DPP announces sit-in protest of assembly law
　

STICK AROUND: After the party’s May 17 rally against the government’s policies, members will stay another 24 hours to protest the Cabinet’s proposed amendment
　

By Rich Chang
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, May 07, 2009, Page 1

“‘Return the streets to the people’ was a campaign promise of Ma’s, yet it has become a political joke.”— Tsai Ing-wen, DPP chairperson

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said yesterday the party would stage a 24-hour sit-in protest in front of the Presidential Office following its rally on May 17.

“The government intends to pass the amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act [集會遊行法] before the May 17 rally, which is a sign that the government is returning to the authoritarian period,” Tsai said. “I have asked all officials and staffers from the party to stay and join the 24-hour sit-in protest on Ketagalan Boulevard after the May 17 rally finishes at 10pm.”

Tsai, who is visiting the US, told a press conference via teleconference yesterday: “The sit-in protest is aimed at breaking the restrictions of the Assembly and Parade Act.”

Tsai was referring to an amendment proposed by the Cabinet that would give police the right to prevent a rally or change its route if they deemed it a threat to national security, social order or the public interest. The proposal would also give police the authority to break up any rally that blocked traffic.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) last month urged the legislature to pass two UN covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Tsai said, “yet the proposed amendment obviously violates the treaties.”

“‘Return the streets to the people’ was a campaign promise of Ma’s, yet it has become a political joke” because the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) wants to restrict the public’s right to take to the streets, she said.

The theme of the May 17 rally will be to protest against the government’s China policies and call on the government to protect Taiwan’s democracy, freedom and sovereignty, Tsai said, adding that it would be peaceful.

Bold PRC vessels alarm Pentagon
　

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON, with agencies
Thursday, May 07, 2009, Page 1
　

The Pentagon is becoming increasingly alarmed by Chinese fishing vessels harassing US intelligence-gathering ships.

While senior officials have played down the incidents in public, the US State Department has launched a behind-the-scenes diplomatic push to persuade Beijing to stop the dangerous tactic before it gets out of hand.

The concern is that if the incidents continue, a serious clash could happen — potentially costing lives and resulting in an international crisis.

The latest confrontation, the fourth in a month, occurred on Friday when two Chinese-flagged fishing boats came within 30m of the USNS Victorious in an “unsafe and dangerous” fashion, the Pentagon said in a statement on Tuesday.

China said yesterday the US vessel violated maritime law and urged the US to take steps to avoid a repetition.

US officials said the incident lasted about an hour and the unarmed Victorious, which is equipped with state-of-the-art scientific equipment to map the ocean floor and track submarines, sounded its alarm and shot water from its fire hoses.

But the fishing boats did not leave until the Victorious radioed a nearby Chinese military ship for help, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

He said the US vessel was conducting “routine operations” in the Yellow Sea and was in international waters.

After incidents in March that included similar but more aggressive Chinese maneuvers, the Pentagon protested to Beijing and issued a strong public statement calling the Chinese actions harassment.

But this week Whitman refused to characterize the Chinese actions and appeared to play them down.

“We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically,” he said when asked why the tone of his initial reaction was muted.

In its statement, the Pentagon said the “USNS Victorious was conducting routine operations on Friday, May 1, in international waters in the Yellow Sea in accordance with customary international law, when two Chinese fishing vessels closed in on and maneuvered in close proximity to the Victorious. The intentions of the Chinese fishing vessels were not known.”

The statement added that the Victorious radioed the WAGOR 17 Chinese government ship, which came and shone a light on one of the fishing vessels. Both of the fishing vessels then moved away.

“WAGOR 17 took positive steps, pursuant to their obligation under Article 94 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, to ensure their flagged vessels navigate safely,” the statement said.

All of the incidents this year took place in a disputed band of water far off the Chinese coastline but within what Beijing considers a 320km economic zone under its control. Under international law, the zone gives a state certain rights over the use of natural resources.

The Chinese position clashes with the cardinal principles of the US doctrine of ocean navigation — the right to unrestricted passage in international waters as long as vessels are not encroaching on the economic interests of the country they pass.

But China’s Foreign Ministry said yesterday: “The US surveillance vessel USNS Victorious violated relevant international laws and Chinese laws and regulations by entering into China’s exclusive economic zone in the Yellow Sea without China’s approval.”

“The Chinese side expresses its concern and has demanded that the US side take measures to avoid similar events from happening again,” the ministry said in a statement on its Web site.

The ministry said that it managed the movement of ships inside its exclusive economic zone in accordance with the UN sea convention as well as its own regulations.

Jeffrey Bader, senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council, said the recent clashes in waters near China underscored that “the absence of a sound relationship between our two militaries is a part of that strategic mistrust.”

The Jamestown Foundation, a think tank that keeps a close eye on China-US relations, said in a recent study: “The recriminations that flared between China and the US over the latest Sino-American maritime confrontation makes evident how little progress has been made in Sino-US defense dialogue during the past two decades.”

“Clashes between US and China military units operating in the sea and air near China have become a recurring disruption in the bilateral relations. They will burden the Obama administration as it seeks to develop Sino-American security relations in the coming years,” it said.

A question of capability

Thursday, May 07, 2009, Page 8

Taiwan’s democracy has been the object of some attention and has had its fair share of compliments over the past few years. Then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example, in 2002 described Taiwan’s political transformation as a “successful story.”

Since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government took office in May last year, however, questions have been raised over its commitment to safeguarding the most fundamental ideals that gird democracy: human rights and freedom of the press and speech.

Sober observers who care about Taiwan’s development have witnessed disturbing trends in the past year. Expressions such as “erosion of democracy” and “democratic regression” are becoming more frequent in news reports and analysis.

Rather than reacting in a defensive manner, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could profit from receiving these complaints with humility and asking itself whether these allegations have the potential to damage its credibility, both domestically and in the international community.

The latest incident to fuel doubts over the government’s approach to human rights and official propriety came on Sunday when five college students staged a protest at a temple in Tainan, where the president was scheduled to make an appearance.

Prior to Ma’s arrival, some of the students were assaulted by black-clad men who removed them from the immediate area. The students, who had broken no law, were later questioned by police.

Ma’s response was less than convincing, preferring to concentrate on the intolerance that was on display rather than the familiar police practice of applying undue pressure on legitimate protests.

The question must be asked again: Whether from the mouths of Chinese democracy activists or KMT politicians, how can Taiwan be remotely suitable as a model for a future Chinese democracy when police forces routinely abuse their powers, thumb their noses at the right to express dissent and intervene on behalf of one side of politics?

Politicians readily forget their words. Ma solemnly swore in his inauguration speech last May that his government would improve “Taiwan’s democracy, enrich its substance, and make it more perfect. To accomplish this, we can rely on the Constitution to protect human rights, uphold law and order, make justice independent and impartial and breathe new life into civil society.”

He added: “Taiwan’s democracy should not be marred by illegal eavesdropping, arbitrary justice and political interference in the media or electoral institutions. All of us share this vision for the next phase of political reform.”

These words are impressive and inspiring. But they are not being backed by concrete action, and without such practical support they remain items of lonely rhetoric.

Former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) made positive contributions to the nation’s democratic record. Now that responsibility for protecting Taiwan’s democracy has passed to Ma, the question is whether this precious duty is within his capabilities.

The latest report from Freedom House says that Taiwan dropped 11 spots in its press freedom ranking for last year. Government and KMT officials have expressed little regret at this development, but their selective valuing of praise from overseas may turn out to be a little unwise.

For whether out of political interest or a sense of justice, the world is watching — not just Freedom House.

The retreat of freedom of the press bodes poorly
　

By Leon Chuang 莊豐嘉
Thursday, May 07, 2009, Page 8

A few days ago, US-based Freedom House released a global survey entitled Freedom of the Press 2009 in which Taiwan’s press freedom ranking fell by 11 places from last year’s list.

It was no surprise that Taiwan’s ranking dropped, but the size of the fall is much greater than expected and very worrying. More worrying still is the fact that Hong Kong has been relegated from the “free” category to “partly free.”

The lesson is that if Taiwan’s media cannot resist penetration by China, Taiwan will before long go the same way as Hong Kong.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government should bear full responsibility for this black mark on the record of their first year in office.

Unfortunately, all of them — from Ma to the Government Information Office — have brushed it off, saying rather unconvincingly that they would look into the matter.

Their reaction is evidence of a guilty conscience. Regrettably, however, there is no sign that they intend to take meaningful steps to uphold freedom of the press.

The main rationale given for why Taiwan’s global rating fell to No. 43 in the report is that the media have been subjected to government pressure, while journalists have been victims of violence or threats, mostly political in nature.

For example, FTV reporter Tsai Meng-yu (蔡孟育) needed hospital treatment after being beaten by riot police while covering protests against visiting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) last November.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government has wantonly and crudely interfered in public broadcasting. The KMT-dominated legislature froze the budget of the Public Television Service (PTS) for a full year as the party’s lawmakers drafted legislation subjecting the station’s budget to item-by-item examination and approval.

These moves were clearly aimed at controlling the content of PTS news. In a healthy democracy, such interference would be unthinkable. But what commitment has Ma’s government made to upholding press freedom?

During his presidential election campaign, Ma signed his name to a declaration launched by the Association of Taiwan Journalists targeting product placement in news programs. The reality today, however, is that the government itself employs many resources to place its own propaganda in news reports. What happened to Ma’s pledges?

From Taiwan’s point of view, however, the most worrying aspect of this year’s Freedom House report is the fact that for the first time since it was returned to China in 1997, Hong Kong has been demoted from the “free” category to “partly free.”

The quantitative and qualitative changes that this formerly free territory have undergone are living proof of the threat a dictatorial regime poses to freedom of the press.

Press freedom in Taiwan today is threatened not only by political pressure arising from the KMT’s monopoly on power, but also by the infiltration of Chinese influence through commercial activities.

Although this latest report still places Taiwan in the “free” category, we have no reason to be complacent. If the Ma administration continues to open the door to Chinese-owned media, China’s dictators will be able to dig their claws deep into the weakened body of the Taiwanese media industry.

When news media in Taiwan no longer dare to report critically on China, the retreat in freedom of expression that we are witnessing will become a calamity.

Leon Chuang is chairman of the Association of Taiwan Journalists.