Cancel 228 Memorial holiday: legislator
　

WHEN IS A HOLIDAY NOT A HOLIDAY?: KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng also suggested abolishing three other national holidays designated by the previous DPP government
　

By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Feb 16, 2009, Page 1

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) yesterday said he planned to propose that the government cancel 228 Memorial Day as a holiday — a proposal that immediately met with criticism from the opposition and family members of the 228 Massacre victims.

Feb. 28 was designated as a national holiday under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1996 in remembrance of the 228 Incident in which tens of thousands of civilians were killed following the crackdown by the KMT on demonstrators and local elites after a confrontation between officials and Taipei residents on Feb. 27, 1947.

Wu told reporters yesterday that under his proposal, Feb. 28 would remain a national memorial day, but people would not be granted a day off.

Wu said, however, that the public could deliberate on the issue and that he was not against the idea of keeping Feb. 28 as a holiday.

“The point of the proposal is that there should be a law governing the nation’s memorial days and traditional holidays instead of leaving the power to decide what day constitutes a holiday entirely to a government agency [the Central Personnel Administration],” he said.

Wu also suggested that the government abolish the remembrance day status of the March 14 Anti-Aggression Day, the July 15 Lifting of Martial Law Memorial Day and the Oct. 24 Taiwan UN Day.

Anti-Aggression Day was designated as a holiday by the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration in 2006 in response to China’s passage of its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005. The other two remembrance days were designated in 2007, also during the DPP government’s term. People are granted days off on these three remembrance days.

Wu also proposed turning Children’s Day into “Parents and Children’s Day” and granting people holidays on that day in addition to Dec. 25 — Constitution Day.

Wu, dubbed by local media as a member of “Ma’s corps,” dismissed media speculation that he had spoken with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) before coming up with his proposal.

The KMT has drawn public criticism since the KMT caucus in the last legislative session proposed slashing the budget of the National 228 Memorial Museum and the 228 Memorial Foundation.

At a separate setting yesterday, DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said the KMT legislators were “narrow-minded” for proposing to cancel the 228 national holiday.

The 228 Incident is one of the most important historical events that ever happened in Taiwan and it is worth remembering, he said.

When asked for comment, Chang An-man (張安滿) — whose grandfather Chang Chi-lang (張七郎), father Chang Tsung-jen (張宗仁) and uncle Chang Kuo-jen (張果仁) all died in the aftermath of the 228 Incident — told the Taipei Times yesterday: “If it’s the entire KMT that wants the change, I’d think that the KMT has lied about their love for Taiwan. And if it’s Wu Yu-sheng’s own personal idea, then the KMT should do something about it.”

“I don’t care if people get the 228 Memorial Day off, but government policy should not change as the governing party changes,” he said.

Juan Mei-shu (阮美姝), daughter of 228 victim Juan Chao-jih (阮朝日), declined to comment.

“I have no response — I’m too disappointed to say anything,” she said.

Former teacher to face Cambodian war crimes trial

AFP, PHNOM PENH
Monday, Feb 16, 2009, Page 5
　

A devoted math teacher before he turned revolutionary, Duch, the man who oversaw the Khmer Rouge’s security apparatus, begins his trial at Cambodia’s UN-backed war crimes court tomorrow.

“I have done very bad things in my life,” he confessed to journalists who tracked him down in 1999. “Now it is time for [the consequences] of my actions.”

The 66-year-old Duch, whose real name is Kaing Guek Eav, allegedly oversaw the torture and extermination of more than 12,000 men, women and children at the Khmer Rouge’s Tuol Sleng prison during the regime’s 1975 to 1979 rule.

Duch was formally arrested by Cambodia’s genocide tribunal in July 2007, becoming the first top Khmer Rouge cadre to be detained, and is charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and premeditated murder.

He is said to have been feared by nearly everyone who worked under him at the prison in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh.

Most who worked there were uneducated teenage boys, who he said could be easily indoctrinated because they were “like a blank piece of paper.”

He has recognized the crimes committed under his command of the regime’s killing machine, where prisoners were tortured into denouncing themselves and others as agents of the CIA, KGB and Vietnamese Communist Party.

Duch was first arrested in 1999 after photojournalist Nic Dunlop uncovered him earlier that year working for a Christian relief agency in western Cambodia.

Before that, he was long thought dead following his disappearance after Vietnam’s ouster of the Khmer Rouge in 1979.

Instead, Duch had converted to Christianity and worked for relief organizations along the Cambodian-Thai border.

“I wanted to be a good communist; I did not take any pleasure in my work,” he told Dunlop. “All the confessions of the prisoners. I worried, ‘Is that true or not?’”

Duch later told tribunal investigators he believed the inner circle of Khmer Rouge leaders did not believe the confessions either, but used them as “excuses to eliminate those who represented obstacles.”

Born in 1942 in central Cambodia, Duch was a top student and is remembered as a sincere teacher devoted to helping the poor before he fled to the Khmer Rouge in 1970 as a reaction to injustice in then-volatile Cambodia.

That decision to join the communist guerrilla movement was influenced by one of his high school instructors who would later be executed at Tuol Sleng.

“I joined the Khmer Rouge in order to liberate my people and not commit crimes,” Duch told tribunal investigators. “I became both an actor in criminal acts and also a hostage of the regime.”

Open letter to the US

Dear Madam Secretary Clinton,

On the eve of your scheduled overseas trip to Asia, I, a retired history professor of Taiwanese descent, would like to bring to your attention an important matter that concerns my motherland, Taiwan, as well as the US.

With hard work, perseverance and the ingenuity of the Taiwanese, post-World War II Taiwan has emerged to become one of Asia’s most advanced economies and one of its most free and democratic countries. Indeed, Taiwan simply is a success story and a true multiparty democracy.

The US and Taiwan have been important allies for decades. The freedom-loving Taiwanese treasure this valuable and mutually beneficial relation. In the minds and hearts of the great majority of the Taiwanese, Taiwan is a sovereign democracy with all the characteristics of a sovereign country. In addition, survey after survey has unmistakably shown that the great majority of Taiwanese do not wish Taiwan to become part of China.

We should not fail to notice the strategic importance of a democratic Taiwan for its intrinsic value and for its catalytic role in the promotion of democratic values in East Asia, particularly in China. In addition, the island nation is clearly of continuing value as a security partner of the US in the Western Pacific.

Over the last few decades, the heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait were nothing more than a direct result of China’s territorial ambition against Taiwan. China today has more than 1,000 missiles targeting Taiwan — a 25-fold increase from 40 missiles in 1996 when China launched missiles near Taiwan.

In addition, China has been steadily upgrading its nuclear-capable military to include a deep-sea navy. The Chinese military modernization is posing a threat not only to Taiwan but also to other Asian countries. Recognizing China’s ambition to be the dominant power in Asia, Japan, for instance, has perceived China’s rise as a threat to its security. Even Pentagon reports over the last few years point to China’s heavy expenditures on weapon systems whose only use would be against the US military.

It would indeed be a serious mistake to believe China’s claim that it is striving for a “peaceful rise.”

We have been reassured by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who in a written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee late last month affirmed that the US is developing military capabilities to counter recent improvements in China’s ability to threaten US forces in the Pacific. With the US committed to help Taiwan defend against any Chinese attack, and also to help defend Japan and South Korea, this country certainly needs to keep pace with technological advances by China’s military.

Your scheduled travel to Asia on your first voyage as the chief diplomat of the US demonstrates the US’ refocusing on Asia. It is hoped that you will employ the US’ considerable “smart power” to encourage China’s leaders to respect the wishes of Taiwanese, as this offers the only meaningful solution to the Taiwan-China impasse.

In short, it is in the US national interest to help protect free and democratic Taiwan from being annexed by authoritarian China. History will show that when the US steadfastly sides with freedom and democracy, the US exerts greater influence on humanity.

I wish you great success in your Asian trip.

CHEN CHING-CHIH
San Marcos, California

Taiwanese are not Chinese sheep
　

By Jerome Keating
Monday, Feb 16, 2009, Page 8

International pundits chomping at the bit for something provokingly sensational to declare in past years have said that the 21st century would be China’s century. Power-hungry Chinese searching for the wish fulfillment of their dreams will champion this slogan. And even average Chinese long-suffering from their own self-inflicted humiliations will hopefully proclaim that yes, this is their century.

But it isn’t. In an age of global interdependence and instant news messaging, the 21st century belongs to no one, let alone the dreamers of China and their Taiwanese counterparts.

China will certainly self-destruct before it can claim a century. It is in their blood; it is in their upbringing, it is in their culture. They remain a nation of indoctrinated slaves, indoctrinated sheep. In the end, they will remain children of Bo Yang’s (柏楊) soy paste vat mentality mired in stagnant beliefs imposed by hierarchical paradigms. Just when they have a chance at redemption, the soy paste vat mentality will do them in.

What Lu Xun (魯迅) said nearly a century ago still proves true. Chinese history can be divided into two ages: “the age when the Chinese people wanted to be enslaved but couldn’t and the age when they were enslaved.” Which one they are in now, I leave for you to decide.

A half-century later, Bo Ren (伯仁) wrote to Bo Yang, “The Chinese people have never been able to think of themselves as the masters of China and hence have always acted like slaves. The message hidden in the soy paste vat tells them: China belongs to the emperor, the generals, the ministers, the heroes and the warriors; the common people are destined to be slaves.”

The only change that need be made in Bo Ren’s lines is to substitute the words Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) for emperor.

How do the slave mentality and soy paste vat combine to work together? Begin with a non-transparent, unquestioned government, then add the role of national face that both feeds on and feeds off of the slave mentality and thus perpetuates it. This recently played out in China’s hosting of the Olympics. China spent US$43 billion on the Olympics. Was it worth it? The rulers of China will say that it was and the people will accept this willingly. Then in Orwellian fashion the PSC will claim that it was they and only they that gave the nation face.

It is estimated that London will spend some US$12 billion on the 2012 Olympics. How can the British aim to spend some US$30 billion less than China? Does the UK have less face than China? Or is there something more beneath the surface?

Forty-three billion dollars is a hefty price tag for face, especially when an individual’s life is so cheap in China. If this is China’s century, why then does it need to buy face at US$43 billion? Do the people of China accept this price tag? Of course they do; they have been indoctrinated to accept it.

Take a different perspective. Some 70,000 people died in poorly constructed homes and schools in last year’s Sichuan earthquakes. The average family that lost children in such schools received approximately US$9,000. Is this a just compensation package in a country that can spend US$43 billion on face?

In a society that enforces a one-child policy, what satisfaction does US$9,000 bring when the family’s dream and pride is buried in crumbled ruins of construction that some politician got rich from?

Step to another scandal, the recent melamine poisoning; this time with fewer deaths, the families were luckier. They were awarded US$29,000 per child, but they too had to shut up afterwards. Those that disagree have to spend a year in re-education. US$29,000 is a lot more than US$9,000 but that is still a poor price to pay for a cherished child that is the hope of a generation. In all of this, where is the transparency and accountability?

After the earthquake there were huge pledges of time, goods and money for the victims, but how much of it actually ended up in the hands of those who needed it? What believable follow up was done? Foiled again by lack of transparency, but the slaves/sheep accept it. What choice do they have?

Revisit the Olympics. If you ask the average Chinese: Was the US$43 billion worth it to give the country face, most would agree it was. And what would they say to the bereaved parents of those who lost their children? That is a different story. Enter the soy paste vat.

The soy paste answer would come along the lines that it is regrettable that the children died, but the parents should be willing to sacrifice their children for the face of the nation. Is US$43 billion for the face of a nation, but US$29,000 or less for a child a just comparison? In the soy paste vat, as long as it is not my child that is killed, all can be justified.

This is not the thinking that will build a great nation; it may take place in the 21st century, but it is only the expedient thinking of slaves and sheep. The soy paste vat mentality continues to keep the Chinese from facing the truth. Don’t even ask about Mao Zedong (毛澤東). In this age of globalization, the hierarchy and power culture of China will preserve those in power but only them. The sheep and slaves will always be its willing victims.

Do Chinese writers and academics question this victim mentality? One could hope that the Charter 08 movement would provide new direction, but it will only be an academic diversion destined for stillbirth like the May 4 movement, which is nearing its 100th anniversary. Their thoughts are at heart anathema to what the sheep/slaves have been indoctrinated with and what the PSC holds dear. For this reason it will be impossible to learn from Taiwan, the one source of hope, or even from the straining of Tibet.

Both point to the way that freedom lies in the separation from, not union with, the central power. Size always betrays when individual rights and identity are concerned and ignored. Herein is the great divide that none can cross but revolutionaries.

This does not mean that China cannot or will not do damage within the century as its bombastic generals often threaten. The 20th century was not Adolf Hitler’s or Josef Stalin’s but Germany and Russia did do tremendous damage. So while the 21st century is not China’s it does not mean that the PSC will not do damage. The fact that China has already given the world SARS, bird flu and countless poisoned products is a small but telling indication of what lies ahead.

Finally we come to the nation of Taiwan, what do the people here think of this grasping, soy-paste neighbor across the Taiwan Strait? True thinkers in Taiwan have already had to deal with such a mentality in the transplanted Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in the past. They know from bitter experience the suffering and deaths that it took to break free of the KMT’s one-party state. They know the long torturous struggle of their own people to create a nation from the injustice and lack of transparency of the past.

Yet ironically, as Taiwan seeks to free itself from its own sordid history, some fools think that Taiwan’s salvation is to link with the soy paste vat of China. Even now Taiwan’s rulers refuse to face the erosion of justice and human rights. Some even wish to change the name of Democracy Hall back to that of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).

As for the rest of the Taiwanese, do they willingly wish to be sheep and slaves like those in China?

Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei