `ROC' will only be used in documents signed between Taiwan and its
diplomatic allies. In documents with countries that don't recognize Taiwan and
with international organizations, we will seek to use the name `Taiwan,'"
the paper quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Michel Lu as saying. Depending
on who and where you are, the island of Taiwan could be referred to by one of at
least 14 names. Called the Republic of China (ROC) since 1949 when the Chinese
Nationalists launched its government in exile after losing China to the
communists, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government would like to see
a return to the use of Taiwan. After
the UN expelled the ROC and recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) in
1971, Taiwan has increasingly found the name ROC troublesome because it
indicates Taiwan is part of China and foreigners often mistake ROC for PRC. Currently,
Taiwan's formal title remains the ROC, with its embassies at 26 diplomatic
allied countries reflecting that name, but informal titles such as "Chinese
Taipei" have been used to join UN-related organizations, the International
Olympic Committee and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. In the Asian
Development Bank, Taiwan is called "Taipei, China." In
2002, Taiwan joined the World Trade Organization under the name of Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (acronym TPKM -- Penghu,
Kinmen and Matsu are offshore islets of Taiwan), and it is seeking to join the
World Health Organization under a name yet to be decided. In
countries which do not recognize Taiwan, unofficial missions use ambiguous names
like Coordination Council for North American Affairs -- as it is officially
known in the US. As
China is increasing its isolation of Taiwan in the international arena, recent
public opinion polls have shown that an increasing number Taiwanese want to
change Taiwan's formal tile from "ROC" to "Taiwan" to
reflect the nation's sovereignty and avoid ROC being mistaken for PRC by foreign
countries.
President
works to portray Taiwan as peace-lover OVERSEAS
TRIP: Analysts say the president's strategy was to delineate Taiwan as being
peaceful while visiting Central America, exemplified by the cancelation of
military drills BY
Huang Tai-lin A
message of peace could be observed as one theme characterizing President Chen
Shui-bian's recent Central American trip, according to political observers. Addressing
statements Chen made during the trip pertaining to cross-strait relations,
political columnist Hu Wen-huei said they seemed, in part, meant to construct
Taiwan's image as "a peace-lover." Hu
was referring to events such as Chen's decision to cancel the nation's annual
live-fire military drill. Shortly
after departing Taipei for Hawaii en route to Panama last Monday, Chen announced
the decision to call off the nation's Han Kuang military drill in the wake of
media reports that China had apparently canceled its military exercises on
Dongshan Island after withdrawing some 3,000 troops. Chen
then stated that "regardless of what China's true intention is, Taiwan
definitely fosters goodwill and is sincere in pursuing cross-strait cooperation
based on the principle of peace." The
announcement was welcomed by the US, with Chairman of the American Institute in
Taiwan William Brown commending the decision as "a gesture of great
goodwill." The
announcement won praise in some corners. The Seattle Post Intelligencer,
published an editorial on Friday coinciding with Chen's stopover in Seattle en
route to Taipei from Belize, recognizing Chen's cancelation. "The
political skills President Chen has demonstrated at home could be a strong asset
if consistently applied to rebuilding a calmer relationship with China,"
the editorial said. Hu
saw the recognition as positive. "Taiwan rarely has room to make its voice
heard on the world stage," Hu said. "To
make the [same] announcements or other remarks Chen made during the trip
domestically in Taiwan, would probably have turned into another war of words
traded between politicians of different parties," Hu said. "By
instead making these statements during a trip abroad, [the president] aimed to
grab the international media's attention." The
bigger message in Chen's rhetoric however "is aimed at reassuring the US,
that Taiwan does not mean to be the one to incite tension across the
Strait," Hu said. After
visiting the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor during a brief stopover in Hawaii
on the way to Panama, Chen, noting that the US and Japan, although foes 50 years
ago, are now partners. He stated: "why must Beijing go against Taiwan's 23
million people, who are of the same ethnic origin, and disturb cross-strait
peace?" During
a one-day stay in Belize, Chen turned the focus to China, saying, "[its]
intention to enact a unification law is an attempt to destroy the Taiwan
Strait's peaceful status quo. "The
US' Taiwan Relations Act safeguards peace across the Taiwan Strait while China's
intended unification law undermines the Strait's peaceful status quo." The
unification law was first mentioned by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a visit
to Europe in May. Wen
said China was considering writing a unification law which would serve as the
legal basis for using military force against what China views as separatist
movements. While
observers such as Hu noted that the Chen's remarks appeared aimed at building
Taiwan's image as peaceful, Chiu Hei-yuan, a sociology professor at National
Taiwan University disagreed. Chiu
said that Chen's rhetoric offered no substantial help in ameliorating the
cross-strait situation. "While
Chen, in choosing to make these statements in an international setting did, of
course, help to construct Taiwan's image as a peace-seeker; what he said,
however, does not help improve cross-strait relations," Chiu said. According
to Chiu, Chen, by citing the example of the US and Japan becoming partners now
and fingering Beijing for remaining unfriendly, "ended up provoking China
instead." "As
a leader, Chen of course shoulders the responsibility to safeguard cross-strait
peace," Chiu said. "However,
to China ... Chen's remarks are more likely to be seen as a provocation and
they'll likely take [Chen's rhetoric] as finger-pointing, that, you, China are
bad," Chiu said. Chen should instead aim to make statements in a way that
will build a sense of empathy from people on the other side of the Strait, Chiu
said.
Judge
parties by their nominations Having
experienced the chaos following the presidential election, people in Taiwan are
preparing for the legislative elections in December. Political parties from both
the pan-blue and pan-green camps are striving to win a majority in the
legislature and are using this goal as their campaign theme. The
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has said that only a pan-green majority in
the legislature would allow President Chen Shui-bian's government to be more
effective. The pan-blue camp aims for the same goal, arguing that the Chinese
Nationalist Party's (KMT) current majority is the only obstacle preventing the
Chen administration from acting in an arbitrary and tyrannical manner. The
appeals offered by both sides seem reasonable and normal. But the real question
is this: Among these various appeals, how can voters identify the parties which
actually do what they promise to, and those which only employ lofty slogans to
gain power for a few? With
the legislative elections less than 100 days away, the nation's political
parties are bolstering their election campaigns. It is also time for political
parties to start putting on all kinds of shows to polish their image and
platforms. Those who care about the legislative elections should pay attention
to the lists of legislator-at-large nominations recently disclosed by the media.
The lists provide a good way to assess the sincerity of the parties' promises of
political reform. The
legislator-at-large nominations embody a party's image, while the hard-fought
electoral districts test the party's capabilities. In other words, if a party
does not care about its image and treats the legislator-at-large nominations as
a mechanism to remunerate benefactors or settle internal party conflicts, then
this kind of party does not deserve public support. Judged
on this basis, the KMT's legislator-at-large nominations are disappointing,
because they are all KMT Chairman Lien Chan's people -- if not actually his
disciples, then at least members of the KMT aristocracy. Hopefully the KMT will
be able to come up with a list which is not as narrow in its selection and
offers a few surprises. As
for the People First Party (PFP), its nominations are characterized by a
recruitment of academics, including people such as economist Liu Yi-ju. But the
PFP might also nominate some of the people who participated in the Peaceful
Unification of China seminar held in Hong Kong last month, which was attended by
the likes of Hsu Hsing-liang and Liang Su-rong, a former legislative speaker and
a KMT old-guard stalwart. The PFP should really be much more clear about whether
it wants to select people to build up Taiwan, or those eager to promote its
assimilation by China. As
for the pan-green camp, not that many of its nominees have been made public. But
if they are going to push through the constitutional amendments or
re-engineering that they have been proposed, both the DPP and the Taiwan
Solidarity Union should nominate people with legal and administrative expertise.
They must definitely avoid a recurrence of the criticism that they use
legislator-at-large nominations to buy over rival politicians, bring in sponsors
or remedy factional disputes. Mainstream
public opinion seems to favor political reform in the coming legislative
elections. Whichever party can meet this demand is the one that will come out on
top. People who are concerned about Taiwan's politics should analyse the
soon-to-be released list of nominees presented by each of the parties and reject
those parties that seek to win votes through pretense and deceit.
Taiwan
needs ethical media, not paparazzi By
Lin Chao-chen Each
time the media hypes up another piece of gossip, I try to picture the reporter
behind the story. The more intense the competition, the shakier I think the
position of reporters is. Reporters can cheat other people, but they can't cheat
themselves. We
are all well aware of the line between watchdog for the public and a voyeuristic
paparazzi-style journalism. Although
"watchdog" and "paparazzi-style" reporting both are
metaphors for the reporter's role in society, they represent two extremely
different functions. For
a long time, the watchdogs, playing a supervisory and critical role, have been
the ones trusted by the public, while the paparazzi-style reporters are
condemned for invading people's privacy and destroying moral decency. But in
Taiwan today, these two concepts are becoming mixed up. The
paparazzi-style reporters and the sensationalist media they represent are
appreciated for their constant readiness to reveal any information they find. The
watchdogs, on the other hand, offer balanced news stories, but are increasingly
considered to be too cautious and are therefore coming under the threat of
extinction. The
rise of the paparazzi-style journalist is closely connected to the evolving
attitudes in Taiwanese society. Both the watchdog and the paparazzi cover
muckraking politics, but the paparazzi never worry about getting their hands
dirty. They focus on the public's dislike of the system, and even though they
understand the social importance of our institutions, they do not want to waste
space on boring stuff like balanced reporting. Exposing the personal lives of
famous people satisfies the voyeurism of their audiences disappointed with their
own lives. Given these extraordinary effects, media ethics standards, not to
mention social decency, are under threat. While
the watchdogs have to follow certain rules and conventions associated with
ethics and balanced journalism, the paparazzi aren't afraid of harassing people
and causing a ruckus. They are constantly involved in lawsuits and are not
afraid of being sued. Few sensationalist media outlets are intimidated by the
threat of lawsuits, however, because the reserve funds set aside for settling
such lawsuits are dwarfed by their rising profits. It
has become difficult for the untrained eye to differentiate between balanced and
sensational journalism. The latter will occasionally act in the same manner as
the former (such as attempting to expose corruption), and often they do a better
job than watchdog reporters. But
if the watchdogs were to learn from the paparazzi-style reporters, no one would
be happier than our politicians, because they care only about the media
spotlight, and what the media ignores, politicians will ignore too. But
thorough and truthful journalism has had its victories. The watchdogs in Japan's
media have been successful in bringing down prominent political figures. The
early Japanese political magazine Bungei Shunju revealed the details of
Tanaka Kakuei's money politics, forcing him to step down. The Asahi Shinbun
revealed that Noboru Takeshita had accepted illegal political donations, leading
to his resignation after six months of reporting by that paper. Yet another
Japanese magazine, the Truth of the Rumor, reported that Yoshiro Mori had
been arrested for frequenting prostitutes during his college years. These
examples of reporting scandals among top leaders highlight the valuable role the
watchdogs play. Past
US presidents, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, have also been the targets of
muckraking media. In the Watergate scandal, the reporters changed history --
Nixon had to resign, and two Washington Post reporters won far-reaching
fame. But later, with Clinton, the reporters only found Monica Lewinsky, and
although it was a juicy scandal, Clinton survived the scandal and no one
remembers the names of the reporters who broke the story. The
choice between a watchdog or a paparazzo is a choice between two different kinds
of journalism. But as far as reporters go, being a watchdog is a lonely
occupation. The goal of the paparazzi is seduction, and that of the watchdogs to
be on guard. A seductress or a guard -- which sounds more attractive to you? Lin
Chao-chen is a senior journalist.
Taiwanese
should not fear Beijing leaders' lies By
Cao Chang-ching Despite
being both president and party chairman, Hu's power is power in name only. The
real power is still wielded by the 78-year-old Jiang. Hu,
in an attempt to secure his own authority, has been concentrating on reform,
curtailing corruption and greedy officials, economic development and advocating
a "peaceful rise" for China. This, he hopes, will win him the support
of intellectuals, as well as the more progressive elements within the party. Jiang,
in response to Hu's rising popularity, is playing the Taiwan card, concentrating
on preventing Taiwanese indepen-dence, which for him means a military build-up.
He is drumming up the support of the military by emphasizing the need to take an
active role in the Taiwan Strait. This strategy forms the political background
to reports in Beijing-friendly Hong Kong media saying that Jiang envisages a
conclusion to the Taiwan question by 2020. Hu's
counter-strategy to win the backing of the military, is to lay his own Taiwan
card on the table. His rhetoric toward Taiwan is getting tougher and he also
gave his support to the Unification Law. This is all geared to leveling the
playing field with Jiang. Their
tougher stances on the Taiwan issue are directly related to the plenary meeting.
It has more to do with their own power struggle than with Taiwan itself. It is
just for show and should not be taken as indicative of major changes in their
Taiwan strategy. Many
people in Taiwan, unaware of the political background behind the power struggles
in Beijing, are concerned about the strong words being bandied about. There are
also some, in particular those who favor unification, who are acting as
cheerleaders for Beijing, adding fuel to the fire of the tough rhetoric and
putting obstacles in the way of progress toward a new constitution and the
rectification of Taiwan's name. In
actual fact, Beijing has its hands tied on taking military action against
Taiwan, in terms of both internal factors and the current international climate.
Jiang and Hu's political lies have not only taken in their own citizens, but
also some Taiwanese. If we can just see through these, strengthen our own sense
of identity and drive toward independence and autonomy, Beijing will have to
give up its fantasy and Taiwan will be in a safer position for it. Cao
Chang-ching is a freelance journalist based in the US.
Pan-blues
trampling on democracy By
Chiou Chwei-liang
A
fundamental principle of politics is Lord Acton's statement that "power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In order to prevent the
corruption of power, there must be a separation of powers and a
check-and-balance mechanism. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches
(and in Taiwan, the Control and Examination Yuans as well) have powers that are
clearly separated and check one another. The theory is simple, clear and
indisputable. After
the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) lost the
presidential election in March, they were unable to admit defeat and took to the
streets to march and protest. Their rage was further ignited after an
unsuccessful attempt to overturn the results of the presidential election. On
Aug. 24 the pan-blue camp took refuge in the legislature -- where they have a
slim majority -- and passed a bill to create a "March 19 Shooting Truth
Investigation Special Committee", disregarding the opposition from the
public and the ruling party. The
passage of the politically motivated special committee completely violates the
separation of powers. If the Cabinet's reconsideration request of the statute is
rejected by the legislature and a constitutional interpretation by the Council
of Grand Justices also fails to overturn the statute, the country will enter a
severe constitutional crisis -- and possibly even the end of democratic politics
in Taiwan. This is not sensationalism to produce public unrest, but rather a
possible reality. Many
academics specializing in constitutional affairs have pointed out that the
statute conflicts with the Constitution. The most vigorously criticized parts of
the bill appear in Article 8 and 13. Article 8 of the statute states that the
Committee, in the execution of its powers, is not limited by the Law of National
Secrets Protection, Trade Secrets Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, and other
laws. Article
13 of the statute says: "If the conclusions of this committee run counter
to the facts found in a confirmed court ruling, this would serve as grounds for
a retrial." According
to the Constitution, Article 77 states: "The Judicial Yuan (hereinafter
referred to as the Judiciary) shall be the highest judicial organ of the State
in charge of the trial of civil, criminal and administrative cases, and
imposition of disciplinary measures against public functionaries," and
Article 78 says: "The Judiciary shall interpret the Constitution and shall
have the authority to unify the interpretation of laws and orders." The
Judicial Yuan is the highest judicial body in the nation. Based on the principle
of the separation of powers, is it justifiable to have a statute like Article
13? It obviously usurps the powers of the Judicial Yuan. Furthermore,
the statute clearly has an impact on several regulations of the
"prosecution unity principle." Article 13 of the statute strongly
challenges, or even exploits, the fifth revision of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that bolsters the rights and powers of legislative bodies. Given all
this, there is little doubt that the committee will trample on the judiciary. One
scholar concludes that the committee obviously has powers that surpass that of
the president, minister of justice, state public prosecutor-general and chief
prosecutor. According to the current judicial system, a district prosecutor not
only has the power to summon the president for a case inquiry, but also has the
right to investigate a crime committed by a minister of justice. The special
committee's power to command district prosecutors and initiate indictments
should be regarded as the real judicial monster. Also,
Article 15 states that the commissioners of the committee should be appointed by
the president; if they are not, the appointments automatically come into effect.
This obviously usurps the president's power of appointment. And with regard to
the funding of the committee, the statute violates the government's
constitutional budget power, and this is boldly defiant of the executive powers.
PFP
legislator Lee Ching-hua made some bold statements, saying that now is an
extraordinary time, and therefore we need an extraordinary law. But all
constitutions in democratic countries say that only the president or the prime
minister has the right to announce emergency orders or declare martial law, and
only in critical situations. The
pan-blue-dominated committee does not even take into account the government's
supervisory powers. In Article 4, the statute mentioned that the committee does
not accept other government bodies' control and supervision, which pushes the
powers of the committee to a higher level. A
well-known political commentator pointed out that the committee's recision of
administrative, supervisory, inspection and judicial powers means centralizing
powers to itself. What else could the statute be, if not an emergency law? On
top of that, the committee incessantly threatens both individuals and groups to
get them to accept this law. Article
8, Section 6 of the statute states that besides overriding national, business
and investigative laws, appeals for personal privacy or any other reasons given
for evading, delaying or refusing to appear for explanations and assistance are
not allowed. In other words, pan-blue supporters of the statute are like
fascists, who allow no right for people to remain silent and no right to
privacy. A
proverb often heard after the presidential election was: "When God wants to
destroy a person, he first drives that person insane." The pan-blue leaders
are blinded by their drive to seize power -- which is gradually warping their
minds, spirits and senses to a degree of insanity. Their disregard for
fundamental principles of democratic politics, and the cynical exploitation of
their legislative majority to pass this statute, is a sign of the end of their
political careers. It
is disappointing and worrisome to see Taiwan's democracy trampled on by these
pan-blue legislators. Chiou
Chwei-liang is a visiting professor in the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asia
Studies at Tamkang University.
|
|
|
