Analysts divided on the repercussions of Dalai Lama visit
　

SPIRITUAL PROBLEM: While some said that President Ma Ying-jeou handled the visit of the Tibetan leader well, others criticized him for not personally welcoming him
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Sep 09, 2009, Page 3

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decision to allow the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan in the wake of Typhoon Morakot has received mixed responses. While some said Ma handled himself well, others thought he was victimized by the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) “political machinations.”

Amid the crisis caused by Morakot, Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) and six other local government heads from the DPP invited the Dalai Lama to Taiwan to comfort and pray for the victims and survivors.

Ma approved the Buddhist leader’s visit on Aug. 26, saying the decision was based on religious and humanitarian considerations. The Presidential Office later revealed details of the five-hour decision-making process in which Ma consulted senior Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials who were divided over the issue.

HEATED DEBATE

Ma’s decision also touched off a heated debate between political rivals. Describing the DPP’s move as a “political version of Pearl Harbor,” the KMT criticized the DPP for pulling a “political stunt.” The DPP argued that the visit wasn’t political.

As expected, Beijing vehemently opposed the visit of the spiritual leader of the Tibetan government in exile, saying it would have a negative impact on cross-strait relations.

While Beijing denounced the DPP for “plotting the trip to rattle the recent cross-strait detente,” it was careful to spare the KMT.

Commenting on the possible negative effect of his visit, the Dalai Lama said it was too early to tell but that it would become clear in six months or a year.

In an attempt to repair the “damage” caused by the visit, it was speculated that the KMT sent an emissary to Beijing, but both the party and the Presidential Office denied it.

Soochow University political science professor Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) said it was hard not to see the political implications of the matter.

Speaking about Ma’s rejection of a proposed visit by the Dalai Lama in December because the timing was “inappropriate,” Lo said the decision was made with “purely political considerations.”

“Now the best time has come,” he said. “But the decision is also a political one.”

Lo said he also believed the DPP had its own political considerations, adding that the party offered Ma a chance to salvage his plunging popularity in the wake of the disaster.

“Ma has by and large turned a lose-lose situation into a less lose, tiny-win situation,” Lo said.

However, the price Ma had to pay was China’s loss of trust in his leadership and credibility, he said. Beijing now realizes it cannot rely solely on Ma to court the Taiwanese public, but must bank on “other agents” as well.

Ma also invited criticism when he and other top government officials shunned the Dalai Lama during the visit, creating the image that Ma was a “puppet” manipulated by Beijing, Lo said.

While it will take time to reinstate Beijing’s trust in him, Lo said, it will be a “hard balancing act” for Ma to build China’s trust while keeping the public from thinking his China-friendly policy may come at the expense of Taiwan’s interest.

Lo said he did not think Beijing would be so “stupid” as to retaliate by rejecting Ma’s plan to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), because that would be playing into the DPP hands.

“I’m more worried that Beijing will speed up the process,” he said. “Beijing may continue to dish out more economic favors to the people of Taiwan while pressuring Ma into paying a higher price on the political front.”

Tung Li-wen (董立文), a professor at the Department and Graduate School of Public Security of the Central Police University, said Beijing would never abandon its efforts to sign an ECFA or a financial memorandum of understanding with the Ma administration.

“The Dalai Lama is not the real threat to the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] authorities,” Tung said. “China may cry for a while, but it will never allow the matter to undercut its ultimate objective of ‘peaceful development’ and gradual unification.”

BARGAINING CHIP

Beijing, however, might use the Dalai Lama’s visit as a bargaining chip in negotiations, Tung said. While Ma desperately wants to sign the economic pact, Tung said, he would be wise to capitalize on Beijing’s eagerness to unite with Taiwan and use it as leverage.

“Unfortunately, he seems to do things the other way around and pay more attention to gauging Beijing’s attitude,” he said.

As to claims by Beijing and the KMT that the Dalai Lama’s visit would undermine cross-strait relations, Tung said the assumption was not only a misjudgment but did not tally with the facts, as Beijing does not want the visit to threaten relations.

Tung said Ma allowed the Dalai Lama’s visit because he had no other choice, with his approval rating at an all-time low after the typhoon.

Describing the visit as the worst treatment the Dalai Lama had ever received, Tung said that no matter who canceled a planned press conference with local and foreign media or scaled down the Dalai Lama’s public speech, the KMT administration must be held fully responsible.

Tung said Ma’s biggest failure was in refusing to meet the Dalai Lama, adding that such a move led the public to think that he was inconsistent, referring to his position on Tibet.

“The only reasonable explanation is that he is afraid of upsetting Beijing by meeting the Dalai Lama,” he said.

Hsu Szu-chien (徐斯儉), an assistant research fellow at the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica, said Beijing was unlikely to retaliate against Taiwan economically, but that it would make sure that the Ma administration pays a price on the political front.

Hsu said it would run against Beijing’s interest if it refused to sign the ECFA with Taiwan because the accord was designed to make Taiwan more economically reliant on China.

Beijing’s suspension of cross-strait exchanges after the visit was only temporary, he said, adding that it was a political gesture to show Taiwan it was unhappy about the Buddhist leader’s visit.

“Ma is the best Taiwan leader Beijing could ever have, so it will do whatever it can to help him,” he said.

POLITICAL AGENDA

Hsu said there was nothing wrong in democratic Taiwan inviting the Dalai Lama to pray for typhoon victims, though he added that both the DPP and KMT had their own political objectives.

“The Dalai Lama may have seen his visit as non-political, but those who invited him, approved the visit or rejected it had their own political agenda,” he said.

However, the public would judge whether political considerations harmed the visit of the Dalai Lama.

With plummeting approval ratings, Hsu said Ma did not have had enough political capital to reject the Dalai Lama, as opposed to in December.

However, Hsu said he was more curious about the Presidential Office’s revelation of the president’s decision-making process.

Commenting on the Dalai Lama’s change of schedule, Hsu said it was important to note that the Dalai Lama’s spokesman did not confirm whether it resulted from political pressure, although he believed there must have been pressure of some kind.

While Ma came under fire for being inconsistent in his position on the Tibet issue, Hsu said it was “normal” and “predictable.”

Hsu said Ma did not make any major mistakes in dealing with the matter. He successfully turned public opinion in his favor and made many people believe that the DPP was too “calculating,” he said.

For the benefit of both the DPP and Taiwan, Hsu urged the party to formulate a policy to counter KMT-CCP efforts to sign an ECFA after the Referendum Review Committee rejected the DPP’s proposed referendum on the fate of the planned pact.

Freedom fading fast in Hong Kong

Wednesday, Sep 09, 2009, Page 8

Hong Kong received sharp reminders this past week that it must continue to fight Beijing if it hopes to retain the freedoms enshrined in its Basic Law and the independence of its government agencies and judiciary. For years, civic groups have pointed to signs that Hong Kong’s freedoms are eroding. This week, an attack on Hong Kong journalists in China proper was the latest reminder that the rights Hong Kong residents enjoy apply only within the territory.

Despite increasing self-censorship on sensitive issues since the handover in 1997, Hong Kong’s media today still enjoy a level of freedom their Chinese counterparts have never tasted. Two incidents this week were grim signals that Chinese authorities consider that freedom a threat and that very different rules apply in China. Once they cross over to the mainland, Hong Kong media cannot expect to receive better treatment than China’s cowed press corps.

On Sunday, a TVB reporter and his cameraman, along with a journalist from another Hong Kong station, were reportedly beaten by Urumqi police and threatened at gunpoint after being caught taping police using tear gas against protesters.

The following day, five Hong Kong reporters who were also covering the Urumqi protests were detained and harassed.

Media reaction in Hong Kong was quick. Dozens of reporters held a protest outside Beijing’s liaison office to condemn the abuse and call for media freedoms in China proper.

These incidents are hardly the first indicator that Hong Kong journalists take big risks by reporting on sensitive subjects in China. Journalist Ching Cheong (程翔) spent three years in prison after he was caught on the mainland collecting information for a report on late Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽). Ching, who was jailed on bogus charges of spying for Taiwan, was originally sentenced to five years in prison, but was released early, possibly in response to a relentless and high-profile campaign by concerned groups in Hong Kong and abroad.

Other incidents since then — including the harassment of Now Television journalists covering a dissident’s trial last month — demonstrate that the abuse of Hong Kong reporters are not isolated incidents or “misunderstandings” as Chinese police have at times claimed.

On Friday, meanwhile, a ruling by a Hong Kong court reinforced concerns that the territory’s judiciary and its government agencies are struggling to maintain independence in the face of fierce pressure from China.

The Court of Appeal of the High Court rejected an appeal by five Taiwanese who have been battling the Hong Kong Immigration Department in court for more than six years over an incident in February 2003: About 80 Taiwanese Falun Gong followers with valid visas were turned away at Hong Kong’s immigration when they arrived to attend a conference.

Had the court ruled in the complainants’ favor, it would have been a clear message to Hong Kong authorities that they will be held accountable for arbitrary decisions — in this case, a decision that clearly violated the territory’s freedom of religion.

Although the case may not be over, this latest defeat was disheartening and disturbing. It is an indication that Chinese authorities can expect Hong Kong agencies to make illegal decisions at their bidding with little or no repercussions.

If this experience emboldens China, Hong Kong residents may find that Beijing’s meddling arm will have an ever wider reach into the territory.

Kennedy remembered

News of the death of Ted Kennedy on Aug. 25 brought back memories of the late US senator. Following is one of the things I remember him for.

In April 1992, Tim Wang, president of the Formosan Association for Human Rights (FAHR), was denied a visa to visit his sick mother and to attend the funeral of his nanny in Taiwan. Despite several repeated tries, Wang received no mercy from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government.

This action from the KMT government was so outrageous that I, as executive director, initiated a letter campaign to request help from senators Kennedy and Claiborne Pell, as well as US House Representative Stephen Solarz.

On June 23, 1992, Wang received a phone call from the Coordination Council for North American Affairs saying that his visa had been approved. Wang finally got a visa and the opportunity to visit his ill mother and Taiwan — the land he loves and missed so much after more than a quarter of century. We all were so delighted. We didn’t know then why the KMT government had changed its mind.

On August 17, 1992, I received a letter, from Kennedy, saying he had contacted and received word from the office of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs that Wang’s case had been taken care of.

Senator Ted Kennedy was indeed a great friend of Taiwanese and will be missed.

KEN HUANG
Murrieta, California

Structural threats facing Taiwan
　

By Lin Terng-yaw 林騰鷂
Wednesday, Sep 09, 2009, Page 8

‘With the Cabinet change, we need a national leader with a sense of mission and who is willing to take responsibility.’

With a Cabinet reshuffle looming, the government should use this opportunity to gain full understanding of the structural disasters facing the nation and consider comprehensive countermeasures on government, legislative and manpower reforms.

What structural disasters is Taiwan facing?

First is the threat of financial disaster. Government statistics and warnings from academic circles and the media show that Taiwan is already bankrupt: Government debt has reached NT$14.5 trillion (US$442 billion) — NT$6 trillion higher than the total value of state-owned assets of NT$8.5 trillion. In other words, every Taiwanese is born with a debt of NT$630,000. Taiwan used to be described as being awash in money, but that has been replaced by the nightmarish image of a nation deeply mired in debt.

This is why a frustrated public is urging the government to recalculate its budget for the next fiscal year. Frankly speaking, if the government were to cancel all leisure trips disguised as inspection tours or conferences and cut unnecessary public relations expenses, celebration ceremonies and inappropriate public procurements, it could easily save between NT$500 billion and NT$600 billion. Does the government have the determination and does it dare give it a try?

Second is the threat to education. The sharp increase in the number of higher education institutions, especially private schools, has led to a decline in the quality of university education, as well as technical and vocational schools. The educational system can no longer cope with the demands of social reform and economic development. In particular, the nation’s declining birth rate and changing economic and social values have lessened the value of educational credentials. Indeed, at some private colleges and universities, more than 90 percent of departments have been unable to fill their enrolment quotas.

Can this educational structural crisis be resolved simply by playing up the evaluations of institutions of higher learning rather than taking a more active and decisive approach to monitoring the educational situation and adopting legislative solutions?

Third is the threat to democracy. Democracy in Taiwan appears to be limited to the freedom to vote, while true democratic core ideals, such as the public will, rule of law and political accountability, have never been fully realized. Only a small percentage of local representatives or leaders — elected into office with the backing of powerful local factions or their family connections — have received any fundamental legal, economic and fiscal training. However, they have control over budget and staffing and can spend the public’s money to further their own interests and secure votes.

Faced with this structural democratic crisis, shouldn’t the “multi-member district, single nontransferable vote” system still used in local elections be amended? Shouldn’t legislation prohibiting the public from directly recalling the president and makes it difficult to recall elected representatives be amended? Shouldn’t the legal system at the local government level and sunshine legislation aimed at increasing transparency, such as the Political Donation Act (政治獻金法) and the Lobbying Act (遊說法), be amended? Shouldn’t the proposed political party law that regulates the legal responsibility of political parties be passed promptly? And shouldn’t the constitutional imbalance whereby the president has power but no responsibility and the premier has responsibility but no power be immediately adjusted?

Finally, there is the threat of administrative disaster. The current administrative structure can no longer deal with the multidimensional administrative functions of the 21st century. Administration is no longer limited to managing security, police and regulations, as the nation’s needs expand. It should also cover planning, forecasting, information, care and services among others. Several academics have pointed out how decades of lax and slack discipline have infected central and local government agencies.

Thanks to the computerization of the household, tax and land affairs administration, there is no longer any need for a bloated bureaucracy, while more staff is needed for environmental protection, disease prevention, healthcare, food hygiene, water, soil, forestry and mining, and plant and animal conservation.

Unfortunately, the passive and inflexible Central Personnel Administration fails to see this overall picture and provide career change training. This has saddled the government with a heavy personnel burden. New and important administrative tasks are given very small budgets. The small expenditure means that protection of public assets and livelihood resources and disaster and disease prevention do not receive sufficient staffing support.

We should also pay attention to the government’s plan to launch long-term care insurance in 2011. The question is whether the government is ready to meet the requirements for caregivers, social workers, counselors and other administrative personnel.

Taiwan is facing not only these four structural disasters. National health insurance and medical affairs, the judicial system, and national defense and security are also showing signs of a looming disaster. With the Cabinet change, we need a national leader with a sense of mission and who is willing to take responsibility. To be able to avert structural disaster, the main focus must be placed on the allocation of manpower and material resources and strengthening organizational training and preparation.

Lin Terng-yaw is a law professor at Tunghai University.