Chen’s detention extended two months
　

STAYING PUT: The court said Chen had ‘interfered’ with the case by talking to the public through his visitors, proving that he could still exert influence on the judiciary

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, Page 1
　

The Taipei District Court ruled yesterday to extend former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) incarceration at the Taipei Detention Center for two more months.

“The court ruled to extend [Chen’s] detention by two months starting from July 26,” Taipei District Court spokesperson Huang Chun-ming (黃俊明) said.

The court cited several of the reasons used in its previous detention rulings — the concern that Chen would collude with witnesses, destroy evidence or try to abscond, and because he has been charged with serious crimes that could bring him a prison term of seven years or more.

However, it also cited Chen’s “interference” with the case by talking to the public through friends and colleagues who visited him at the detention center.

The ruling said that even behind bars, Chen is capable of exerting pressure on the judiciary, so it was difficult to imagine how much damage he could do to the judiciary if he were not detained.

The court believed there were no other means, such as bail or placing restrictions on residence, to substitute for detention, Huang said.

Chen has been held at the detention center since Dec. 30. This is the third time Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) has ruled to extend his detention.

Chen has declined to speak in his defense or answer questions since May 7 to protest what he calls an unfair judicial system, except to speak briefly at his detention hearing last Friday.

In response to Chen supporters saying they would “shut the court down” if his detention was extended, Huang said the court respects the protesters’ right to freedom of speech, and it would arrange security for its officials if necessary.

Judicial Reform Foundation executive director Lin Feng-jeng (林峰正) criticized the ruling, saying the court’s action was “excessive” and the reasons for the detention had ceased to exist.

Lin said the court cited new reasons for detaining Chen because “they know the original reasons have become too flimsy.”

He urged the judges and prosecutors to find other means of preventing Chen from absconding because detention should be used as a last resort.

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said the court ruling was unacceptable. The party believed there was no need to keep Chen in custody, and the latest extension went against the consensus of legal professionals, he said.

Cheng said the court had heard all witnesses in the case, so Chen would have no need to conspire with them. The DPP also believed that as a former president guarded by security agents around the clock, Chen would have no chance of fleeing if released, he said.

He criticized President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for signing the UN’s International Convention on Civil and Political Rights into law earlier this year, but then ignoring reform of the legal system.

In related news, Chen was recently diagnosed with tendonitis in his right foot. The detention center said doctors put a cast on his foot on Saturday.

The doctors said the tendonitis was caused by an abnormal bone growth, and that Chen had also been prescribed medication for the condition.
　

Activists, academics ‘surrender’ to protest law
　

By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, Page 1
　

More than 120 academics and human rights activists said yesterday they would turn themselves in to prosecutors for breaking the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) in a protest against the legislation.

One after another, more than 30 people gave their name and occupation at a press conference in Taipei, telling prosecutors that they had violated the Act and would like to turn themselves in.

They did so in a show of support for National Taiwan University (NTU) sociology professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁) and Taiwan Association for Human Rights chairman Lin Chia-fan (林佳範), who have been indicted for contravening the Act in May and last month respectively.

Lee was indicted for taking a leading role in a student demonstration outside the Executive Yuan last November that demanded a revision of the Act, while Lin was indicted for organizing a separate demonstration outside the legislature.

“We believe that the right to assemble and parade are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and that peaceful assembly is not an illegal act,” said NTU law professor Yen Chueh-an (顏厥安), whose name topped the “surrender list.”

“We have all taken to the streets without government permission. Therefore, if Lee and Lin are guilty, we’re equally guilty,” he said.

National Tsinghua University sociology professor Lii Ding-tzann said he would also turn himself in, even though he didn’t think he had done anything illegal.

“I want to do so because the Assembly and Parade Act is unconstitutional and I want to debate it with a judge and a prosecutor in court,” he said.

He also accused the judiciary of becoming a tool of the executive branch by “threatening people not to speak out and prosecuting people who do.”

More than 50 lawyers joined the campaign by volunteering to provide legal assistance to those on the list.

Meanwhile, the activists and academics also called on the Cabinet and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to reconsider their version of an amendment to the Act.

Although the Cabinet-proposed revision removes the requirement for organizers to apply for permission before holding a rally, organizers must obtain authorization from the owner of the venue beforehand.

“Since most demonstrations are held in public places, organizers would have to get authorization from the government,” said Liu Ching-yi (劉靜怡), a professor at NTU’s Graduate Institute of National Development.

“So how is that different from applying for a permit?” Liu said.

Liu said she also did not agree with the amendment granting police the power to maintain order and disband demonstrations.

“It makes police both player and referee,” she said.

Police kill two Uighurs in Urumqi
　

LAWYERS WARNED: The Bureau for Legal Affairs has cautioned law firms about cases involving the violence in Xinjiang, saying national unity must be protected

REUTERS AND AP , URUMQI AND BEIJING, CHINA
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, Page 1
　

Chinese police shot dead two people yesterday in renewed unrest in Xinjiang, state media said, after at least 184 people died in riots last week.

Xinhua news agency said the two people killed in the regional capital Urumqi were Uighur. Police were trying to stop them attacking another Uighur when the security forces opened fire, the report said. Another Uighur was injured.

“An initial investigation found that the three people were attacking the fourth person with clubs and knives at 2:55pm near the People’s Hospital at Jiefang Nanlu,” Xinhua said. “Police on patrol fired warning shots before shooting at the three suspects.”

Photos taken at the time show one policeman raising his rifle to strike a man. Beaten, the man in a blue shirt with blood on his right leg lay on the ground. Police formed a ring around him, pointing their guns up at surrounding buildings.

One witness, Zhang Ming, a construction worker at a building site near the incident, said he saw three men with knives come out of a mosque and attack a group of paramilitary police standing in a cluster along the road. Riot police then chased them, beat them and fired shots, he said.

Earlier yesterday, state media said protests against Chinese consulates in Europe and the US showed that ethnic riots in Xinjiang on July 5 were orchestrated.

Demonstrators threw eggs, Molotov cocktails and stones at several Chinese embassies and consulates, including in Ankara, Oslo, Munich and the Netherlands, Xinhua said.

“Supporters of the East Turkestan separatists started well orchestrated and sometimes violent attacks on Chinese embassies and consulates in several countries soon after the riots occurred,” Xinhua said.

“The attacks against China’s diplomatic missions and the Urumqi riots seemed to be well organized,” it said.

In a sign the government is not going to relax its grip in Urumqi anytime soon, Xinhua said police will take in for questioning anyone who cannot produce an indentity card or driving license.

Meanwhile, Beijing is warning lawyers away from cases involving the recent ethnic violence in Xinjiang, saying it is important to protect the country’s unity.

The Bureau for Legal Affairs of Beijing said the violence that started on July 5 in Urumqi was “a typical beating, smashing, looting and burning incident” by unnamed forces outside and inside the country.

“The purpose is to destroy ethnic unity, incite ethnic conflict and destroy the peaceful and united social situation,” the bureau said in a notice posted late last week on its Web site. “The bureau is asking that all the city’s lawyers and law firms clearly recognize the nature of this incident and firmly stand by the position of protecting the unity of the country.”

While it did not expressly ban lawyers from taking on cases, the notice urged caution while answering inquiries about legal advice.

Law firms should report such cases immediately and “positively accept monitoring and guidance from legal authorities and lawyers’ associations,” the bureau said.

The notice also banned lawyers from making comments to the media or on the Internet.

“This is a bold abuse of the legal profession,” said Li Fangping (李方平), a lawyer who has regularly been targeted for representing politically sensitive clients. “Lawyers accept cases based on their professional judgment. Now, administrative measures are being imposed on us. This is a big step backward for China’s legal industry.”

History of Tiananmen Massacre still alive

Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, Page 3

TT: This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and there are news reports saying how young people in China don’t seem to have any idea what it was. Are you concerned about this? Do you think people within China’s current system miss Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽)?

Bao Pu (鮑樸): I wouldn’t worry about that. I am not really worried about the so-called memory loss. I bet the memory of Tiananmen haunts the Chinese government the most and that [its officials] never forgot it for a single minute because they have guarded [information about] Tiananmen Square for 20 years. So if the government cannot forget, how can the people? The government would have to act on their memory. It affects their policy, it underlies their attitude toward everything.

In the new generation, if any of them — and I am sure there are some — are interested in politics, they are going to be the future generation of leaders. And once they are interested in politics and social issues, they will know for sure what happened. So it will all go back to that focal point. I wouldn’t be so worried if you were not there, or was not even born [when the massacre occurred]. If individuals happened to be only interested in playing video games for the rest of their lives, fine, but they wouldn’t have any kind of input into the political future anyway.

TT: This year again we saw a really large turnout in Hong Kong for commemorations of the Tiananmen Square Massacre anniversary. By comparison, very few people in Taiwan turned out. What are your thoughts on that?

Bao: The difference is that people in Hong Kong have no choice. They also have a tradition of involvement in China’s political progress for the past 100 years. Because Taiwan is not ruled by the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government, there is a political [tendency] to mask feelings about how they might relate to mainland China. The lack of interest is, I think, wrong, because, you know, Chinese democracy in mainland China and whatever the outcome in Taiwan [regarding unification], it will affect Taiwan’s future in real terms. I think it is sort of playing ostrich if you don’t take an interest in political progress in mainland China. Whatever your views on Taiwan’s future, whether you like it or not, Beijing is going to affect you in real terms. So you had better deal with it and face it.

TT: What role, if any, do you think Taiwan can or should play in the process of democratization in China?

Bao: Mainland China must resolve its differences between the government and the people before it can be dealt with at the political level. Also, any government of Taiwan would have to really put promoting democracy in China as an important aspect of its agenda. If Beijing has the objective of reuniting [sic] with Taiwan, then obviously Taiwan needs to have preconditions for the talks.

And I think the compatibility of political systems should be the precondition. Once you make sure that you are on the same value system, then it is a different ball game.

TT: Where do you think China is now in terms of reform?

Bao: The reform process practically ended in 1992 after [then Chinese leader] Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) southern tour [of China] because the debate was over and China was on its course — that is, a commitment to free market and also a renewed sense of authoritarian autocracy. So there was no more debate, no more packaging or proposals for political reform and it’s actually been continuing since then.

TT: What are the chances of Zhao’s legacy being readdressed in China?

Bao: We don’t know. But his political fate was related to the Tiananmen Massacre. I am confident that the Tiananmen Massacre will eventually have to be revisited and they [Chinese authorities] will have no choice [but to do so].

TT: Your father is in Beijing now; his movement and who can visit him are limited. Are you concerned he may face reprisals as a result of the book’s publication?

Bao: This year, before the publication of the book, I was denied a visit to my parents during Chinese New Year and I don’t know when the next time I will be able to see him. So far there hasn’t been any apparent retaliation against us, or against him personally, no.

[My father] said the authorities remained cool. They did not over-react, which is good.

TT: What are his thoughts on the publication? And yours?

Bao: He basically thinks the book clearly shows that the current leadership has no personal responsibility for the killings, but that it does have the responsibility of revisiting the Tiananmen Massacre.

There should be no direct political opposition to that. And once the government re-evaluates the incident, the party should not have any trouble with a reappraisal. [My father] basically said the state or the [Chinese Communist] Party will not be threatened if they carry it out.

I hope its influence will reach far and wide and that when people talk about that period, they will not ignore [the massacre], even if they work for the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party.

It is really hard to bypass history that has been restored.

Yonaguni Island and changing relations
　

By HoonTing 雲程
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, Page 8

The US and Japan are preparing to deploy troops to Yonaguni Island, giving rise to two interpretations in Taiwan: either the move is aimed at China or at Taiwan. The former interpretation is based on the traditional view of containment, while the latter predicts that Taiwan will become part of China.

The US is deploying Apache attack helicopters on Yonaguni, and this is alarming. The deployment is not aimed at controlling air space but is a preparation to defend the island and evacuate residents if Taiwan loses air supremacy.

There are plenty of examples from history of one party boosting its rival’s expectations by making concessions that eventually lead to war. Western European tolerance of Nazi Germany is a case in point.

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “pro-China, anti-Japan” policy will not ensure long-term security across the Taiwan Strait, and this is the reason for the US military deployment despite the US Department of State’s praise of Ma.

It is crucial to understand international relations. In the West, a complex power map with the US and Britain at its heart has gone unchallenged for decades.

Other countries have their roles in the power structure as well, including Taiwan and South Korea. But given the importance to China and Japan of South Korea and the US bases there, Taiwan falls behind South Korea in the power hierarchy.

Small countries often cannot choose which side they are on. This applies to a certain extent to South Korea, not to mention Taiwan, whose status remains undetermined.

The reality is that if Taiwan is not subordinate to the US, it is subordinate to China. The question is whether Washington wants to maintain the US-Japan alliance or wants to embrace its “natural partner on the Asian mainland.” This is closely related to the competition for influence between Germany and France and between Japan and China.

What does the future hold? Taiwanese are worried and Japanese are confused about Taiwan’s position and even their own. As vanquished nations, Germany and Japan have become the fists of the victors, the US and the UK, by hosting US military bases.

The US’ global position is built on its position as the main constituent of the alliances that won two world wars. If Washington abandons this position, international relations will return to the disorderly 19th century situation, with a lack of focus and chaotic wars.

The US is likely to transform from a superpower with total control to a sovereign leader in charge of global, feudal cooperation. The point of departure for this paradigmatic change is the framework of the existing NATO and US-Japan alliances. This gives us a glimpse of the soft power that the administration of US President Barack Obama has discussed.

The key for two countries wanting to maintain their friendship lies in cultural, economic and military cooperation, such as Taiwan’s cooperation with the US and Japan.

If culture and economy are separated from military cooperation, it could have unforeseen consequences, bringing confusion to the relationship between the US, China and Japan.

One example of this is the government’s push for an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) while trying to maintain the Taiwan Strait median line.

China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi (王毅) has reportedly called for opening the median line and building mutual military trust. This is a consequence of rapid reconciliation and the isolation of culture and the economy over the past year. It will lead to changes to the relationship between the US and Japan.

HoonTing is a freelance writer.

Asia wants substance from the Obama administration
　

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has laid the groundwork. Now it’s up to the president to deliver on US leadership in the region

By Simon Tay
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, Page 9

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to travel to Asia again this month to meet foreign ministers at the ASEAN Regional Forum, and to visit India.

On her first Asian trip in February, she provided a welcome contrast to the past with her openness to others’ views, her willingness to cooperate and her star power. She made Asians look at the US anew.

But this trip will be trickier. One challenge is that part of the plot for the US and Clinton is being written by others. North Korea will be on the agenda after conducting its missile tests, as will Myanmar, since its generals persist in prosecuting Aung San Suu Kyi, the world’s most famous political detainee, on trivial charges.

After all that has happened in recent weeks, the definition of “success” must be set low. Nothing positive will come from the US condemning these two difficult regimes unilaterally. So a key goal of Clinton’s visit must be to pull together with the Asian leaders present at the ASEAN Regional Forum.

As for Myanmar, its neighbors and fellow ASEAN members — Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand — are also concerned about Suu Kyi’s continued prosecution. The US should begin to work with these countries not only on this matter, but also on the elections that Myanmar military junta has promised for 2010. Together, they should press for assurances of a free and fair process, with the aim of avoiding the kind of mess that followed the Iranian elections.

Indonesia can be one ally. After decades of autocracy, this vast archipelago of a country just concluded a presidential election that has solidified its transition to democracy. India, proud of its long-standing democracy and fresh from its own elections, shares a border with Myanmar and can also assist efforts there.

The approach to North Korea is similar. Kim Jong-il is a naughty boy who wants attention and incentives to behave decently. Rather than debate with her counterparts, Clinton needs to ensure that other countries in the six-party framework, especially China and South Korea, are on the same page as the US.

On both issues, there is little capacity to exert force or sufficient pressure for solutions any time soon. So diplomatic efforts must instead aim to join Americans and like-minded Asians in common cause, to push for steps forward in the medium to longer term. Others must be brought on board, especially the Regional Forum hosts, ASEAN and Thailand.

A moral community should form in Asia, one that displaces its leaders’ usual cynical calculations of power in order to jump on the right bandwagon.

In all this, China is the 800-pound dragon in the room. China is already closer to ASEAN and a key player with respect to Myanmar, North Korea and other sticky issues. A “bamboo” economic zone appears to be emerging, perhaps to replace today’s weakening US-centric trans-Pacific ties.

This is the context for Clinton’s visit to India, as well. Former US president George W. Bush’s administration should be credited for giving overdue recognition to India, but this was done primarily on a bilateral basis. The US should now leverage that relationship to work on regional and even global issues.

Besides her own work, Clinton is likely to also be inundated during this visit with requests concerning President Barack Obama. There is still no confirmation of when Obama will visit Asia, though many expect that he will attend the APEC summit to be held in Singapore in November.

China, Japan and Indonesia must be among Obama’s priorities, but many others will clamor for him to visit their capitals. Clinton and the US administration would do well to decide which requests are merely photo ops and confine these to meetings at the sidelines of APEC. The US should insist on a substantive agenda as a precondition for any Obama visit. In China, for example, Clinton successfully established an agenda for the two countries to work together on climate change. Plans and resources must now be prepared.

Clinton has reopened the doors for Obama in Asia with charm and confidence. Obama will eventually come to Asia with many high expectations and star billing. While his charisma and openness to dialogue will be sought after, substance will also be measured and much needed.

By November, after all, it will be more than a year since the global crisis began in the US, and Obama and his team must show tangible prospects for recovery. US leadership — globally and in Asia — can no longer be presumed. It must be earned.

Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and a fellow of the Asia Society.