S Koreans, world leaders pay respect to former president

AFP, BONGHA, SOUTH KOREA
Monday, May 25, 2009, Page 1

Thousands of South Korean mourners paid their last respects yesterday to former president Roh Moo-hyun, whose shock death by apparent suicide came as he faced a massive corruption scandal.

Roh’s body lay in state in his home village of Bongha in Gimhae city, a day after the man once known as “Mr Clean” leapt from a mountain, leaving behind a suicide note on his computer.

Thousands of people, many in tears, thronged the altar in Bongha, laying flowers and burning incense. Some collapsed as they approached his coffin, while hundreds of Buddhist monks offered prayers. Flags flew at half-mast.

“Life and death are all parts of nature,” Roh wrote in his note. “Don’t lay any blame. It’s fate.”

Mourners also packed the streets around an altar outside a heavily guarded palace in Seoul, as a shocked nation tried to come to terms with the first such event in the history of modern Korea. World leaders, including US President Barack Obama, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, offered their condolences to Roh’s family and the South Korean people.

Ban, who had served as Roh’s foreign minister, said he was “shocked and deeply saddened” by the news, in a statement released yesterday on the UN Web site.

“I pay tribute to the late president Roh, who exerted tireless efforts to promote democracy, undertake various reform measures and pave the way for building an advanced society in Korea. May he rest in peace,” Ban said.

Yonhap news agency said yesterday that police had tentatively concluded that Roh committed suicide. No formal confirmation has been issued.

The investigation into Roh centered around a payment worth US$1 million to his wife from a wealthy shoe manufacturer, and a payment by the same man worth US$5 million to the husband of one of Roh’s nieces.

He had apologized for his family’s involvement but had not admitted personal wrongdoing.

The government and Roh’s family on Sunday agreed to hold a “people’s funeral” for the late president in Gimhae on Friday after a seven-day mourning period, the ministry of public administration and security said.

Remember history, PRC dissidents say
　

TIANANMEN AT 20: The Presidential Office has yet to reply to an invitation for President Ma to attend activities to mark the 20th anniversary of the massacre
　

By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, May 25, 2009, Page 2
　

As the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government seeks to establish closer ties with China, it should not forget about the Tiananmen Square Massacre or withdraw its support for the democratic movement in China, Chinese democracy activists said yesterday.

“Under the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government, the Straits Exchange Foundation(SEF) — especially when Chen Ming-tong (陳明通) was its head — paid a lot of attention to issues concerning human rights, democracy and freedom in China,” said exiled Chinese democracy activist Wang Dan (王丹), one of the student leaders in the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstration. “However, the MAC hasn’t touched on the issues since Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) took over.”

The KMT used to give substantial support to China’s democratic movement before it lost power to the DPP in 2000, Wang said.

“I understand that the current government wants to focus on developing closer economic ties with China, but I think the MAC should still pay attention to human rights conditions in China,” he said. “After all, cross-strait relations can only be stable after China becomes a democracy.”

He made the remark at a news conference in Taipei to announce a series of activities to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4.

Events will include an exhibition of videos and photos from the demonstration at the Taipei City Council next Sunday afternoon and a rally and a sit-in at Liberty Square in Taipei from 6:04pm on June 3 until 9pm on June 4.

“Economic development in China has put many people who previously condemned Beijing’s violent crackdown at Tiananmen Square in a difficult position, as they are forced to be friends with the repressors in exchange for economic interests,” said Wuer Kaixi (吾爾開希), another former Tiananmen Square student leader who now lives in Taiwan.

He cited Straits Exchange Foundation Deputy Secretary-General Pang Chien-kuo (龐建國) as an example.

Twenty years ago, Pang was one of the organizers of a rally in Taipei to support the demonstrators in Beijing during the crackdown.

“However, when I called [Pang] to invite him to next week’s events commemorating the tragedy, he said he would love to come, but had to decline, saying it would be inconvenient for him to do so because of his position,” Wuerkaixi said. “As a friend, I understand his concern, but I still feel sorry to hear that.”

“There should not be any ‘inconvenience’ for anyone to remember that unarmed students were bloodily repressed by an authoritarian regime,” he said.

Former New Party Legislator Yao Li-min (姚立民), who is helping organize the events in Taipei this year, said he had also sent an invitation to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who actively participated in events commemorating Tiananmen Square before becoming president.

“We haven’t heard back from the Presidential Office yet, but I hope he will come,” Yao said.

Stop the erosion before it’s too late

Monday, May 25, 2009, Page 8

In an interview with the Straits Times earlier this month, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said Taiwan and China would hold political talks in future. He later said his government would not discuss unification with China during his term in office. His apparent inconsistency is baffling not only for Taiwanese, but probably for China.

Unification must be the last topic on the cross-strait talks agenda. This is what Ma meant by his campaign proposal of “eventual unification.” Talks on unification must be preceded by negotiations on a whole range of economic and political issues.

It is the uncertainty over what will be discussed in these preparatory talks that the public finds worrying. After all, when all the preparations are done, discussing unification will be easy, regardless of who the negotiators are. At that point, it could be too late to change course.

Although Taiwan attended the World Health Assembly under the name “Chinese Taipei,” swine flu cases in this country are listed under China on the WHO Web site. The signs are there but Ma’s government fails to understand the danger it is facing.

Ma could finish integrating Taiwan’s economy with China’s while he is president. He may persuade China to stop aiming missiles at Taiwan and to sign a cross-strait peace accord. But as time goes by, the title of “Chinese Taipei” risks becoming the norm when referring to Taiwan. Beijing would regulate Taiwan’s diplomacy and the terms under which it can join international organizations.

Taiwan’s status would shift to from sovereign nation to that of Hong Kong and Macau. Taiwan’s relations with the US and Japan would become distant. Within Taiwan, the notion of “Greater China” would become customary. Taiwanese consciousness would gradually be eroded through changes in textbooks, the media, entertainment and the arts. After this course is firmly set, Ma would be able to retire from the scene, his job done. It will not matter who finally declares Taiwan’s unification with China, because it will be a fait accompli.

If former US president Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger had not first opened the door to China and set up the framework for US-China relations, it would have been hard for former US president Jimmy Carter to extend diplomatic recognition to Beijing. Carter trod the path laid out by his predecessors.

Similarly, no matter whether unification is completed under Ma or later, history will remember Ma as the one who paved the way. The question is, will he be praised or damned for it?

If Taiwan’s unification with China makes China more democratic and diverse, Ma will enjoy the praise and the credit. If Taiwan is absorbed into a China where the Chinese Communist Party retains its monopoly on power and human rights are routinely restricted or trampled then Ma’s name will live in infamy.

Whatever happens, Taiwanese must keep a close watch on Ma and his government and keep them in check. Only then can we be sure that Taiwan will not be served up as a dish of frogs legs for the Beijing leadership.

Taiwan must defend its territory
　

By Chen Hurng-yu 陳鴻瑜
Monday, May 25, 2009, Page 8

On March 10, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Philippines Archipelagic Baselines Law, which incorporates within Philippine territory parts of the Spratly Islands and the Scarborough or Panatag Shoal, known in Taiwan and China as Huangyan Island (黃岩島), in the South China Sea. This law has provoked opposition from other countries around the South China Sea.

In consideration of complaints from China, Vietnam and Taiwan, the Philippines sought to avoid arguments about the Spratys by including only the relatively uncontroversial Benham Rise region, which lies to the east of the Philippine archipelago, in the claim it submitted to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) on April 8.

Manila’s move prompted Vietnam and Malaysia to make a joint submission to the CLCS on May 6 outlining their respective outer limit claims over the continental shelf in the southern part of the South China Sea.

In their submission, Vietnam and Malaysia admitted that disputes exist about parts of the continental shelf they claim, but they said they were willing to resolve the disputes through negotiations, as laid out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They also declared that their claim was not intended to conflict with territorial boundaries between other countries. They said they had tried to secure the non-objection of countries around the South China Sea, however, they did not consult Taiwan, China or the Philippines with regard to the Spratlys, nor have they made an effort to seek a peaceful resolution. On the contrary, they have both built fortifications on the islands they occupy.

The limits of Vietnam and Malaysia’s territorial claims extend 200 nautical miles (370km) from their respective baselines. The two countries’ claims do not overlap. The southernmost basepoint on which Vietnam bases its outer limit claim is N 6° 30’ 50.7” (six degrees 30 minutes 50.7 seconds north) by E 109° 44’ 55.2” (109 degrees 44 minutes 55.2 seconds east), roughly southeast of the mouth of the Mekong River. To the north it extends to N 9° 30’ 15.4” by E 112° 25’ 40.3”, southeast of the port of Vung Tau.

The southernmost basepoint on which Malaysia bases its boundary claim is N 6° 18’ 11” by E 109° 36’ 45”, from which it extends northeast to N 8° 53’ 38.6” by E 113° 34’ 7.6”. The continental shelf limit claimed by Malaysia was based on the maritime territorial baselines of Sabah and Sarawak, without taking into account Brunei, which is sandwiched in the middle. Brunei did not participate in Vietnam and Malaysia’s claim, so one might ask whether the claim infringes on Brunei’s interests.

The joint claim also delimits the outer edge of the continental margin. Its southernmost point is N 11° 49’ 51.8” by E 112° 47’ 13”, extending northward to N 12° 43’ 1.1” by E 116° 12’ 41.7”. This area should, for the most part, belong to Vietnam rather than Malaysia.

The outer edge of the continental margin is demarked according to Article 76 (4) (a) (ii) of the UNCLOS, its fixed points being no more than 60 nautical miles (111km) away from the start of the continental slope.

Both Vietnam and Malaysia set their continental shelf outer limit claims by extending their territory 200 nautical miles from the maritime territorial baselines adjacent to their actual coastlines, not from islands and reefs they occupy in the South China Sea. However, this has no influence on their actual occupation of those islands and reefs. Their somewhat wishful intention is to make further territorial claims over waters, contiguous areas and sections of the continental shelf around the islands they occupy.

On May 7, Vietnam reiterated its claim of sovereignty and rights of dominion and jurisdiction over the Paracels, Spratlys and some 3,000 islands and reefs scattered around the South China Sea. This claim by Vietnam clearly conflicts with Taiwan’s territorial claims over the Paracels and Spratlys.

In falling over themselves to enact maritime territory laws and submit their claims to the UN, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia have made very clear their ambitions for dividing the Spratlys among themselves. In view of this, Taiwan should work faster on legislating its own claim to the Spratlys.

Chen Hurng-yu is chair of the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.