It's time to enact the Taiwanese will on Dec 21, 2004

It's time to enact the popular will in Taiwan

The Taiwanese public have had enough of infighting, backstabbing, sermonizing and filibustering. It's time to join hands and work for the betterment of the nation and all its people

By Lee Chang-kuei

 On Dec. 11, a fierce campaign by Taiwan's four major political parties for a majority in the Legislative Yuan ended. The popular will spoke thus: Of the 225 seats available, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) garnered 89 seats, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) 79 seats, the People's First Party (PFP) 34 seats, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) 12 seats, the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union six seats, independent candidates four seats, and the New Party one seat.

No single party holds a legislative majority. The DPP is still the biggest party, the KMT the second biggest, the PFP the third and the TSU the fourth.

The decision of the people surpasses all else in importance and must be respected. In the absence of a legislative majority for any single party, the government will have to work with either the third or the fourth-largest party to be able to implement policy. The parties can no longer disobey the public's hope for social stability and a harmonious and joyful nation; cooperation and new alliances are essential.

The distribution of seats in the new legislature is almost identical to that elected in 2001. The ranking of political parties in terms of numbers of seats gained is also unchanged: The DPP gained only two seats and the KMT 11, while the PFP lost 12 and the TSU one. The pan-green and pan-blue camps respectively hold 101 and 114 seats.

The dividing line between the two camps is ideologically based. The pan-green and pan-blue camps have polarized and divided to such an extent that the election was reduced to a battle between two different political ideologies. Democratic countries should not play such a zero-sum game on the basis of political ideology so that there is nothing but rivalry between the pan-green and pan-blue camps. The people of this country should not be distinguished and categorized as either "green" or "blue."

`Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the people of Taiwan have elected their own president and legislature. People, territory and sovereignty -- the three requirements for statehood have all been met.'

The government and opposition parties must not cling to the Machiavellian mentality and concepts of the past. No political party should subsume the popular will. An authoritarian regime has no concept of popular will, while the party, nationalism and other ideological elements are its tools for exercising political power.

The strategies of the pan-green and pan-blue camps were designed to manipulate the will of the people in furthering the interests of the parties -- namely to hold a majority of the seats in the Legislative Yuan.

Manipulative practices must be abandoned, and political parties must not resemble a "crusade-style dictatorship." Political power should not have to be obtained through vote allocation, vote buying or deception. Those who engage in such practices have little respect for the fundamental principles of a political democracy.

Political democracy is about securing a legislative majority through alliances. The merger of two major political parties will give rise to a system of superficial democracy, which engenders disrespect for the minority. Even more importantly, the diversity of the collective social consciousness may also be injured.

Political democracy is about sharing power and distributing power based on the mandate of the popular will. Power must be accompanied by responsibility. Those in power must promise to strive for a harmonious society in which everyone can enjoy happy and prosperous lives. If a small number of politicians treat the diversified popular will as mere tools of their ambition, this will destroy political democracy.

In this election, both the pan-green and the pan-blue camps made the same mistake -- seeking the support of the popular will to destroy the other camp, thus giving the party priority over the country. They sought to exterminate the competition in a zero-sum game. It must never be forgotten that the power of political regimes derives from the popular will, which is the basis and foundation of political power. Political parties and politicians must never prevail over constitutional government and the legal system.

A closer analysis of this election's problems and the reforms needed to rectify them are the only way to kick-start a campaign of hope for the country. It is a political reality that Taiwan exists independently of China. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the people of Taiwan have elected their own president and legislature. People, territory and sovereignty -- the three requirements for statehood have all been met.

Both the pan-green and pan-blue camps provide some level of consensus supporting this sovereignty. In order to safeguard these precious accomplishments, both camps must carefully scrutinize their roles in this election. There must no longer be Leninist-style political parties in this country. This is the only way in which political democracy can be meaningful to the people of Taiwan.

Voters were less than enthusiastic about voting this time. Less than 59 percent voted, far less than the more than 80 percent in March's presidential election. People have seen for themselves the problems with the legislature -- which has long been deemed by 20 percent or so of voters who are moderate, as well as members of the business and academic sectors, as the root of many problems.

Many people have also realized that party politics in Taiwan has failed to make any constructive contribution to political democracy. "Stop the chaos" -- that is the common hope of everyone.

All political parties must ask themselves this: Taiwan is already an independent sovereign country, so how can China claim that Taiwan is part of it? Some authoritative sources say it isn't that the UN doesn't want to accept Taiwan, but rather that the people of Taiwan are still divided in terms of their national identification.

So the political parties must ask themselves: Why is the voter turnout rate less than 60 percent in this election and why are 20 percent of voters -- the moderates -- so indifferent? What campaign platforms have been pitched during the campaign to interest these voters?

The time has arrived for the parties to reinvent themselves. They should no longer be spearheaded by ideology or party interests. Instead, they must look to the people and find out what the people really want.

One reason that elections in Taiwan are so chaotic is because those running them are often also the umpires. This is the way things were done during the KMT era.

The DPP has followed this model. The president is the president of all the people, so he or she must not also serve as the leader of his or her party. Political parties must be liberated and transformed from being mere election machinery.

President Chen Shui-bian resigned as DPP chairman after the election. This is a praiseworthy show of political accountability. It is not the norm in a political democracy to be able to see a clear line between political parties and the government. Otherwise, autocratic parties will appear again, a situation which would only harm political democracy here.

Since 2000, and especially during the campaigns for the presidency and the legislature, Taiwan has been subjected to repeated warnings by the US to maintain the "status quo." The US appears to have tactfully conceded to the independent existence of Taiwan outside of China in drafting the Taiwan Relations Act.

The framework for cross-strait peaceful co-existence was established long ago. China cannot use force against Taiwan, and Taiwan cannot unilaterally change the status quo. This is the tacit understanding on which a stable cross-strait relationship relies.

When the Legislative Yuan passed amendments to Articles One, Two, Four, Five and Eight of the Constitution as well as introducing Article 12, a consensus between the pan-blue and pan-green camps that Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu are this country's territory was confirmed.

The amendment of the Constitution, unanimously approved by the Legislative Yuan, was a declaration to China that popular will decided that Taiwan was not part of China. Taiwan has existed independently of China for 55 years. Neither China nor the US objected to these amendments. Neither thought that the "status quo" had been changed. Taiwan declared its sovereignty to the world.

The Dec. 11 elections produced a legislature very similar to the one decided in 2001. This demonstrates that the public longs for stability.

For the remainder of his presidency, Chen should follow the spirit of the constitutional amendments approved by the Legislative Yuan to engage in policy implementation, facilitate ethnic harmony and help the KMT correct its black-gold nature, so that KMT lawmakers are able to carry out their government-monitoring duties as the largest opposition party. All political parties should work together and strive for ethnic harmony.

As for the campaign to correct Taiwan's national title and draft a new constitution, this is a job best left for the TSU. The ruling party should meddle no longer. The re-organization of the government must proceed as soon as possible. Efforts must be made to communicate with other countries to show the real face of "one China" -- a face which should exclude Taiwan.

Polls here have shown that while 76 percent of respondents believe they are Taiwanese, only 18 percent believe they are both Taiwanese and Chinese; a mere 4 percent believe they are Chinese. The national identification of Taiwan has been confirmed. The US policy of an ambiguous "one China" must be changed. Since 1949, the PRC has never ruled Taiwan -- neither in law nor in fact.

Australia's dollar diplomacy

I am writing in response to the recent developments in Vanuatu and previous comments made by Wayne Kerr (Letters. Dec. 9, page 8) about Australia's South Pacific foreign policy and his comments about Taiwan taking advantage of instability in Vanuatu. Kerr's comments imply that Australia is benevolent and the others -- Taiwan and Vanuatu -- have been mischievous. He doesn't condemn China. I think that when it comes to Beijing/Canberra relations, Kerr is indeed being naive.

Australia would have definitely been contacted by Beijing and pressured to react. It seems to me that they did react but under a different pretext of hegemonic saber-rattling, and also, because of the timing, placated China by maintaining their "one China" policy.

Furthermore, what Australia may view as corruption and bad governance in Vanuatu may be seen as the contrary in Vanuatu. Vanuatu is traditionally a chiefdom employing the gift-exchange economy. Giving gifts is common in this region. Kinship corporations exist in which family members are strategically placed in positions in the bureaucracy and employed overseas, the latter bringing in much needed remittance payments that maintain the well-being of those back home in rural communities where the nuclear family exists.

Australia, the US and China are opposed to this informal system of economics, and since these people are on the periphery of the modern world system they are marginalized. To develop according to "modern" standards, the Australian government has been providing aid to them. Aid money becomes expected. They tend to rely too much on it and accept it as natural because it is no longer embarrassing for them. When the prospect of more aid arrives, it is likely that they will accept.

Taiwan has been lobbying Oceanic nations for years -- it is not the result of being opportunistic but the fact that Taiwan is moving toward nationhood. Taiwan would make a significant contribution to Vanuatu's social and economic well-being -- if allowed.

The South Pacific trend of accepting Taiwan into the world community shouldn't be taken out of context. Vanuatu has taken a bold step, simultaneously recognizing both Taiwan and China. They are different, not underdeveloped or backwards.

The pressure both Australia and China have put on this tiny Pacific nation has further divided the government. Since most of the aid money from Australia (A$31 million, or US$23.6 million) is used for the creation of government and bureaucratic positions, threatening aid effects government and bureaucrats.

A crisis has arrived in Vanuatu because at the same time Australia has threatened to cut foreign aid, China has gotten into the government's face about Taiwan, and Taiwan has also offered aid and support to help gain more recognition.

In Taiwan's defense, it is acting in a bid to become accepted by the world community and is familiar with this critical situation. Vanuatu is acting in its own national interest looking for more revenue. It is Taiwan and Vanuatu that are extending friendly relations to one another.

Australia and China are trying to persuade the Vanuatu government to make domestic decisions in accord with Canberra and the new hegemon in the region, Beijing. Australia's course of action always follows the "one China" policy and Australia's threats against Vanuatu will have gained much merit with China and this is important for Australia, regardless of its relationship with Europe.

The Australian government is using the same calculating tactics with Vanuatu that China uses with nations that attempt to have relations with Taiwan. For example, the Australian government has called on Vanuatu to give a series of assurances about its commitment to good government and promise to accept the presence, in Port Vila, of Australian military advisers and police. Why? Vanuatu is at peace.

Additionally, the Chinese hegemony is exceptionally strong, with its "peace-loving people" believing its civilization to be "5000 years old" and encompassing power over all Chinese culture, as a form of property. Australia is only a young intermediate power.

Taiwan's self-determination struggle, I would think, is just as important as Australia's A$31 million and China's US$10 million in aid to Vanuatu. With Taiwan continuing to look for diplomatic relations in this region, and having every right to do so, I'm certain that China and, less so, Australia, will continue to try to stymie Taiwan's efforts -- China to maintain its hegemony in the Taiwan Strait and Australia, in my opinion, to flatter China but under some other pretense. My question in response to Kerr is whether Australia's commitment to the "one China" policy represents good governance?

Christian Lloyd Bell

Japan ignores China's threats over visa

NEGATIVE IMPACT: Beijing warned Tokyo that it will take unspecified action if former president Lee Teng-hui is allowed to travel to Japan, but Tokyo shrugged off the threat
By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER , WITH AGENCIES
 

Japan yesterday confirmed it will issue a visa to former president Lee Teng-hui  as stated earlier, despite China's warning of retaliation.

Chinese envoy to Japan Cheng Yonghua invited reporters to the Chinese embassy in Tokyo yesterday and told them that Beijing hoped the Japanese government would reverse the decision.

Lee may seek the support of Japanese politicians and businessmen for his Taiwanese independence agenda during his stay in Japan, the Central News Agency (CNA) quoted Cheng as saying.

"The Japanese government's decision to issue a visa to Lee will definitely have a negative impact on Japan-China relations ... Beijing may consider acts of retaliation depending on how Japan responds to its request," Cheng said.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told reporters that the Japanese government would not change its decision.

"We plan to issue a visa as scheduled," he said, without saying when.

Hosoda urged the media not to follow Lee and report on his trip, as his journey was private with no political intentions.

Tokyo had announced its decision to issue a visa to Lee last Thursday, which would allow him to travel to Japan at the end of this month. Lee filed his visa application at the Japan Interchange Association in Taipei the day after the announcement.

A spokesman for the association said in an interview yesterday that it had not yet issued a visa to Lee.

"We haven't received any instructions from our foreign ministry," he said.

The spokesman declined to answer when the visa might be issued and said he was not clear about China's warning.

"This question should be addressed to our foreign ministry in Tokyo," he said.

"Lee's trip to Japan, if successfully made, will mark an important step in the normalization of Taiwan-Japan relations," World United Formosans for Independence chairman Ng Chiau-tong (黃昭堂) said after Lee filed the application.

CNA quoted a close friend of Lee as saying that Lee will take his wife Tseng Wen-hui,granddaughter Lee Kun-yi  and daughter-in-law Chang Yue-yun with him.

Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) officials said the trip was a gauge of Taiwan-Japan relations.

Tokyo granted Lee a visa on "humanitarian grounds" in 2001 so he could receive medical treatment. This time, however, Tokyo had loosened its position and decided to allow Lee to visit for tourism purpose, the TSU officials said.

"No wonder China reacted so strongly," they added.

Illegal Chinese migrants linked to kidnapping gang

STAFF WRITER , WITH AFP 

A suspected kidnapper was shot and wounded before dawn yesterday as police raided an apartment in Taipei County in the hunt for a gang who kidnapped the owner of an air-conditioner factory, police said.

The wounded man was one of five illegal immigrants from China who allegedly had kidnapped the businessman last Wednesday. The five suspects used to work for the victim, surnamed Chen , in his factory in Lujhou, Taipei County.

After the raid, police combed the Tuzihkeng area of Gueishan Township, Taoyuan County, with the wounded suspect in tow in search of Chen. They found him frightened but unharmed.

Police arrested two women reportedly connected to kidnappers after Chen's family failed to pay a ransom last Friday.

Chen's wife was supposed to drop off a ransom of NT$6 million (US$185,185) at a specified time on a southbound train from Banciao. But the crowded train compartment made it impossible for Chen's wife to deliver the money.

The kidnappers set up a second drop for yesterday morning, by which time police had a line on the gang. They raided an apartment in Sinjhuang, Taipei County, where they shot a man who later identified himself as Zheng Xiaowen , 33. Zheng's identity has yet to be verified.

Another man, Chen Qiang , 38, was arrested during a separate pre-dawn raid in Jhungho, Taipei County.

The suspects in custody have identified three other illegal Chi-nese immigrants from Fuqing County, Fujian Province as being involved in the kidnapping, but the trio's current whereabouts are not known.

The reported mastermind behind the kidnapping, Ah Li , is still at large and police have distributed photos of him.

He is believed to be the agent who brought the others into the country and later introduced them into Chen's factory.

"This was the first ever reported kidnapping case implicating a gang of illegal Chinese immigrants," said Taipei County Bureau Commissioner Huang Mao-sui .

It is believed that disputes over inadequate salaries, aggravated by a commission exacted by Ah Li for finding work for the men, gave rise to the kidnap plot.

China cracks down on unauthorized religion

AFP , BEIJING
New rules on religious affairs in China will not lead to more freedoms and instead could signal a tougher time for underground churches and groups not officially sanctioned, analysts said yesterday.

The regulations, to take effect on March 1, were made public Sunday by official media which said they were to safeguard religious freedom and human rights.

But the main tone of the regulations has not changed -- they still stress the overruling importance of state interests over religious affairs.

"Religious bodies, activities and believers should abide by the Constitution, laws and regulations to safeguard national unity, racial harmony and social stability," a clause says.

Analysts said the rules, which protect only the legal rights of state-sanctioned religious groups, meant non-state-sanctioned ones such as Christian house churches or other religious sects would be worse off.

"It is a two-edged sword," said Chan Kim-kwong, a China expert at the Hong Kong Christian Council. "In terms of implementation, it is now clear what they should supervise, or what they shouldn't bother with."

Under the clearer regulations, there would be less room for maneuver for individual groups not registered with the state -- as in the often ambiguous rules of the past, he said.

"For those which are not registered, Chinese government's dismissal of them in terms of banning or punishment will be stepped up," he said.

"These groups will have even less room for survival. When the grey areas have gone and if you're not registered, you won't be in the game anymore," he said.

China, largely atheist, officially sanctions five religious groups: Protestant and Catholic Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Taoism.

Chinese are allowed to worship only in state-sanctioned churches and temples and authorities regularly crack down on groups outside of the government's control, shutting underground house churches and arresting practitioners.

The new regulations clarify the areas of supervisory responsibility of various government departments and the sorts of religious activities, projects and publications that should come under state control.

Nicolas Becquelin, research director of Human Rights in China, said it indicated a stepping up of the supervision of religions.

"We're still talking about a socialist atheist state with the dominant ideology that religion is a bad thing," he said. "But over the past 20 years the state has moved from trying to stamp out religion to trying to manage it."

He noted that the rules still required religious groups to register with the state -- a de-facto approval process which has barred myriad groups from being recognized as legal religious entities.