Emergency aid pours in from abroad
　

RELIEF: More aid arrived yesterday, including supplies from the US, the UK, Israel and Singapore. As many as 59 countries have offered assistance
　

By Meggie Lu and Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTERS, WITH AGENCIES
Monday, Aug 17, 2009, Page 1
　

Water purification tablets, tents, prefabricated homes and other foreign aid arrived yesterday as ­typhoon-battered Taiwan coped with the aftermath of its worst weather disaster in 50 years.

A US military C-130 transport aircraft from a US airbase in Okinawa, Japan, arrived at Tainan Air Force Base with 6,800kg of plastic sheeting for makeshift housing, the Central Emergency Operation Center (CEOC) said.

This was the first official landing by a US military transport aircraft at a military airbase in Taiwan for humanitarian purposes since the US switched political recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979 and pulled out its US troops based in Taiwan.

The aircraft arrived in Tainan at 2:50pm and flew back to Okinawa immediately after discharging its cargo.

“We have been looking at what materials are available and what kind of services we have to commute the items Taiwan needs,” Christopher Kavanagh, press officer at the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), told the Central News Agency.
　

At least one US heavy-lift CH-53E helicopter will arrive in Taiwan today to assist in relief operations in southern Taiwan, Ministry of National Defense officials said yesterday, adding it would be delivered by an amphibious transport dock ship — also known as a landing platform dock — in waters near Taiwan, from where the chopper will fly to the Tainan air base.

“The US military is now working to have its CH-53E helicopter take part in humanitarian post-­disaster relief efforts in Taiwan,” a ministry official said on condition of anonymity.
　

As the CH-53E chopper can transport a 16-tonne payload, its arrival is expected to help with relief and rehabilitation work in mountainous areas that were cut off from the outside world in the storm, the official said.

Representatives of the US Agency for International Development have arrived to assess what additional aid Taiwan may need. The EU will also send representatives to Taiwan in the coming days for the same purpose.

The government said it also received US$1.14 million in medical supplies from Singapore and water purifiers and high-speed water-transport equipment from Israel.

An Emirates Airlines flight arrived in Taipei early yesterday with shelter boxes donated by the UK’s Shelter Box Trust, which is administered by the Helston-Lizard Rotary Club in Cornwall, disaster response officials said.

The shelter boxes, which will soon be delivered to the hardest-hit disaster zones, contain a 10-person tunnel tent, 10 sleeping bags and accessories including a multifuel cooker, water purifier, a spade and rope.

China Airlines also airlifted a shipment of emergency supplies donated by Australia to Taipei early yesterday free of charge. The supplies include 200,000 water purification tablets, 5,040 large buckets for treating water and for general household use, 100 sanitizer spray packs that hold disinfectant, and repellent to spray around buildings for disease prevention.

Fan Liqing (范麗青), a spokeswoman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, was quoted by CNA as saying that “whatever Taiwan needs, we will work to assist.”

The CEOC said the first shipment of prefabricated homes promised by China would arrive tomorrow.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said more than 59 countries have offered to provide assistance to Taiwan.

Pope Benedict XVI also donated US$50,000, it said.

Meanwhile, rescue and cleanup entered its ninth day as helicopters continued crisscrossing southern mountainous regions to airlift survivors. As many as 41,000 troops fought raging rivers and crossed broken roads and collapsed bridges to reach victims, many of whom have been without food for more than a week.

More than 1,370 people still needed to be airlifted from four devastated areas, government officials said, adding that the major road leading to Namasiya Township’s (那瑪夏) Maya Village (瑪雅) in Kaohsiung County, for example, had been completely washed away by raging water and mudslides.

The storm has killed at least 124 people. This number does not include the hundreds of people believed to have been buried in landslides, especially in Xiaolin Village (小林) in Kaohsiung County’s Jiaxian Township (甲仙).

Xiaolin Self-help Association members said yesterday the main factor behind the landslide was likely poor construction at the Tsengwen Reservoir nearby.

The survivors said that for the past 100 years, their ancestors lived in the mountain and no mudslide of this scale ever occurred.

“We demand national compensation … We will bring the name plaques of the deceased to the County Government to ask for this and if our pleas are not answered, we will go north to the Presidential Office,” they said.

The villagers reached a consensus on several demands they will make of the government, including that the cause of the landslide be investigated, that national compensation be provided to survivors, that the village be rebuilt elsewhere, that death certificates for missing individuals be issued as soon as possible and that a water ditch to alleviate flooding be dug. They also asked that buried bodies not be unearthed.

“My most respected [Control Yuan] President Wang [Chien-shien] and President Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)], please form a committee and determine who was responsible for this, return justice to Xiaolin Village,” a Xiaolin survivor said.

Before the consensus was reached, the survivors engaged in a heated debate on whether bodies of their buried loved ones should be dug out.

A villager who voted against digging said that even if his parents were disinterred, their bodies would be in pieces.

Another said that even if his parents were dead, “I have to see their bodies, I need closure.”

Meanwhile, survivors in Taoyuan Township yesterday protested against Kaohsiung County Commissioner Yang Chiu-hsing (楊秋興) for saying on Saturday that Taoyuan Township chief Hsieh Chui-yao (謝垂耀) had “abandoned the township and escaped.”

“How is Taoyuan Township going to begin reconstruction work if the township chief has run away?” Yang had said.

Hsieh’s wife and son-in-law said yesterday that Hsieh was still in the mountain, adding that he had only wanted to come down to collect resources for his township.

Hsieh’s son-in-law said that about 300 people remained in Taoyuan Township’s Kaochong (高中), Baoshan (寶山) and Fu­hsing (復興) villages.

“Are Aborigines not humans too? We pay taxes too. The government must send someone to save our families. Must we become the next Xiaolin Village before the government takes us seriously?” he asked.

In Shenmu Village (神木), Nantou County, about 300 people were still trapped after the only bridge to the village collapsed.

Back at the relief center in Sindian City (新店), Taipei County, CEOC Commander Mao Chih-kuo (毛治國) struggled to answer questions asked by foreign reporters at an international press conference.

While rebutting accusations from foreign media that the government was incapable of handling the emergency, Mao did not provide clear responses to most of the questions.

“I don’t think the government is incapable as some media outlets have speculated,” Mao told Japanese media outlets NHK and Asahi News. “I inspected roads in Jiaxian, Liukuei (六龜) and Maolin (茂林) townships [Kaohsiung County] as early as Aug. 9 and Aug. 10 to see which areas could be cut off from the outside world after the storm.”

He said the information he gathered was used as reference to the military’s rescue efforts.

“As for the delayed rescue efforts, since helicopters are our main tool, deciding whether to fly helicopters into devastated areas really depends on weather conditions,” he said.

Asked when the accurate death toll at Xiaolin Village would be released, Mao said a series of procedures would have to be completed before the government could release the number. Asked to elaborate on the procedures, Mao only repeated the previous remark.

Asked by the Wall Street Journal what kind of assistance Taiwan expected to receive from Japan and the US, and how supplies and help from those two countries would be used, Mao said Taiwan has been updating the list of supplies as they arrive and that it would continue to do so.

Another reporter asked where the helicopters from the US would be dispatched once they arrived, Mao said the government would “make further assessments.”

Snapping Ma out of complacency

Monday, Aug 17, 2009, Page 8

Seven days after Typhoon Morakot wreaked havoc in southern Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally realized how serious the situation is and called a national security meeting. The government’s slow and disorganized response to the disaster has angered victims and stirred criticism across the political spectrum and from the international community.

Ma’s Cabinet ministers may hold doctorate degrees, but they have failed the test this time, with Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) and local government heads busy blaming each other while the military “awaited orders” to join rescue efforts.

As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Ma should have ordered well-trained and equipped military forces to start rescue work a week ago, but instead only called the national security meeting after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had sparked public discontent by declining offers of assistance from abroad.

The nine directives Ma issued at the national security meeting contain too many empty words. Ma’s call for a special act for post-disaster reconstruction is necessary to secure sufficient funds, but it is nothing new. No presidential order is required to set up a post-disaster recovery committee, either, since it is already required under the Disaster Prevention and Protection Act (災害防救法). Restoring communication and transportation in disaster areas and providing real-time information to victims are also critical to disaster relief, but the government has done poorly in these areas.

Ma thinks the central government’s emergency response apparatus is satisfactory and has called for improvements at the local level and for outdated equipment to be replaced. The main reason for the disorganized relief efforts, however, is precisely the incompetence of the Central Emergency Operations Center. As an ad hoc structure, it has no accumulated experience. It failed to establish unified command at central and local levels and to ensure efficient coordination and communication between the ministries. Resources have not been used quickly and effectively.

Information on the extent of the disaster and what kinds of aid are required was collected by the media faster than government departments.

The typhoon, landslides and floods have awakened the government to the importance of land and water management. Ma has called for a series of public hearings to be held before a draft national land planning act is put forward, seemingly unaware that a proposal was already drawn up years ago, but could not be enacted because of opposition from Ma’s own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). It remains to be seen whether Ma can finally get this proposal passed when he takes up the post of KMT chairman.

Typhoon Morakot has fully exposed Ma’s weak character, his indecision and lack of empathy with victims on the front line. His crisis management skills have proved inferior to those of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), former Taiwan provincial governor James Soong (宋楚瑜) and even former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Ma’s weak leadership and the Cabinet’s tardy response have wiped out respect for the government just as villages were swept away by the flood.

Despite all its failures, the government seems to think that its emergency response has been quick and sufficient, but that is not how it looks to the public. The KMT’s luck has run out. When local government elections are held at the end of this year, voters will surely snap Ma and his party out of their complacency.

China misreads Taiwan ‘dissidents’
　

By Suzanne Pepper
Monday, Aug 17, 2009, Page 8

The relationship between Hong Kong’s stalled demand for full universal suffrage and Beijing’s plans for unification with Taiwan came to the fore late last month when Hong Kong played host to a high-profile Chinese Communist Party (CCP) representative. Du Qinglin (杜青林) heads the party’s United Front Work Department and came from Beijing to aid what he called the “difficult and complex” task of national reunification.

Du’s assignment was to officiate at inaugural ceremonies for the Hong Kong branch of China’s Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification. The organization, established in 1988, now has chapters in more than 80 countries and works primarily among Chinese communities to promote relations across the Taiwan Strait. A branch was set up in Macau five years ago.

The implications of Du’s visit became apparent even before he arrived and were reinforced by his remarks at the ceremonial gathering of 1,400 people in Hong Kong on July 30. It was announced beforehand that Du would not meet any members of Hong Kong’s pan-democratic political camp, nor were they included on the guest lists for any of the events held during his three-day stay. Yet he said in his keynote speech that the new Hong Kong branch was an “all-Hong Kong” organization and he called on Hong Kongers to publicize the success of their “one country, two systems” formula as a model for Taiwan-China unification.

Based on the Wen Wei Po daily’s report of the speech, it sounded like something written for another era that had lain forgotten in United Front Work Department files for a dozen years until someone mistakenly approved it for use without regard to present political realities either in Hong Kong or Taiwan.

Another speech at the July 30 ceremony, however, was very much up-to-date. Peng Qinghua (彭清華) heads the central government’s official liaison office in Hong Kong. This office, set up in 2000, was not mentioned in any of the pre-1997 documents but has become Beijing’s increasingly outspoken local authority.

According to the Wen Wei Po, Peng “emphasized that national unification is the common aim of the leaders of both the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] and the CCP.”

The questions raised by Du’s visit are twofold. First, how can the new organization be considered “all-Hong Kong in nature” when local democrats are not represented, even though they are still winning 60 percent of the vote in Hong Kong’s direct elections for half the seats in its 60-member Legislative Council? Second, on what political grounds does Beijing intend unification to take place — given Hong Kong’s experience — since Taiwan and China are governed by two very different political systems?

Hong Kong’s one-country, two-systems formula has appeared successful until now because it is in the early stage of implementation. The formula has only a 50-year lifespan (1997-2047), however, and should not be seen as a permanent solution. It is being used instead as a means of easing the transition to a one-country, one-system formula, meaning full integration within Beijing’s political system. This transition is now well-advanced in Hong Kong and the most contentious issues are those in which Hong Kong, as represented by its pan-democratic leaders, is resisting the pressures to impose mainland Chinese-style political norms and institutions.

The most important of these pressures to date are: Beijing’s insistence on introducing mainland-style national political security laws; Beijing’s refusal to allow a wholly elected local government, allegedly because too many voters still prefer democratic candidates; and the increasingly critical commentary in mainland sources about Hong Kong’s independent Western-influenced judiciary, which now stands as the court of last resort guaranteeing Hong Kong’s much-valued freedom of political expression. Not only did Du refuse to meet local democrats, he also declined to comment on any of these outstanding issues.

Journalist Frank Ching (秦家聰) noted the contradiction in the South China Morning Post. Ching’s pro-unification stance has won him little applause from Taiwanese independence supporters. Until recently, he accepted the “one country, two systems” formula at face value, assuming that its promised “high degree of autonomy” would be genuine.

Now, however, he sees the promise eroding: “Taiwan will see Hong Kong as more of a negative example than anything else” if Beijing does not allow universal suffrage to be “properly implemented.”

Ching nevertheless failed to spell out the full extent of Beijing’s dilemma. He noted correctly that most Hong Kongers, including democrats, do not support Taiwanese independence. On this point, Du was correct in saying the aim of reunification was “all Hong Kong in nature.” But that begs the question as to why he avoided contact with local democrats.

Since the mid-1980s, Taiwan’s government has evolved into a wholly and directly elected democracy, which is the aim of Hong Kong democrats as well. Yet Beijing still insists, as it has since the mid-1980s, that the demands by Hong Kongers for a Western-style directly elected representative government is tantamount to demands for independence. This is why mainland sources routinely refer to Hong Kong democrats as anti-party dissidents and why Chinese polemics excoriate them as traitors or worse. Loyalist supporters are guided by this logic, which seems calculated to provoke behavior that they claim is the inevitable consequence of Western-style adversarial politics.

The latest and most extreme example of such behavior is the plot to assassinate Hong Kong democratic leader Martin Lee (李柱銘) and Jimmy Lai (黎智英), publisher of both the Hong Kong and Taiwan editions of the Apple Daily. Chinese court documents from the Shenzhen trial of some of the suspected conspirators said the plans were funded by a Hong Kong businessman living in Taiwan and orchestrated by others who allegedly justified the plot on patriotic grounds. Lee and Lai were to be punished for their “anti-China and anti-Chinese Communist Party” political stance.

Beijing needs to explain exactly how Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” formula can be made politically viable for Taiwan when the formula has already produced a political impasse in Hong Kong. No such explanation has been forthcoming, nor has Beijing shown any inclination to ease its demand for unqualified acceptance of one-party, mainland-style rule in Hong Kong. On the contrary, an article in last month’s issue of the online Hong Kong journal by Beijing writer Cheng Jie (程潔) reaffirmed Beijing’s thinking in this regard.

Cheng’s article was written to explain what she calls Beijing’s “new policy” of active involvement in Hong Kong’s political evolution. This shift, she said, followed the massive July 1, 2003, demonstration against proposed national security legislation. Until then, Beijing had viewed Hong Kong as a “politically subdued territory.”

Cheng wrote that since Beijing is not ready to risk a “dissident-run” Hong Kong, the central government itself must control the pace of political reform. Beijing is also troubled by foreign influences and the pre-1997 legal or Basic Law provisions whereby foreign nationals are still being allowed to work as civil servants and judges. Foreigners can also vote in local elections. Beijing regards all this as “sharing governance” with foreigners. Cheng said that the provisions may have been a “great mistake” and that they will certainly complicate Hong Kong’s demands for universal suffrage.

Under the circumstances, Du and his colleagues should prepare some new talking points for use in promoting Taiwan-China unification. “One country, two systems” may have seemed like a good idea back in pre-2003 days when Beijing thought Hong Kong was “politically subdued.” But if Beijing still fears a dissident takeover of Hong Kong, how will party leaders secure safe governing arrangements for Taiwan within the two-systems model? Eliminating Hong Kong’s dissident risk factor seemingly pales in comparison to the task of subduing Taiwan — unless, of course, CCP and KMT leaders think they have already hit upon a political solution. The ultimate questions then are whether Beijing is misreading Taiwan as it did Hong Kong, and what else the CCP and KMT might have agreed on besides the ultimate aim of national unification.

Suzanne Pepper is a Hong Kong-based US writer.

Will ECFA improve or damage our job market?
　

By Cheng Li-chiun 鄭麗君
Monday, Aug 17, 2009, Page 8

Since President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration assumed office, unemployment has continued to set record highs. While government statistics show that unemployment hit 5.94 percent in June, US ratings agency Moody’s pointed out that the figure would be 7.1 percent if the percentage of the population forced to take unpaid leave is included.

A recent survey by Taiwan Thinktank found 12.7 percent of respondents to be either unemployed or seeking work, with approximately 30.6 percent of households suffering from unemployment. But instead of focusing on fundamental problems, the government has pinned its hopes on the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, saying that the pact will create 270,000 jobs. Can we really believe these statements?

The biggest concern is the potential unemployment an ECFA with China could cause. The survey also suggested that 50.8 percent of respondents did not agree with the government, which has said: “The signing of an ECFA with China would substantially reduce domestic unemployment.”

The survey said that the number of respondents who agreed with what the government has said about an ECFA only accounted for half of those who disagreed.

In addition, Chiu Jiunn-rong (邱俊榮), vice dean of the School of Management at National Central University, said the Global Trade Analysis Project model used in a report published by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research was based on the assumption that there is full employment in the market. Chiu said the report was therefore incapable of estimating how an ECFA would affect Taiwan’s domestic job market.

However, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) has repeatedly cited this report when stating that a pact with China would increase employment.

In addition, the government has not explained what an ECFA with China would entail. How can the public be expected to believe it will create jobs? A public opinion poll showed that 90 percent of respondents said they did not understand the proposed agreement’s content and 90 percent of respondents considered it necessary for the MOEA to publicize the details of an ECFA along with an objective assessment to give the public a better understanding of the matter.

The poll also said 80 percent of respondents disagreed with the content of the controversial cartoons the MOEA recently released, which depicted opponents to an ECFA as poorly educated and supporters as intellectually and socially superior.

The government should not push through such a controversial agreement against the will of the public. There have been many examples of economic affairs being put to a referendum in other countries. For instance, Denmark and Sweden made a referendum part of the approval procedure for their participation in European economic integration in 2000 and 2003 respectively.

Now that civic groups have completed the first stage of their application to hold a referendum on an ECFA, the government should not waste public funds promoting an economic pact with China or provide us with “professional assessments” to cover up the potential impact of the agreement. The government should make the contents of an ECFA public and engage the public in detailed discussion on what impact it may have on all aspects of our lives.

Whether to sign an ECFA should be decided by the public. Taiwan Thinktank is ready for a debate on the ECFA with the government, but is the government ready to discuss the matter openly?

Cheng Li-chiun is the chief executive officer of Taiwan Thinktank.