Organization commends Taiwan's `level of freedom'

By Nadia Tsao

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

The Vice Chairman of Freedom House yesterday hailed Taiwan's democracy and said that Taiwan should feel proud of its democratic achievements.

"Taiwanese should not feel depressed at the tumultuous situation in the pursuit of democracy, for Taiwan has actually achieved the highest level of freedom," said Mark Palmer, a former US Ambassador to Hungary, in a recent interview with the Liberty Times, sister newspaper of the Taipei Times. Palmer said Taiwanese should seek to educate the Chinese on how to pursue democracy so that the autocratic regime in China could be eradicated by 2025.

Palmer currently serves as the vice chairman of Freedom House, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization aiming to advance worldwide expansion of political and economic freedom.

According to the organization's 2006 Freedom in the World global survey, Taiwan received the highest rating of "1" in the categories of political rights and civil liberties.

Speaking of cross-strait issues, Palmer suggested that both sides of the Strait should not touch on the issue of unification until both have embraced the principle of democracy. He added that Asian countries should form a democratic alliance to urge Asian nations to pursue democracy and Taiwan should at least be an observer at the meetings of such an alliance, for it is one of the few nations in Asia willing to promote democracy.

Palmer said foreign investors together with the Chinese people should press Beijing to practice democracy and uphold human rights. For example, they should ask the Chinese government to lay out a timetable for elections at different levels of government. Although China has made progress in recent years, the attitude of its leadership remains unchanged, Palmer said, adding that it is its people who have demonstrated the will to reform the nation.

In 2003, Palmer proposed in his book, Breaking the Real Axis of Evil, that democratic nations should take action to oust the world's last 45 dictators by 2025. Such a proposition was once a topic of heated debate among top politicians and academics in the US.

China criticizes US for meddling in Hong Kong

REUTERS, SHANGHAI

China has accused the US of interfering in its internal affairs, criticizing it for comments calling for Hong Kong to speed up political reforms and allow direct elections.

`Affairs concerning Hong Kong ... are China's internal affairs, leaving no room for foreign interference," the official Xinhua news agency late on Friday quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gig as saying.

"The US side has once and again made rash comments on Hong Kong affairs for quite a period of time, violating the principle of noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs," ha said.

The remarks came after a US state department spokesman reiterated earlier comments from Washington calling for an early timetable for Hong Kong to adopt universal suffrage.

Hong Kong also put out its own response that appeared directed at the comments from Washington.

"We would not wish any foreign governments to give the impression that they were meddling in Hong Kong’s affairs," the Hong Kong government said in a statement on Friday.

Earlier this week, pro democracy lawmakers in Hong Kong voted against a controversial election reform package, dealing a blow to the city's leader, Donald Tsang, who argued that the package was a major step toward democracy.

China regularly defends its right to determine affairs in Hong Kong and neighboring Macau, former colonies that have since been returned to China.

`Soft coup' verdict not helpful

President Chen Shui-bian seems to be having a run of bad luck. First, there was the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) defeat in the recent local government elections.

Then there was the major fall-out between him and Vice President Annette Lu after Lu took over the position of acting chairman of the DPP.

Then last week, Chen was found guilty of libel by a district court for his remark that former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong had tried to instigate a so-called "soft coup" after last year's presidential election.

The verdict issued against Chen is controversial. Many would agree that extending legal immunity to a national leader for criminal offenses but not for civil offences has some fundamental problems. If a choice must be made, one would think that immunity should be given for the latter, not the former.

Presumably only criminal conduct is serious enough to warrant slapping the nation's leader with lawsuits and investigations during his term. For example, in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has immunity from civil cases seeking damages for all actions remotely related to his official duties.

Certainly, in the case at hand, Chen's remarks would have a good chance of falling within that definition.

In particular, the court's verdict orders Chen to pay damages of N$1 each to Soong and Lien and publish apologies to them in major national newspapers. One cannot help but wonder about the wisdom of ordering the nation's leader to make a spectacle of himself in this way.

All of the nation's politicians should be ashamed of themselves for the irresponsible mudslinging tactics they resort to on a regular basis -- including Chen himself. However, in the case at hand, were Chen's remarks so farfetched that they warrant this kind of public bashing of his credibility and authority? How can anyone forget the anxiety and worry that the entire country felt about the security and safety of the government in the wake of the demonstrations after the presidential election -- the violence, the rumors and the whispers?

Furthermore, if Chen complies with the court order, will he ever be able to speak with credibility as the nation's leader again? Is that good or bad for the country? Even if one assumes that he was guilty, that does not disqualify him from finishing his term. However, how effective will he be in that role if he complies with the court order? Is the punishment too harsh? Perhaps this is the reason some countries grant their leaders immunity from civil damages and liability.

In addition, Chen's remarks pale in comparison to the accusations and allegations made by Lien, Soong, and pan-blue leaders after the last presidential elections, and during the wild goose chase and witch hunt for evidence to prove that the Chen administration was guilty of ballot-tampering and faking an assassination attempt.

Nothing was ever turned up. Lien and Soong certainly owe Chen and the citizens of this country an apology. When is that going to happen?

No one denies that Chen has a lot of work to do in the days to come -- including internal party reforms and exercising more caution over what he says. However, this verdict is the wrong way to address his shortcomings.

DPP must avoid cosmetic reform

By Chang Teng-ghi

History textbooks used during the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) authoritarian period smeared the then opposition Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) image by labeling it an "enemy" of the state. But today, following the gradual unfolding of localization reforms, publications from Academia Historica and history textbooks affirm the past efforts of senior DPP members, and prove that moves by the KMT government to tarnish the DPP's image only succeeded in tainting the KMT itself.

But the DPP's hard-earned halo, and the public trust the party built up over past decades has faced unprecedented challenges since the DPP came to power. Former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung, one of the pillars of the DPP's development, even admonished DPP members, using the term "falling apart" to describe the party's condition after its defeat in the recent local government elections.

The DPP's place in history is based on three major contributions: clean politics, democracy and national independence. These were the core values the party emphasized to impress the public. I think that the reason behind the DPP's current crisis is the decay of these three core values. Therefore, the party should not try to deal with the problem simply by moving to cement its hold on power and reshuffling key party figures. Instead, the right approach is to seek some kind of historical rebirth and revitalization.

During the dangwai (outside the KMT) period, future DPP members won public support because they took the initiative to criticize KMT corruption.

The DPP had a two-fold approach, tackling issues either through the grassroots activism of laborers and farmers, or from the perspective of the law. They revealed the symbiotic relationship between the KMT's monopoly on power and the corruption of factions and regional interests. Given the public's quest for clean politics, the DPP's legitimacy was secured. This is the source of the powerful legacy left by the DPP's governance in Ilan County. Throughout its development, the DPP has scored highest in the area of clean government.

But since the DPP became a ruling party in 2000, corruption has emerged in party elections, local politics and the central government's civil service. The problem has reached the point that even top-ranking central government officials have become suspects in corruption scandals. How can this situation not be deplored by the party's supporters?

The DPP was established on the basis of clean politics, but its most valuable asset has been its insistence on democracy.

The KMT government, using the excuse of the Cold War, created a spurious democracy and initiated a system of government through harsh repression.

As a result, there was a wide disparity in the right to participate in politics between new Mainlander immigrants and earlier immigrants, which went against the principle of ethnic equality and openly violated the Constitution. The early dangwai democracy movement advanced based on the expectation that it would promote equal political participation by different ethnic groups. The dangwai political activists used their democratic ideology as a weapon to gradually win over not only grassroots supporters, but also members of certain KMT factions. This culminated in the DPP taking power in 2000.

But, the DPP gradually lost its position of strength, and the reasons for this can be summarized as follows.

First, the DPP developed a culture of paternalism, which was the result of competition for positions at the senior levels of the party. This has caused party members to fear internal criticism and has prevented dissenting views being aired within the party. As a result, innovation has degenerated into developing new electoral tactics. The only way the DPP can maintain a clean reputation to purge corrupt elements.

Second, the DPP's performance in promoting democracy and human rights has fallen short. The DPP government has flip-flopped on Taiwan's national status and constitutional legitimacy, and public suspicions have arisen about the government's ability to make and establish policies that are constitutional.

But, the DPP government tends to use excuses, such as being overwhelmed by outside pressure, to explain its poor performance. It has failed to bring its actions in military and media affairs to a conclusion, and amid the frustration, high-ranking DPP officials have gotten into the habit of resorting to verbal abuse.

Safeguarding Taiwan consciousness and sovereignty is another ideology to which the DPP adheres. That many traditional supporters have continued to tolerate the DPP's backpedaling on these issues is often because they have no other party to turn to other than the "foreign" KMT, which they do not trust. This was the only reason the DPP was able to attract 40 percent of the votes in the recent local government elections.

Given the trend toward economic globalization, regional integration in the Asia-Pacific and cross-strait interdependence, Taiwan is now in a predicament. It is being used by its diplomatic allies for financial aid, pressured by businesses, faces a widening rich-poor gap and remains threatened by Beijing. No matter how hard the government tries to maintain Taiwan's remaining diplomatic ties, pushes to become a UN member country and promotes desinicization, it remains unknown whether Taiwan will become a new nation with a new Constitution.

In other words, the DPP has made a mistake by using the name "independence" to obstruct the realization of actual Taiwan independence. If the DPP cannot achieve its goals, Taiwan will likely end up in a situation that nobody wants.

DPP members do not have to make a fuss about the effect of new movements within the party, since any reform movement will simply be a restoration of traditional values. If the DPP continues with the charade of merely reshuffling personnel, its defeat in the 2008 presidential election is inevitable.

Chang Teng-chi has a PhD in East Asia Studies at National Chengchi University and is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield.