School punished for taking down flag

APPEASEMENT: The MOE is investigating to see if any laws were broken after the Hsiuping Institute of Technology removed the flag for the benefit of Chinese guests

STAFF WRITER

The Ministry of Education on Friday announced administrative punishment against the the Hsiuping Institute of Technology over the removal of the national flag and a portrait of Sun Yat-sen from the venue of a graduation ceremony to please a visiting delegation from China on June 12.

Premier Frank Hsieh told Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng to launch a thorough investigation of the incident.

The ministry has already demanded that the institute review its conduct and make improvements. The school also had its reimbursement budget of NT$30 million for the last year's academic year frozen.

The ministry's initial investigation of the incident has revealed discrepancies between recorded video footage and the institute's explanations of the event.

A study of video footage of the graduation ceremony showed that there was a three to five minute delay between the end of the national anthem and the entry of the "special guests," during which time the flag and portrait of Sun were hastily removed.

The institute has been unable to give a satisfactory explanation. Also, in the application for the visit, the Chinese delegation was to participate in the graduation ceremony from 3pm on June 12. In fact, the delegation did not enter the hall until 3:10pm, after the flag and portrait had been removed.

The ministry said that the institute had failed to provide adequate evidence for the coincidental timing of the removal and the delegation's presence.

Moreover, Du Ruicheng deputy principal of the Shandong University of Technology, who headed the delegation from China, said on his departure from Taipei Friday night, that he had told members of the host institute that his delegation wished to "avoid" association with Taiwan's national flag and anthem.

This suggests that Hsiuping Institute of Technology had a prior agreement over the removal of the two national symbols. This contradicts the institute's statements that the flag was removed simply because the flag raising mechanism was inoperable, and that the removal of these symbols and the presence of the Chinese delegation was purely coincidental.

Chang Kuo-bao, head of the Technology and Vocational Education Department of the Ministry of Education, said the case now had to be handed to the Immigration Office of the National Police Agency and the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) to ascertain if there had been any violation of laws related to the visit of Chinese nationals.

If further irregularities are uncovered, Chang said that other, more severe punitive measures may be taken against the institute. This could include a moratorium on invitations to Chinese nationals for up to three years.

Tu emphasized that the ministry upheld the harsh measures being taken, saying that the removal of the national symbols as a gesture of goodwill to the visiting Chinese delegation was a negative example that could have a pernicious influence upon public perception.

The institute's chief secretary Lin Tsang-min has already resigned to take responsibility, but Tu said that consideration of the incident would not end with the resignation. The premier has demanded a study of the guidelines regulating the conduct of cross-strait exchanges to ascertain if the recent visit violated the principles of equality and mutual respect.

The MAC issued guidelines for the reception of exchange visitors from China in 1997 which state that host organizations in Taiwan should request that visitors respect the flag and Sun's portrait at event venues, and if they request that these be removed, the host organization should explain Taiwan's position on the issue and refuse to comply with their request. MAC said that the institute had clearly failed to conform to these guidelines.

Pan-blue China visits full of pitfalls

Reportedly, Beijing has extended an invitation to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong to attend a cross-party forum in China. It is widely believed that both Lien and Soong will accept the invitation. If this is true, Beijing is in the process of turning dialogue with the pan-blue opposition leaders into a routine matter. The implications of this for future cross-strait relations need to be closely examined.

One agreement reached between Chinese Communist Party chief and President Hu Jintao and Lien during their meeting last month was to establish a mechanism for party-to-party dialogue. The suggestion of a cross-party forum is obviously built on that consensus.

As with Hu's meetings with Lien and Soong, the significance of such a forum is mostly symbolic: it helps reinforce Beijing's "one China" principle. Just imagine: If representatives from all of China's political parties, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its puppet parties, congregate in one room with Lien and Soong among them, wouldn't that present an ideal opportunity for "one China" propaganda? The underlying message obviously would be that political parties in Taiwan are no different from other parties in China.

It should surprise none that President Chen Shui-bian has not received an invitation to the forum. If he did, he most certainly should not attend, because to do so would be a great insult to this country's sovereignty and dignity. However, the fact that such a forum may take place without any attempt to involve him demonstrates that Beijing's intention is to isolate Chen in cross-strait negotiations.

The "Chinese" political parties -- including the KMT and PFP -- can chat amongst themselves until their faces turn red. But the forum will remain empty talk, because the KMT and PFP are merely opposition parties in Taiwan. No substantive change in cross-strait relations can come about until Beijing speaks with the duly elected leader of Taiwan -- which happens to be President Chen. Fortunately for Taiwan, Chen isn't ready to sell out Taiwan by embracing the "one China" principle in exchange for photo opportunities and tea with Hu. And that's why Beijing doesn't invite him.

One cannot help but ask the following: If Beijing knows perfectly well that speaking with Taiwan's opposition politicians won't help resolve the immediate problems in cross-strait relations, why bother?

First and foremost, such meetings create an illusion in the international community that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are preparing to bury the hatchet. This will help ease the international pressure that China's has received for its military threats against Taiwan.

There is also the potential for "gradual unification" -- as pointed out by many commentators in Taiwan with increasing alarm. If more and more individuals, politicians and sectors within Taiwan bypass the government and willingly relegate their exchanges and contacts with the other side of the Taiwan Strait to the status of "domestic" or "internal" contacts, de facto unification may one day become a reality.

Finally, there is the issue of the messages conveyed by Taiwan's opposition to Beijing during their visits, which are closely monitored by the international community. They may speak on behalf of the segment of the Taiwanese public which supports unification -- a minority of the population, it should be pointed out. But because the pan-blue leaders' contacts with Beijing are often high profile, their pro-unification stance is amplified, creating the impression that they represent the mainstream view.

Given those dangers, pan-blue politicians should learn to behave in a more responsible manner in their contacts with Beijing.

Gradual unification a major threat

The Liberty Times Editorial

At a June 6 talk with a delegation from the Mainland Affairs Council, Heritage Foundation research fellow John Tkacik said he didn't understand what people meant by "Taiwan independence." He's even more stumped by some people's insistence that they are not pro-China but simply "oppose Taiwan independence." Tkacik thinks that last phrase sounds synonymous with "surrender," and that Taiwan should be more worried about gradual unification than so-called "gradual independence." After all, Taiwan has its own military, government, stamps and taxation system -- so as far as the US is concerned, Taiwan is already independent.

Tkacik is a US expert on cross-strait issues, and his points should be carefully considered by the government. The following analysis is presented as a reference and reminder to our fellow citizens.

In 1895 China's Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan. Japan was later defeated in World War II, surrendering in 1945. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, General Douglas MacArthur, ordered the commander of the Chinese war zone to arrive in Taiwan and Penghu to accept the surrender of the Japanese army -- but not to accept the handing over of sovereignty. In 1952, Japan ceded Taiwan under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but that treaty did not specify the recipient of Taiwan's sovereignty. From then on, under public international law, the sovereignty of Taiwan has belonged to Taiwan.

Taiwan is already an independent country. The Republic of China was just the government ordered by MacArthur to occupy and govern Taiwan. Under the circumstances, the ROC government should have held elections and adopted a new national name and government structures to reflect the fact that the sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to Taiwan, and not Japan.

But out of selfishness, the government did not so do -- a lapse which is the root of many problems still facing Taiwan. The current campaigns to rectify the national title, adopt a new constitution and revise history and geography textbooks are measures to address and remedy problems left over since that era.

No wonder people such as Tkacik do not understand what "Taiwan independence" means. "Opposing" Taiwan independence is denying the fact that Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign country, regardless of whether this country is called the Republic of China, the Republic of Taiwan or Taiwan.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) often repeat their opposition to "Taiwan independence." While their intention may be to oppose "Taiwan" or a "Republic of Taiwan," by opposing "independence" they are also opposing the "Republic of China." If the two parties oppose only the use of the names "Taiwan" and "Republic of Taiwan," and not the name "Republic of China," then a more accurate way of describing their position is that they oppose name rectification and a new constitution.

This is why Tkacik does not understand their explanation that they are not pro-China, but just oppose Taiwan independence. For the same reason, we wish that politicians from the nativization camp would avoid using political slogans such as "declaring independence and founding a new country." This is very confusing for people outside of Taiwan. After all, Taiwan is already an independent country. If people are not happy with the name or the constitution, then name rectification, amending the constitution, adopting a new constitution and a nativization campaign are the correct terms that should be used to explain the solutions being sought by Taiwanese. As for international recognition of Taiwan as an independent country, that is another question, as well as something that everyone in Taiwan must work hard to achieve.

Another reminder and caution from Tkacik is that Taiwan's biggest crisis is neither from external threats nor the misleading controversy over whether Taiwan should be "independent." Rather, the biggest danger is that the Taiwan government is falling into the trap of "gradual unification."

What is "gradual unification?" It includes the treatment of cross-strait relations as an internal affair, the acceptance of the "one China" principle within Taiwan, the so-called "gradual opening up" of investment in China and cross-strait charter flights. Some of these developments are political and some are economic, but they are closely related and reinforce each other.

On an economic level, "gradual unification" is wearing down the Taiwanese people's vigilance about the threat from China, and blurring the line between friend and foe.

Taiwanese businessmen investing in China at first felt guilty about financing the enemy. But after receiving praise and encouragement from Taiwanese officials, they became seen as pioneers seeking a way out for Taiwan's economy, and then heroes in the cause of the country's economy -- a status evident in the grand reception they receive upon arrival via direct charter flights from the other side of the Strait. After they came back, they were invited to attend large-scale banquets. Even the president attends lavish events in their honor.

It is no exaggeration to say that the entire focus of the government's policy has become China and the Taiwanese businessmen investing there. With such a narrow focus, there is obviously little time devoted to taking care of domestic investment and infrastructure. It isn't that the government machinery isn't moving. Rather, it is moving on behalf of China and Taiwanese businessmen.

For example, the total amount of investment by Taiwanese businessmen has not decreased. It's just that they now invest in China. Last year alone, the government approved as much as US$7 billion in investments in China, accounting for 2.3 percent of Taiwan's GDP. If we take into consideration the fact that foreign investment by countries such as the US and Japan makes up only about 1 percent of GDP, we should see vividly the reality of "gradual unification."

The number of Taiwanese businessmen and employees in China has reached a million. There are industries dominated by Taiwanese businessmen in both southern and central China. Now, China wants to begin organizing Taiwanese businessmen. Associations for Taiwanese businessmen in China all have people from China's Taiwan Affairs Office in key positions, completing the mechanism for exerting pressure on the Taiwan government through the business sector.

The pan-green camp's failure to win a majority of seats in last year's legislative election had nothing to do with erroneous nominations strategies or a poorly-run campaign. Rather, it had to do with the strengthening of the pan blue grassroots due to the government's "gradual unification" policy. The subsequent meeting between President Chen Shui-bian and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), Chinese President Hu Jintao's meeting with Soong and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan were all the inevitable result of this policy.

On June 13, Premier Frank Hsieh attended a banquet hosted by an association of Taiwanese businessmen during which he announced the government's new moves on cross-strait relations. He appointed the Taipei Airline Association to negotiate cross-strait cargo charter flights and the Taiwan External Trade Development Council to negotiate expanded exports of agricultural products from Taiwan to China.

The pro-unification news media may praise this for demonstrating "pragmatism," but it will further turn cross-strait affairs into domestic affairs. It also represents the normalization of the "one China" principle in Taiwan. Hsieh may have won praise from the pan-blue camp and businessmen, but his policies will push Taiwan further into economic integration and will lead the nation down the path of gradual unification.

It also proves that government policy is being controlled by Chinese officials via the Taiwanese businessmen in China. More compromise, "reconciliation" and "co-existence" of this kind will only put Taiwan in greater danger.