Deny Hu a South Lawn visit

By Vincent Wang, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

While analysts are debating the impact on US-China relations of US President George W. Bush's recent fruitless trip to China ("US, China take a step sideways," Nov. 22, page 4), it is clear that the comprehensive engagement policy, billed as the best means for bringing about greater freedoms in China, has failed to produce the desired results.

Three years after Chinese President Hu Jintao took power, China's rights conditions have worsened.

It has now dispensed altogether with symbolic releases of political dissidents timed to coincide with US dignitaries' visits.

For a US president championing a staunch freedom-expansion policy, Hu's China emerges as a determined counter-model.

Through engagement, the US gave China what it wanted to achieve its status as a major power (e.g. access to US markets and technology), but the US failed to convert China's dependence into effective leverage for changing China's behavior.

Since Hu clamors for the pomp of a South Lawn reception, the US should say that it is not interested in receiving a meaningless ceremonial visit next February unless US requests are adhered to. That will get China's attention.

We must protect our freedom

By Dai Kai-Feng, TAICHUNG

Before visiting Beijing, US President George W. Bush gave a speech in Japan urging China to emulate Taiwan, saying that modern Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society by embracing freedom at all levels. Although our democratic system deserves so much praise, I think we should do something to beef up a reliable military strength to protect the painstaking core value.

In the past few years, China has acquired state-of-the-art weaponry, such as warplanes, warships and submarines from Russia, Israel and Europe.

At the same time, both China and Russia conducted a joint military exercise, the so-called "Peace Mission 2005," and Beijing passed its "Anti-Secession" Law.

Meanwhile, our legislature hasn't managed to pass the special arms budget.

Since our army cannot procure advanced and sophisticated weapons to compete with our military opponent, both our democracy and national security could be undermined.

It is not easy for Taiwan to be a role model in Asia. All people in Taiwan must take the responsibility to demonstrate our determination to maintain our way of life as a free, democratic and prosperous country.

Stamp out inequality

By Rao Kok-Sian, MASSACHUSETTS

Many people may think that Taiwan protects human rights. In fact, this is far from the truth.

Some people have even begun to blame the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and President Chen Shui-bian for what appears to be a failure of his administration not only to rectify the crimes and misconduct of the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration, but also to educate officials such as law-enforcement personnel, prosecutors and judges. After all, these officials are the most important elements in safeguarding law and order in a democratic society.

If there is no mid-term correction, we may have a disaster in the 2008 election. The peaceful elections that have been held in Taiwan since 1996 have been praised as an example of a modern exodus from slavery under an authoritarian regime.

We all wish Taiwan will eventually be as successful in this transformation as the Jewish people had been several thousand years before. The most important element of the Jewish exodus was the introduction of law and order in a new society.

One may argue that Taiwan had law and order under the authoritarian KMT regime, but the truth was that the KMT's laws were aimed at benefiting no more than a small, elite group of party members and those associated with them.

The unequal treatment of Taiwanese residents has been a plague that took root in 1945 when the KMT took over.

Although the KMT was voted out of office in 2000 and lost last year's election, and while there have been some improvements in terms of equality and freedom of expression, equality problems have not gone away.

One recent example of this is former president Lee Teng-hui being fined NT$10 million (US$300,000) for his comment about People First Party Chairman James Soong, while nobody was punished for the pan-blue camp's slander of Lee and his families.

The searches of people's homes in Taoyuan and the confiscation of computer disks by the police before the performance of a political skit is another example, which reminds us of the White Terror under the KMT regime.

The illegal confiscation of Taiwanese national flags from private citizens at sports events by the Taipei City Government is yet another.

It is not entirely clear why senior government officials did nothing to protect citizens' right to free expression.

If the Taipei city government can strip citizens of their right to freedom of expression and get away with it, pretty soon the KMT will do it elsewhere in Taiwan.

When the government of a democratic society fails to protect its citizens by enforcing equality, law and order for all, the society will become chaotic to a point where people will accept anything but democracy.

The people's cry is clear: They want to have special treatment for the KMT elite removed. This request does not require constitutional reform; it requires education of low and middle-ranking law-enforcement personnel, including prosecutors and judges, to cultivate a nonpartisan attitude, and most importantly, the will to enforce it.

Education of and control over law enforcers are not new ideas; they are rooted in ancient times, when Moses led the Israelites out of slavery. Within two months after his people left Egypt, Moses realized the importance of law and order if he was to lead them any farther.

He took the advice of his father-in-law to train administrators of every rank to assist him in his administration. He then concentrated on the "written" law (the Ten Commandments and other edicts).

Neither Lee nor Chen could be considered a Moses, but they can emulate his ways of leading a new people.

The education and enforcement that Taiwan needs also demands that high-ranking officials should set a good example.

In the cases of the computer hacker who broke into the Presidential Office network and the telephone threats that were made on the life of Premier Frank Hsieh, both the president and premier, the nation's two highest-ranking officials, failed to allow the judicial process to take its course by making statements which may have inappropriately interfered with prosecutors' ability to enforce justice.

If the DPP administration has decided to spoil the wrongdoers, the party will soon have to face the consequences of losing the 2008 election. And that would be a tragedy for all Taiwanese. Conversely, if the DPP can eradicate unfair treatment favoring the elite, Chen will leave a powerful legacy.

KMT slogan betrays colonial past

By Lee Min-yung

With the Dec. 3 local government elections drawing near, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has vowed to emerge victorious and is using the slogan, "Winning back Taiwan."

After ditching its former rallying cries of "Retaking the Mainland" and "Liberating the compatriots in China," and losing out to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in two presidential elections, the KMT has now found a new goal and has replaced its former high-toned ideals.

We do not know yet if it was former DPP members who suggested this strategy to the KMT. In the past, the DPP loved to exclaim, "Give Taiwan a chance." Now, the KMT is regarding the country as an object which it covets. But whether the KMT wants to win back Taiwan for itself or on Beijing's behalf, the KMT still cannot shake its image as a former colonial ruler.

Is the DPP going to "lose" Taiwan now that the KMT's "Win back Taiwan" strategy is in full swing? Well, since the Dec. 3 elections have nothing to do with the future of the nation's sovereignty, the KMT's "Win back Taiwan" tactic is simply a prelude to seeking power in the 2008 presidential election.

For whom exactly is the KMT "winning back" Taiwan? Is it doing this for Beijing? The idea that it should win back Taiwan suggests that the KMT believes that Taiwan once belonged to it. In the past, no matter how desperately the DPP tried to unseat the KMT, it could only humbly turn to the slogan of "Give Taiwan a chance." By contrast, the KMT is still covetous of power.

The KMT has not yet become localized and is still boastful of its Chinese origins.

Because of its past failings, the KMT has encouraged the People's Republic of China to terminate the Republic of China. Thus, the elections in Taiwan are not a competition between different political parties, but rather a competition between Taiwan and China.

While the KMT is trumpeting its idea of "Winning back Taiwan," the DPP is now facing the possibility of losing next month's elections.

Moreover, the nation is at a crossroads in terms of whether to continue its planned reforms. Unfortunately, in failing to differentiate itself from the KMT, the DPP has disappointed the Taiwanese who have long fought for such reform.

Will the Taiwanese be willing to lose Taiwan after seeing that some of those shouting the slogan, "Win Back Taiwan," are former DPP members?

Lee Min-yung is a poet and social critic.