Ma unhurt in plane fire
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 03, 2009, Page 1
　

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was unharmed after his plane landed with two flat tires in Taichung on Sunday, the Presidential Office said. Smoke and flames had burst from the tires as the Fokker 50 taxied on the runway.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said the incident occurred at about 1:30pm on Sunday after the plane carrying Ma and his entourage taxied at Cingcyuangang (清泉崗) Air Force Base in Taichung.

The crew discovered two tires on the right side of the plane were flat before they caught fire, Wang said.

The president’s chief security guard escorted Ma off the plane and drove him away from the scene, while Ma’s deputy chief and entourage followed in another car, Wang said.

A fire truck was called to put out the fire and clean up the scene, he said.

Wang said the security detail dealt with the matter in a speedy and efficient manner. Ma remained calm during the process and eased the nerves of others, he said.

Officials say Ma uses the smaller Fokker 50 for certain trips to save money on fuel.

When asked whether Ma would take Fokker 50 flights in the ­future, Wang said it would depend on the nature of his activities, but that the president would not rule out flying on the planes.

Ma believed that he should not spend money unless it was absolutely necessary, but that he did not need to save money if it was necessary to spend it, Wang said.

Three Fokkers are used by the president, he said.

Speaking to reporters’ in Taichung yesterday, Ma said he was fine and humorously added that he was “calm in the face of disaster.”

Vice Minister of National Defense Chao Shih-chang (趙世璋) said the ministry would carry out a general overhaul of its Fokker 50 VIP transport planes.

He said an initial check showed that the problem was caused by overheating brake rotors and not because the plane was outdated.

The military has asked ­government-owned Aerospace Industrial Development Corp to assess the problem and said it would carry out a comprehensive overhaul of personnel, maintenance and equipment to ensure the safety of the aircraft, Chao said.

Before the plane took off, it was thoroughly checked and passed all tests, Chao said.

Legislators assail minister on US beef
　

TRANSPARENCY: Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang faced tough questions from legislators who said they did not know the content of talks with the US
　

By Vincent Y. chao and Jenny W. hsu
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Nov 03, 2009, Page 3
　

“As the whole process has not been transparent, I don’t think the public can accept the risks. Furthermore, as even the government does not fully know the risks involved, how can we [lift the ban on these beef products]?”— Chen Ying, DPP legislator

The controversy over US beef imports showed no sign of abating yesterday after legislators across the political spectrum stood together in demanding that the government re-open negotiations with the US.

Department of Health Minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) faced tough questions over the government’s negotiations with the US and accusations that the process had not been transparent.

Taiwan agreed to lift a ban on US bone-in beef from cattle younger than 30 months in a protocol it signed in Washington last month.

Legislators said they had not been aware of either the negotiations or what was discussed.

“As the whole process has not been transparent, I don’t think the public can accept the risks,” Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Ying (陳瑩) said. “Furthermore, as even the government does not fully know the risks involved, how can we [lift the ban on these beef products]?”

Claiming that allowing US bone-in beef was “just too risky,” legislators urged the government to throw out the results of the negotiations, which they called a “humiliation” and said had “forfeited the nation’s sovereignty.”

The legislators called for a new round of talks.

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said last week that re-opening the negotiations after they had already been concluded would damage Taiwan’s credibility.

Despite this, several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers called for new negotiations.

“There is an absolute need to re-open the negotiations,” KMT Legislator Cheng Ru-fen (鄭汝芬) said.

In reference to the risks associated with US beef, she said: “Instead of the government saying that consumers should be careful, it is the government that should be more careful.”

The health department has said it has the necessary facilities and expertise to ensure that allowing in US bone-in beef would carry minimal risks.

As a result, officials said the risk of consumers contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was around “one in 10 billion.”

KMT Legislator Wu Chin-chih (吳清池) disagreed and asked to see how the government had reached that figure.

He later said that if the government could not back up those figures, he would fight its beef policy in the legislature.

DPP Legislator Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英) criticized the health department for making up its mind on the beef policy before hearing the opinions of lawmakers or the public.

“It is clear that the DOH has already made up its mind to release this protocol with or without the approval of this committee,” she said.

In response, Yaung said that the health department respected the authority of the legislature.

Meanwhile, the DPP said yesterday that a referendum on the issue must be held to force the government realize that the public disapproves of its decision.

The party was throwing its weight behind a petition for a referendum initiated by various civic organizations.

The Consumers’ Foundation and several other groups are seeking at least 90,000 signatures to launch a referendum application that would ask the public whether it wants the government renegotiate its agreement with the US.

While the government and the US have repeatedly said that the meat is safe, local DPP and KMT politicians have also voiced opposition to the policy, citing potential health threats.

DPP city council members in Kaohsiung and Hsinchu said they would lead a street demonstration if the government refuses to heed the public’s calls.

DPP Spokesman Tsai Chi-chang (蔡其昌) quoted a press release from the Nebraska state government that stated a protocol had been signed and a public review in Taiwan is pending.

“Following that review, the agreement is set to go into effect on Nov. 12. It will allow for the import of bone-in beef from cattle younger than 30 months of age. Currently Taiwan only accepts beef in that age group that is boneless. After 180 days, government officials will review the 30 month age limit and consider full trade access for US beef,” the statement said.

Tsai said that the press release from the government showed there were still many questions that needed to be answered on the beef policy.

The review in six months means US beef exports to Taiwan are not a done deal as the government has said, Tsai said.

The protocol is available on the health department’s Web site in English. So far, the government has not released a Chinese translation of the agreement for public view.

Another disaster waiting to happen
　

By Lin Cho-shui 林濁水
Tuesday, Nov 03, 2009, Page 8

It has only been days since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took over as chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but it is already clear that he faces many obstacles.

Despite much opposition, Ma insisted on taking the position with an eye to regulating the behavior of mischievous party members.

Many Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators opposed then president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) “four noes and one without” pledge made in his inauguration speech in 2000 and the concept of “a future one China.” “Four noes” referred to not declaring Taiwanese independence, not changing the national title, not including the special state-to-state doctrine in the Constitution and not promoting a referendum on unification or independence. “One without” referred to not abolishing the National Unification Council or the National Unification Guidelines.

Chen then took over as DPP chairman in 2002 to discipline those legislators. The method seemed effective and helped force the legislature to pass the bill to halve the number of legislative seats. Last year, as KMT legislators slashed a batch of Ma’s nominees for the Control Yuan and Examination Yuan, Ma decided to emulate Chen by doubling as KMT chairman to discipline misbehaving party members.

The problem is that wielding the party whip and playing it tough is not enough to make party members behave. A party chairman that is capable and has a lot of prestige does not need to establish authority by resorting to disciplinary measures. On the other hand, if a party chairman is unpopular and everyone fears being an ally during elections, relying on party regulations is impractical. Unfortunately, this is the situation Ma is currently facing.

Moreover, top-down leadership is not sufficient to win support; people must also feel that they are participating in the decision-making process. Now that neither the premier, deputy premier, key Cabinet members, Ma’s close advisers and even senior legislators attend the KMT’s Central Standing Committee (CSC) meetings, it is clear that the committee is a place for policy promotion, not debate, and it is questionable to what degree it serves any use in mobilizing legislators.

Additionally, some members are only interested in using their position to do business with China, while others use it to launch attacks in the media. CSC meetings appear boisterous and they certainly must give Ma a headache. He may be emulating Chen in wanting to use the committee to control legislators, but the results will be very different.

KMT Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) is another challenge for Ma. If he restrains her, Ma will be accused of suppressing dissent and breaking his promises that the party will not direct the government and to reform the KMT. If, however, he lets Lo off the hook, he won’t be able to bring other legislators into line, forfeiting the reason for doubling as party chairman in the first place.

Ma’s promise during his first term as KMT chairman in 2005 to rid the party of its ill-gotten assets — selling assets with the left hand, while directing the money into the Central Investment Holding Co (CIC, 中央投資公司) Co with the right hand — was a ruse that damaged his reputation. The solution he has proposed this time is not any better. Although CIC will be sold, Ma said the proceeds from the sale will be used to pay for pensions, party operational costs, party think tanks and scholarships. The remainder will be donated to charity and future election campaign funds will mainly come from public donations.

By saying that future election campaign funds will be based on donations, Ma seems to be implying that previous election campaigns were funded by the party’s assets. In fact, with the exception of the presidential elections and in extreme emergencies, KMT campaign subsidies for candidates are very low. Although party assets should not have been used to fund election campaigns, the main harm from using these assets occurred in other areas — the assets were used to sustain the party’s enormous Leninist organizational structure, to co-opt private enterprise and to control the media. This completely destroyed commercial and political competition.

In many democracies, election campaign funds mainly come from donations as do operational costs. Apart from income from research, party think tanks also rely mainly on donations. The KMT’s plan to use the proceeds from the sale of CIC to maintain party operations, the think tanks and donations to charities such as the China Youth Corp is nothing short of another swindle and is no reform at all.

Ma thought it would be enough to send shock waves through the party to revoke the elected status of KMT Central Standing Committee members Yang Chi-hsiung (楊吉雄) and Chiang Da-lung (江達隆), who were found to have bribed party delegates, but the public protested that the two greenhorns were being sacrificed for giving away salted fish, while the party failed to go after the big fish.

In the evening before Ma took office as KMT chairman, the DPP released the results of an opinion poll indicating that more than 50 percent of respondents opposed Ma taking the position. A majority did not think that Ma would improve his ineffective rule, eliminate the KMT’s black gold politics or solve the party asset issue. In response, the KMT claimed that the results were not credible. Surveys by Chinese-language newspapers the Apple Daily and the China Times, however, also showed that nearly 50 percent of respondents opposed Ma taking over the chairmanship and more than 50 percent of respondents of Global Views monthly magazine’s poll were against it as well. This means that a majority of the public did not think Ma doubling as KMT chairman would help solve the party’s problems.

Ma has already lost his dominant role in the KMT, but what is most worrying is his ambition to centralize power. Past experience shows that Chen’s aggressiveness in controlling the party was disastrous. Ma’s maneuvering and governing capabilities are inferior to Chen’s and his attempt to show strength by doubling as KMT chairman seems to be the beginning of yet another disaster.

Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.

No need to sign a peace agreement with China
　

By Peng Ming-Min 彭明敏
Tuesday, Nov 03, 2009, Page 8

The Nobel Peace Prize was established more than 100 years ago and it used to be a tremendous honor to be awarded the prize. Unfortunately, some recent choices of recipient have been confusing, even preposterous, and this has undermined the prestige and credibility of the prize.

In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to three leaders from Israel and Palestine, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, but they never managed to bring peace to the region. In 2000, South Korean president Kim Dae-jung was awarded the prize to recognize his work for reconciliation with North Korea following a summit meeting with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-il, but the two Koreas remain at war, with no peace in sight. Later, it was discovered that North Korea had been given US$100 million by South Korea shortly before the meeting, leading to suspicions that the meeting came about as the result of a bribe.

In 2002, former US president Jimmy Carter received the peace prize, although he was notorious for his weakness and incapability and had made no substantial contribution to world peace. In 2007, former US vice president Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were awarded the peace prize for their efforts to “disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change,” but Gore was then accused of aggravating pollution and global warming by flying around the world in a private jet. Even more embarrassing, it was revealed that the electricity consumption of his family was several times higher than the average US household.

This year, US President Barack Obama was awarded the peace prize, creating a great commotion around the world as he had merely proposed a fairytale-like vision of a world without nuclear weapons and the prevention of global warming, without having made any substantial contribution. Obama announced that he was not qualified to receive the prize and would donate the prize money to charity.

All this makes one wonder whether the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee have lost their minds as they have destroyed the prize’s prestige and credibility.

If a Taiwanese thinks there is a Nobel Peace Prize to be had by making peace with China by signing a so-called “peace accord” and getting Beijing to remove the more than 1,000 missiles it has aimed at the country, he would be bringing catastrophe to the nation.

A peace accord is a document signed by nations at war, but Taiwan has neither the intention nor the capability of attacking China. It is only China that openly and blatantly threatens Taiwan with the use of military force. If China really wanted peace, it could renounce the use of military force against Taiwan. That would solve the issue and there would be no need to sign a peace agreement.

It is a strategy that China uses to swindle Taiwan into making concessions, such as ending arms purchases from the US. In this day and age of high-tech weaponry, the physical location of the missiles is unimportant, so shaking hands with China’s leaders would not improve the situation. Just look at the meeting between the two Korean leaders.

If someone in Taiwan still dreams of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I advise that he or she quickly give up the idea. A prize of more than US$1 million may greatly increase his or her personal wealth, but it would be won at the expense of selling out the country — and that person would forever be remembered as a traitor.

Peng Ming-min is chairman of the Peng Ming-min Foundation.