MOJ to probe Chen ‘US agent’ claim
　

AGENT OF INFLUENCE: The minister of justice said that prosecutors would look into a claim made by the former president’s lawyer to determine if he committed treason
　

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Sep 29, 2009, Page 1

Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) said yesterday that prosecutors would look into allegations by former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) attorney that Chen was an “agent” of the US government.

Wang made the remarks at a meeting of the legislature’s Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee.

She was referring to the former president’s petition last week for the US to intervene as the “principal occupying power of Taiwan” to seek his immediate release and restore his civil and human rights.

Roger Lin (林志昇), a member of the Taiwan Civil Rights Litigation Organization, said last week that his organization was sponsoring legal action for Chen and demanding full respect for his civil rights and his immediate release.

Lin said that Chen had declared himself an “agent” of the US government during his eight-year presidency and that the Republic of China government was in exile because Taiwan remains under the US Military Government as per the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Wang said prosecutors would look into the matter and investigate whether Chen has committed treason or other crimes.

During the committee meeting, Wang also vowed to crack down on individuals who owe large amounts to the national treasury in unpaid taxes.

More than NT$400 billion (US$12 billion) is owed to the national treasury in outstanding taxes by businesses and individuals, Wang said.

She said that because of limited budgets, the ministry’s Administrative Enforcement Agency had only 700 officials, meaning that each enforcement officer is responsible for 20,000 cases, causing delays in the process.

The issue of outstanding tax revenue recently surfaced as the agency sought payment from Jack Sun (孫道存), the former chairman of Pacific Electric Wire and Cable (太平洋電線電纜), who owes an estimated NT$300 million in taxes. Sun’s extravagant lifestyle despite his large debts has attracted much criticism from lawmakers and the public.

Taiwan’s Chang defeats top seed

AP AND REUTERS , TOKYO
Tuesday, Sep 29, 2009, Page 1

“I wasn’t thinking: ‘Oh, I have match point, I’m going to win.’”— Chang Kai-chen, Taiwanese tennis player
　

World No. 1 and defending champion Dinara Safina was knocked out in the second round of the Toray Pan Pacific Open yesterday by Taiwanese qualifier Chang Kai-chen (張凱貞) only hours before her fellow Russian Svetlana Kuznetsova was ousted in another upset result.

Safina was serving for the match in the third set when she double-faulted to give up a break. Chang, ranked 132nd and playing only for the fourth time in a WTA main draw, held her own serve and then broke Safina again for a 7-6 (7/5), 4-6, 7-5 win to reach the third round of the US$2 million tournament.

“The double-fault didn’t affect me that much,” Safina said. “Whether it’s a double-fault or a mistake it’s the same. It’s just the way I played at 5-4. It wasn’t the right game, I didn’t use my first serve the whole game.”

Chang converted her third match point on Safina’s forehand error after the Russian had fought back from 0-40 to 30-40.

“On match point, I was just thinking the same thing as always,” Chang said. “I wasn’t thinking: ‘Oh, I have match point, I’m going to win.’”
　

Safina’s status as the world’s top-ranked player has been under scrutiny and a third-round loss to 72nd-ranked Petra Kvitova of the Czech Republic at the US Open did little to ease that. She has never won a major title — having lost finals at the French Open and Australian Open tournaments this year — but has been consistent in other tournaments, winning three titles this year and four last year, including the Tokyo tournament.

“This is not an easy moment, but that’s sport,” Safina said. “I didn’t play good in the match today. I had a lot [of] chances in the third set and just let it go.”

Chang, who defeated Kaia Kanepi of Estonia 6-3, 6-3 in Sunday’s opening round, put Safina on the defensive from the outset, breaking her twice to go up 3-0 in the first set.

Safina rallied to take a 6-5 lead, but Chang forced and then won the tie-breaker.

Chang said the first thing that came to mind after her huge win was her parents.

“My mother doesn’t get out to watch a lot of matches, but she follows the live scoring and I was thinking about what she thought when she saw today’s score,” Chang said.

Chang made her Grand Slam debut at this year’s US Open, advancing to the second round where she lost to Magdalena Rybarikova.

Later yesterday, Germany’s Andrea Petkovic knocked out French Open champion Kuznetsova 7-5, 4-6, 6-3 to advance to the third round.

Kuznetsova lost to Safina in last year’s final.

Former Tokyo winner Maria Sharapova restored some pride for Russia, however, and gave the tournament sponsors some cheer with a battling 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 win over Italy’s Francesca Schiavone.

Former world No. 1 Sharapova improved as her first-round match progressed, storming through the final set before closing out with a blistering forehand down the line.

“I did a great job of hanging in there,” said Sharapova, 25th in the world rankings following shoulder surgery last October. “I was a down a break in the second set. It was really important to stay patient. What I have learned is that it takes a really long time to come back and I’m OK with that. I’ve been playing catch-up. I know that I’ve got to push myself more than I ever have in my career.”

In first-round matches yesterday, Japanese veteran Ai Sugiyama, playing in her last singles match, was forced to retire from her first-round match trailing 6-0, 2-1 to 13th-seeded Russian Nadia Petrova.

The 34-year-old Sugiyama, who announced earlier this month she was quitting the women’s circuit after 17 years, said the effects of a high temperature and stomach problems had made it impossible for her to continue playing.

Players seeded 11 to 14 all advanced.

No. 11 Agnieska Radwanska of Poland beat Russia’s Ekatrina Makarova 7-5, 6-3, No. 12 Samantha Stosur of Australia had a 7-5, 6-0 win over American Alexa Glatch and No. 14 Marion Bartoli of France defeated Sorana Cirstea of Romania, 6-3, 6-0.



■THAILAND OPEN
　

AFP, BANGKOK

Guillermo Garcia-Lopez saved match points yesterday, but could not stop Brazil’s Tomaz Bellucci as the Spaniard exited 6-4, 7-6 (9/7) in the first round of the Thailand Open.

Bellucci, winner last month of the Gstaad clay title, added another victory to the one he took last year over Garcia Lopez at a Challenger event in Morocco.

The world No. 61 needed a shade under two hours to go through at the Impact arena in an event where Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga is hoping to defend his title.

Bellucci advanced with four aces and two break-point conversions from six chances. Garcia Lopez missed on 11 of 12 of his own break points.

Bellucci moved into a second-round clash with Serb Viktor Troicki, who had a bye in the first round. France’s Gilles Simon, making his Bangkok debut, is seeded second ahead of American Sam Querrey, who broke through with a trophy at an LA event prior to the US Open.

Analysts say referendum highlights problems
　

By Shih Hsiu-Chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Sep 29, 2009, Page 3
　

Saturday’s referendum on casino resorts in Penghu County proceeded smoothly, but highlighted problems with procedural justice, analysts said.

A total of 42.16 percent of Penghu County’s 73,651 eligible voters turned out for the referendum, with 17,359 votes, or 56.44 percent, against the proposition to allow the opening of casinos on the islands.

At the center of the controversy regarding its procedural fairness was that the referendum, based on the Offshore Islands Development Act (離島建設條例), was binding regardless of voter turnout.

It permitted the licensing of casinos on Taiwan’s offshore islands pending the results of a referendum in a way that excluded such votes from the threshold stipulated in the 2003 Referendum Act (公民投票法). That act requires more than half of eligible voters to cast ballots for a poll to be valid.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which controlled the legislature at the time, introduced the clause, saying “Penghu County has a severe population loss problem.”

“Using the rationale to exempt the poll from the threshold is doubtful,” said Wang Yeh-lih (王業立), a professor of political science at National Taiwan University.

“It’s not a good enough reason for the exemption, as whether to set up casinos is a big issue for a region’s development,” he said.

After the referendum, pro-casino voters said they respected the result.

If the turnout was too low and the margin very small, there could have been a legitimacy problem, Wang said.

According to the government’s statistics agency, last year Penghu saw approximately 37 percent of its working population leave, a figure that explained the concerns of pro-casino forces that a 50 percent turnout threshold was too high.

“It’s apparent that setting no turnout threshold for referendums in outlying islands was tinged with political overtones,” said Lin Jih-wen (林繼文), a researcher at the Academia Sinica’s Institute of Political Science.

“There is no universal standard for thresholds. In France referendum results are respected despite the fact that it often sees an average turnout of 20 percent. Its referendums are not legally binding but of consultative nature. But in a country where awareness is relatively poor, a low turnout will suffer a legitimacy problem,” Lin said.

Lin said a high threshold does not necessarily resolve legitimacy problems either, as it could result from a mobilization of people against the topic who would otherwise not vote.

Looking at the case of Penghu, “you can clearly see political calculation in all this,” Lin said.

“The threshold exception was made as it was foreseen that the turnout could be low and having no threshold would favor pro-casino forces: the government, business groups and politicians who are more capable of mobilization than the opposition,” Lin said.

In 2003 before the Referendum Law was promulgated, Penghu County Government organized a consultative referendum on the issue, which saw a turnout of just 20.5 percent, with the “yes” vote garnering 57 percent of ballots cast, while 43 percent voted “no.”

Saturday’s poll result was no surprise to Yeh Chih-kuei (葉智魁), a professor of sports and leisure studies at the Graduate Institute of Tourism & Recreation at National Dong Hwa University.

Having studied the issue since it was proposed by former KMT lawmaker Chen Kwei-miew (陳癸淼) in 1992, Yeh said “many Penghu residents had shown their concern.”

“Media reports that conglomerates’ plans to build hotels, resorts and the like were under way created an impression that the referendum was going to pass but it was not accurate. A number of opinion polls over the years showed quite different results,” he said.

Yeh said that the difficulty in weighing up the pros and cons of casinos was a major reason casino advocates contended that the threshold be scrapped.

Another procedural justice concern arose when anti-gambling activists said that the administration did not remain neutral in the organizing of the referendum.

“Before a major policy is voted upon, the government should let the public know how it will influence people, its advantages and disadvantages. But in this case, the government saw the opening of casinos as a fait accompli, publishing booklets and using other means to promote their benefits,” Yeh said.

The Penghu County Government also held public hearings in all its 36 villages, townships and cities ahead of the vote as required by the Referendum Law.

However, it was not until the 14th hearing that the opposition had a chance to speak after Wu Hsun-lung (吳巡龍), a Penghu prosecutor, protested that the government had ignored dissenting voices.

“From the first to the 13th hearings, all the public hearings started with a half-hour presentation by the Penghu County Government in support of casinos followed by two people from the affirmative side, a total of more than one hour. I raised an objection at the 14th hearing. After that, opponents were allowed to give an opinion, but just for five minutes,” Wu said.

Wu’s behavior drew the ire of Lin Pin-kun (林炳坤), a five-term independent lawmaker in the county and casino advocate.

On Sept. 18 at the question-and-answer session in the legislature, Lin criticized Wu, saying it was “inappropriate” for a prosecutor to speak out against casinos, and demanding Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) look into the matter.

Wang at first sympathized with Lin, but then came to Wu’s defense after learning that his participation occurred when he was off duty.

Wu’s case was not isolated and showed how influential locals tried to manipulate public opinion in favor of casinos and had been intolerant of the anti-gambling movement.

“There was not even one article against casinos published in the opinion pages of the Penghu Times and the Penghu Daily … Penghu Cable TV even made me a target for its attacks,” Wu said, referring to the county’s main media sources, which are all affiliated with business groups or politicians.

Yen Chiang-lung (顏江龍), a 28-year-old serving his alternative military service in the county, said the government hadn’t adressed residents’ concerns about casinos.

“That way, when we appeared to cast ballots, we were like patients unable to decide whether to have surgery because we were not told about the risks involved,” Yen said.

Since the Act passed the legislature in January, the government had said that it would propose a complete set of complementary measures on casino management, dealing with tax revenue generated by casinos, feedback funds and job opportunities for Penghu residents, as well as how to prevent deterioration of public order and safety by the end of the year.

“Without complementary statutory measures in place, people would rather not take the risk. At first, we were told that 60 percent of casino tax revenue would go to Penghu, but later it was raised to 80 percent. We wanted a clear blueprint for Penghu’s future,” Yen said.

Yen said the referendum showed that trying to impose a policy always backfires.
　

It’s scaring the neighbors

Tuesday, Sep 29, 2009, Page 8

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) celebrations of its 60th anniversary on Thursday will very much be a military affair. In fact, Beijing has been boasting that the nation’s newest nuclear missiles will be part of an arsenal of new weapons — 90 percent of which have never been paraded before.

Fifty-two types of weapons — all developed and made in China — will be on display during the parade, General Gao Jianguo (高建國), executive deputy director of the office of the National Day Military Parade Joint Command, has said.

The state-run People’s Daily newspaper, however, quoted Gao as saying that this unprecedented display of military might is not about intimidating China’s neighbors, but rather a celebration of the country’s achievements, adding that “a country’s military ability is not a threat to anyone, what is important is its military policy.”

This assertion, however, brings little comfort to those against whom such weapons would be used — mainly the people of Taiwan and US military personnel who would likely intervene on Taiwan’s side in the event of war.

Furthermore, while Gao is not altogether wrong in saying that military ability does not necessarily equate military policy, history is rife with examples of military policy being driven by a state’s military capacity — in other words, weapons designs drive policy rather than the other way around.

This is doubly worrying when, as a growing number of academics have pointed out, the “patience” of Chinese leaders regarding the Taiwan issue is, we are told, not infinite. While Chinese leaders were making similar pronouncements more than 10 years ago, “impatience” did not immediately entail that it would translate into military action. For one thing, a decade ago the balance on military power in the Taiwan Strait was still in Taiwan’s favor and China had yet to develop, or at least deploy, weapons meant to delay or deny the entry of US forces in the Strait.

The situation today is drastically different. Not only has the balance of power shifted in Beijing’s favor, but China has become far more assertive and, thanks to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-China policies, its leadership feels that its objective of unifying Taiwan and China may finally be within its grasp. Should domestic politics in Taiwan between now and 2012 threaten to derail moves toward that goal, and if the US continues to suffer from a weakened economy and a number of taxing military deployments, Beijing may have little compunction in using its growing arsenal to achieve its aims.

This year’s parade will also see a greater representation from all branches of the military, with many items having an offensive, rather than defensive, purpose. Generals in Beijing can say what they want, but the fact of the matter is, huge displays of offensive military equipment signal to the rest of the world, and more specifically the region, that China has the means to flex its muscles when necessary. Of the two key factors in a state’s decision to use force — intent and capabilities — Beijing is now showing that is has the latter. The main question now is whether Beijing will, over time, develop the intent.

While there are many ways for a nation to display its achievements, focus on the industrial-military nexus on national days, added to a strong sense of nationalism, has undertones of fascism. History shows us that fascism usually entails an intent to use force as an extension of government policies.

The gap can’t be bridged

Tuesday, Sep 29, 2009, Page 8

I agree with the points expressed in the Rand Corp study released last week (“Study warns PRC patience may be tested,” Sept. 25, page 1), but does this come as a surprise? The US should understand Taiwan’s national aspirations.

Many members of the Taiwanese community in the US see this coming. I wonder if the powers that be in the US government see the conflict in values and identity between China and Taiwan as a clear and present danger?

Taiwan is not some place to brush off and consider a remnant of some civil war. There is more to the story that what the Chinese like to say.

China policymakers in Washington either lack foresight or are caught in wishful thinking. China acts like a rogue nation whenever it doesn’t get what it wants.

Although Taiwan and China are pursuing detente, there is a limit as to how far this will go. The Taiwanese have a limit as to how far they want to see bilateral ties increase. This will not lead to unification as hoped by China. That is the zero-sum game China wants, but the strong sense of Taiwanese national identity will not permit Taiwan to become part of China. The fact that Taiwan is a democracy and that the Taiwanese consider their country sovereign amounts to a rejection of unification. There will be a clash in values.

China has hundreds of missiles pointed at Taiwan. The Chinese do not believe in letting Taiwan determine its own future. It does not matter which party governs Taiwan: actually none of them want Taiwan to become a part of China. What will China do next? Launch a military attack?

The US, Japan and Taiwan need to be ready to respond. With so many world leaders concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and its oppression of the democracy movement there, it is important to note that China behaves no better.

It is a joke that China has a seat on the the UN Security Council and makes decisions regarding other nations. It cannot even get its own house in order. Places like Taiwan do not want to be part of it.

KELLVAN CHENG
Dallas, Texas