Chen dismisses attorneys, won’t call witnesses
　

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, May 22, 2009, Page 1

Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday dismissed all three of his attorneys and retracted requests to call his remaining witnesses to express disillusionment with the judicial system.

At the beginning of the day, Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) asked Chen about his physical condition, to which Chen replied: “Even if I told [you], it would make no difference.”

The former president then declared that he would dismiss his attorneys and call no more witnesses.

“The illegal indictment, illegal detention and illegal trials have made me go from being hopeful to being disappointed and finally to despair for the judicial system,” he said.

Chen’s lawyer, Cheng Wen-lung (鄭文龍), also criticized the judicial system, saying that administrative procedures had interfered with legal matters.

He said that the court’s decision to switch judges from Chou Chan-chun (周占春) to Tsai, who has ruled to keep Chen in detention, was an example of this.

When Chou presided over Chen’s case last year, he twice ruled against detaining Chen, saying that there would be no risk of Chen absconding because as a former president he was protected and escorted by special agents.

However, when Tsai took over the case, he ruled to keep the former president behind bars because he said Chen might collude with witnesses or try to abscond.

In December, judges ordered that Chou be replaced by Tsai, who would preside over four cases filed against Chen. The switch was controversial and skeptics questioned whether the decision to merge the trials was procedurally flawed or politically motivated.

Cheng also blasted the court for violating Chen’s human rights, saying that although Chen had complained of chest pains, the court only used simple medical reports from the Taipei Detention Center to evaluate his health. However, when Chen was hospitalized earlier this month, the hospital’s diagnosis showed that he had a number of illnesses that would not have been discovered if he had remained at the detention center, Cheng said.

After Chen dismissed his lawyers, Tsai asked the three attorneys to leave the courtroom and immediately called for a court-appointed lawyer, Tseng Te-rong (曾德榮), to represent Chen.

The former president told Tsai that even if the court appointed the lawyer to represent him, he would refuse to consult him.

“What meaning is there in this routine procedure [of being represented by a public defender]?” Chen said.

He asked Tseng not to visit the detention center to discuss the case with him.

After the three attorneys stepped out of the courtroom, they told reporters that they supported Chen’s decision, but would still provide legal counsel to the former president if he needs them.

“I have been a lawyer for many years, but this is the first time I have encountered a client announcing the dismissal of his attorneys in court,” Hung Kwei-san (洪貴參) said.

Chen has been detained at the Taipei Detention Center since Dec. 30 on charges including corruption, embezzlement and money laundering. He has repeatedly denied the allegations and called the trials a form of political persecution.

The court originally scheduled yesterday’s session to hear the former director of Chen’s office, Lin Teh-hsun (林德訓), answer questions on his use of the presidential “state affairs fund.”

Lin was absent from court, citing heart problems.

DPP to attempt to recall Ma today
　

WHAT'S THE CHANCE? : The Democratic Progressive Party only has 27 seats and requires 85 lawmakers to vote for a recall proposal for it to be successful
　

By Jenny W. hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, May 22, 2009, Page 3

“How do you know we can’t meet the threshold?”— Yeh Yi-chin, DPP legislator

DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said yesterday that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must go ahead with an attempt to recall President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

Despite its minority position in the legislature, the DPP must proceed with a proposal to recall Ma over his leadership in the year since he took office, Tsai said.

The call came just days after the DPP organized a rally and a 24-hour sit-in to protest what it calls Ma’s China-leaning policies.

Speaking to reporters while stumping for DPP candidates in the year-end local government election in Keelung, Tsai said that although the chance of success was low, the DPP had to show that the party and the public were “dissatisfied” with the Ma administration.

DPP convener Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) is scheduled to propose that Ma be recalled at today’s plenary session.

The DPP also plans to push a proposal to hold a national referendum on the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) that the government plans to sign with Beijing.

While the pan-blue camp argues the trade pact would boost Taiwan’s competitiveness in the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world, the opposition party says the trade pact would harm Taiwan’s weaker traditional industries and belittle the nation’s sovereignty.

Article 70 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法) states that any proposal to depose a president or vice president needs the support of two-thirds of sitting legislators.

Passage of the motion would initiate a national referendum on whether Ma should step down.

A president or vice president who has been in office for less than a year may not be recalled.

The DPP only occupies 27 out of 113 seats in the Legislative Yuan and would require the signatures of 29 other lawmakers to move the bill and 85 lawmakers to vote for the proposal for it to be successful.

“How do you know we can’t meet the threshold? Of course it will be difficult, but no matter what, we must give it a shot,” DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-chin (葉宜津) said.

Iran missile test raises tensions
　

‘GOOD FAITH’: : The incident came two days after the White House said Tehran had until the end of the year to enter into serious negotiations over its nuclear program

THE GUARDIAN, LONDON
Friday, May 22, 2009, Page 6
　

Iran test-fired a solid-fuel missile capable of reaching Israel or US bases in the Middle East yesterday on Wednesday, drawing rebukes from Western governments and forcing the abrupt cancellation of a diplomatic mission by Italy’s foreign minister.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the launch of the Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile in Semnan Province, claiming it landed “precisely on target.”

Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said the missile was “equipped with a new navigation system as well as precise and sophisticated sensors.”

Western officials confirmed the launch and said the Sajjil appeared to be a two-stage solid-fuel missile with a range of about 2,000km.

The UK Foreign Office said it “underlines profound concerns about Iran’s intentions and sends exactly the wrong signal to the region and the world at a time the international community is trying to engage Iran.”

The incident came two days after US President Barack Obama warned Iran had until the end of the year to respond to his diplomatic overtures and enter into serious, “good faith” negotiations over its nuclear program. Iran says the program is for energy-generation purposes, but the UN security council has demanded Tehran suspend enrichment of uranium on the grounds that Iran has so far failed to convince the international community that its intentions are peaceful.

The launch led to the cancellation of a two-day visit to Iran by Italy’s Franco Frattini, who was close to boarding a plane to Tehran when he heard that Ahmadinejad insisted on meeting him in Semnan, the site of the launch.

The minister called off the whole trip, fearing Ahmadinejad would use it as a propaganda coup ahead of presidential elections next month.

Out of 475 hopefuls, the president and three challengers were approved yesterday to take part in the vote by the electoral watchdog, the Guardian Council.

The planned Frattini visit had been the source of considerable tension within Europe. The British and French governments had urged him not to go, arguing that it would help Ahmadinejad electorally and show a lack of western unity.

An earlier version of the Sajjil was tested in November last year.The Sajjil-2 appears to have a slightly longer range than the prototype. Mark Fitzpatrick, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the development of the Sajjil missile was significant because of the type of fuel it used, rather than its range.

“To be able to build a solid-fuel missile of medium range represents a significant technological breakthrough,” Fitzpatrick said. “It is technically more difficult than a liquid-fuel missile and militarily more significant because it is not as vulnerable to attack while being fueled.”

What’s in a name?

Friday, May 22, 2009, Page 8

There is an old saying: “Men do not seek the truth. It is the truth that pursues men.” How true this is.

The most recent incident of this was when Japanese envoy Masaki Saito made a comment at a meeting of the Republic of China (ROC) International Relations Association that Taiwan’s status was still unsolved. (“Japanese representative scolded over remark on Taiwan’s ‘unresolved’ status,” May 3, page 1).

All Saito did was simply tell the truth according to international law.

Yet Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) members, who demanded an apology or that the envoy be recalled, attacked Saito for telling the truth. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) also slammed Japan’s envoy for this honest remark.

Whether this comment was Saito’s personal opinion or his government’s official position over Taiwan’s status, there is only one truth: Taiwan’s status is still unresolved. Period.

I believe it is time for society to punish those who continue to dispense falsehood to the public, those who prefer simple lies to complicated truth.

One of the biggest charades perpetrated by the government of Taiwan has been to mislead its citizens into believing that their country’s name is still the ROC, even though this designation is no longer accepted by the UN, which recognizes the PRC based on its “one China” policy.

Yet the Taiwanese government has refused to accept reality by changing its official name from the ROC to the Republic of Taiwan or just Taiwan, which is already well known around the world as a sovereign state.

The government uses “Taiwan” as a shield for its country name in order to fend off questions of nationality from the international media, which consider the ROC to no longer exist.

Although the Taiwanese government can continue to fool its own people into thinking the country’s name is still the ROC, it cannot trick the international media.

The government also uses a variety of names to gain entry to the international arena. The latest charade was Taiwan’s invitation to the WHO’s World Health Assembly (WHA) as an observer under the name “Chinese Taipei,” which sounds like an imaginary country from nowhere.

No wonder Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川), who represented the ROC at the WHA meeting in Geneva, looked confused and bewildered in front of TV cameras.

He really didn’t know which country he was representing, though he kept referring to Taiwan this or Taiwan that.

He only once referred to the country as “ROC, Taiwan,” which in my opinion is not accurate because the ROC is long dead, while Taiwan is alive and well.

A tearful Yeh said later at a press conference: “I really don’t know what these people [protesting students] want.” (“Yeh tearful, defensive after student heckling at WHA,” May 19, page 1) In fact the answer is very simple: They want the truth.

The students want to know what country Yeh is representing: the ROC, Taiwan or Chinese Taipei — a puppet country under the control of the PRC. Or perhaps Chinese Taipei refers to the people who live in Taipei, most of them diehard KMT supporters who wish to be unified with the PRC.

Since I assume Yeh doesn’t want to know the truth, I think he is making a fool of himself, becoming a laughingstock in an international community that strives to know the truth. We all know that a nation’s identity is the most basic factor in the international arena.

I hope the government will change the country’s name officially and legally to Taiwan, and not just use or misuse it as expedient.

KRIS LIAO
San Francisco

Ma’s year in the pressure cooker
　

By Liu Shih-chung 劉世忠
Friday, May 22, 2009, Page 8

In his first anniversary press conference, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) reacted to the May 17 demonstration by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and other social organizations by reiterating that “Taiwan is the Republic of China [ROC]” and pledging to bring Taiwan’s fragile economy back on track during the remainder of his term.

After taking office, Ma pressed the reset button by introducing an “ABC” policy — Anything But Chen — to forge an immediate rapprochement with China.

Cross-strait dialogue resumed, “functional” exchanges were fast-tracked, people-to-people visits increased, cross-strait diplomatic competition was suspended, Taiwan’s international image seemed to improve and “Chinese Taipei” got into this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting as an observer.

There is no need to deny these changes are progress.

What truly matters is the challenges and uncertainties underlying such quick cross-strait detente. Ma faces at least four such challenges.

The first lies in insufficient policy evaluations and an opaque policy-making process that bypasses legislative oversight, opposition checks and balances, and public approval. The KMT-dominated Legislative Yuan was nothing but a “rubber stamp” when reviewing the nine agreements reached at three meetings between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS).

Furthermore, the government failed to come up with a pros and cons evaluation before Ma promised to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China.

Most importantly, the Ma administration owes Taiwanese a clear explanation of how sovereignty is not sidelined in those negotiations and how Taiwan’s economy will benefit from economic integration with China.

Second, despite Ma’s formulation of “mutual non-denial” as the basis for dealings with his Chinese counterpart, the controversy over whether Beijing accepts the principle of “one China with individual interpretations” remains ambiguous.

Ma says that Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) agrees with the principle that each side defines its own “one China” — Ma defines it as the ROC. However, there is no sign that the leadership in Beijing accepts the KMT’s definition of “one China.” Hu has rejected any formula of “two Chinas” when it comes to Taiwan’s international status.

Now, Ma was forced by the opposition to reclaim the notion that “Taiwan is the ROC.” Do the leaders in the People’s Republic of China also accept Ma’s definition that “one China means Taiwan?”

Even if Ma downplays issues of sovereignty when engaging with the PRC, there is an international impression that Taiwan is moving toward the “one China” principle as defined by Beijing. Taiwan’s sovereignty has been not only eroded but also twisted.

This is what worries the opposition and the majority of Taiwanese.

Third, Beijing clearly has the upper hand when it comes to cross-strait negotiations. Its concessions are limited and conditional.

While the PRC has temporarily stopped bribing Taiwanese allies into switching diplomatic recognition, some of them are getting impatient, which means that Beijing clearly controls the game.

Beijing’s consent was essential for Taiwan’s WHA accession, and its observer status will be reviewed on an annual basis. Beijing retains its leverage on Taiwan’s participation.

Finally and most importantly, Ma faces growing internal pressures. There are three internal constraints on the implementation of Ma’s cross-strait policy. These are KMT’s infighting, the extent to which cross-strait opening will improve Taiwan’s economy and the opposition’s checks and balance.

Ma used the KMT’s old guards to forge the first-stage of cross-strait opening but now he wants to control the party, paving the way for his re-election and his team of successors.

Nevertheless, this backfired when the media ran stories on his plan to replace SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) with KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄). The KMT’s infighting became a stumbling block for Ma.

Furthermore, Ma has played all his economic bets on an ECFA, increasing numbers of special charter flights and Chinese tourists, which he hopes will bring direct and immediate economic gains to Taiwan.

However, whether these policies will result in a temporary economic bounce or produce a long-term boost in Taiwan’s economy remains to be seen. Ma faces severe unemployment of nearly 6 percent.

Further opening Taiwan to Chinese capital and markets may jeopardize some industrial sectors in Taiwan.

Again, Beijing controls the quantity of economic input. Even if both sides signed an ECFA, Taiwan would not be guaranteed the right to sign free trade agreements with other countries. Beijing would have the final say.

Overshadowed by the corruption scandal and lawsuits surrounding former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), as well as a potential internal split, the DPP used Sunday’s demonstration to rejuvenate party morale and rebuild a social force to oppose Ma’s policies.

This will serve as a strong balanced role to Ma’s hasty cross-strait policies.

In light of complicated and sensitive cross-strait relations, Taiwanese democracy needs a strong opposition to counteract the governing party.

There have been signs of democratic backsliding after Ma took office.

For example, police abused their power against protesters during ARATS Chairman Chen Yun-lin’s (陳雲林) visit last November. The investigation and inappropriate detention of former DPP officials, including former president Chen, is also controversial.

In the latest report from Freedom House, Taiwan dropped 11 spots in its press freedom ranking for last year.

All these facts show that hasty cross-strait rapprochement cannot be pushed forward without hurting democratic procedures, public consent and Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Liu Shih-chung is a visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

In defense of stupidity on Chinese agreements
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Friday, May 22, 2009, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently defended his China policies by asserting that they didn’t jeopardize Taiwan’s sovereignty and that Taiwan’s participation at the World Health Assembly (WHA) was the result of a “diplomatic truce.” However, Taiwan’s participation at the WHA is a typical example of how Taiwan’s sovereignty is being chipped away.

With the WHO Web site referring to Taiwan as “China (Province of Taiwan),” the public needs to ask whether Taiwan’s sovereignty is really secure. In order to participate in the WHA, the government did not bat an eyelid at compromising Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and former presidents Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) could have gained entry for Taiwan into the WHA, but they did not. The only difference between Ma and the previous administration is a willingness to agree with the “one China” framework. Ma did what former presidents were not willing to do and called it an “ice-breaking” achievement. However, breaking the ice in this case is not worth bragging about.

Accepting Taiwan’s status as a province of China is tantamount to recognizing a new “status quo” that Taiwan belongs to China. By accepting this, China will consider any future president who wishes to change that status as a troublemaker, and the US will also agree with this viewpoint.

By that time, China will have the means to resort to force against Taiwan. If Ma feels “wronged” about Taiwan losing its dignity, why doesn’t the administration protest at international occasions by denying that Taiwan is a province of China? It is highly unlikely that China would have kicked Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan (葉金川) out of the WHA because it would not want to create an international scene.

When Yeh arrived in Geneva, he asked to try out his seat at the venue beforehand. A clown of an official like this is even more embarrassing than former Democratic Progressive Party chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (�?}), who participated in cross-strait talks with an air of triumph without knowing that he had already become a pawn in China’s “united front” tactics. Yeh did not care that Taiwanese journalists were issued press passes that displayed an ambiguous national status.

Yeh likes to brag about his achievements and patriotism. However, his major achievement during the SARS outbreak at the Heping Branch of the Taipei City Hospital in 2003 was to protect Ma. So, it is now Ma’s turn to protect his servant. None of this has anything to do with patriotism. Even if they claim love for Taiwan, what they really mean is they love Taiwan as part of China. The Taiwanese students who spoke out against Yeh showed more patriotism than Ma and the minister. Not only did they heckle Yeh, but they also criticized WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍), who is from “Hong Kong, China,” for accepting Chinese government payments to serve as its puppet at the WHO.

Because Ma and Yeh adhere to the “Taiwan, China” principle, they do not have the courage to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty, nor did they condemn China for covering up the SARS outbreak that took numerous lives back in 2003.

It is clear that Taiwan’s sovereignty has been eroded, but our government is still bragging about its achievements. This reminds me of the spirit of victory of “Ah Q,” depicted by Chinese writer Lu Xun (魯迅). I regret this “spirit” because it is why Taiwan is in such a mess.

Paul Lin is a political commentator.