Chinese activist detained when Obama visited
　

TO HARM AND TO HOLD: A US-based activist said that lawyer Jiang Tianyong was detained while outside the US Embassy hoping to meet the visiting leader

AP , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Nov 22, 2009, Page 1

A leading Chinese human rights lawyer who tried unsuccessfully to meet US President Barack Obama in Beijing last week was detained and interrogated twice during Obama’s visit to China, a US lawmaker and a US-based Chinese activist said.

Jiang Tianyong (江天勇) had returned to Beijing after giving testimony last week at a human rights hearing in Washington on allegations of China’s forced abortion practices.

Bob Fu, founder and president of China Aid, a US-based Christian group that promotes religious freedom and rule of law in China, said in an interview on Friday that Jiang told him that he was detained on Wednesday as he waited near the US embassy, hoping for an audience with Obama.

Obama was on an eight-day, four-nation tour of Asia in which global issues — nuclear disarmament, climate change, economic recovery — dominated.

Fu said Jiang told him that police also detained legal academic Fan Yafeng (范亞峰) and interrogated them for two hours. They were then brought home and told not to leave until Obama left Beijing.

Jiang also told Fu that he was detained on Thursday as he tried to bring his young daughter to school. He said police hit his wife when she came to see what was happening and that he was at the police station for nearly 14 hours before being released.

Fu said Jiang told him that his daughter was interrogated by police at her school.

US Republican Representative Chris Smith told reporters on Friday: “[Jiang] has been absolutely tenacious, and he’s now paying a price.”

China is known to round up and threaten lawyers, activists and others it considers troublemakers before and during important visits from foreign dignitaries. Other Chinese have reported being detained, harassed or confined to their homes during Obama’s four-day visit to China.

Jiang told the New York-based group Human Rights in China that Chinese police escorted him away from the US embassy area on Wednesday as he was trying to pursue a meeting with Obama.

He told the group police then picked him up on Thursday morning and questioned him for more than 13 hours before releasing him. He said police accused him of beating up a police officer.

An official at the Yangfangdian police substation, where Jiang has said he was taken and questioned, said yesterday he could not comment.

A telephone call to the propaganda office at Haidian police station, which oversees the substation, went unanswered.

Jiang recently defended a Tibetan Buddhist cleric against charges of concealing weapons in an area of China where anti-government protests occurred.

In his testimony in Washington on Nov. 10, Jiang said that many local family-planning officials in China illegally enforce population laws through compulsory abortion and surgical sterilization.

Public has lost faith in Ma: DPP
　

EVERYONE'S A CRITIC: With Ma’s approval rating below 40 percent, the DPP is hoping that next month’s regional elections will be a vote of no confidence in his government
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Nov 22, 2009, Page 3

“The DPP is like a thief who is afraid of being caught and is trying to shift the focus by smearing the KMT.”— Lee Chien-jung, KMT spokesman
　

The arrogance of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has shattered public confidence in the government, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said yesterday, citing a recent poll indicating that US President Barack Obama is more popular in Taiwan than Ma is.

A recent survey by the Chinese-language Commonwealth Magazine found that public confidence in Ma had dropped 3.2 percentage points to 38.6 percent, trailing behind Obama at 46.1 percent.

With Ma’s approval rating below 40 percent and many Taiwanese feeling the impact of the global economic slump that has pushed unemployment to more than 6 percent, the DPP is hoping next month’s regional elections will be a symbolic vote of no confidence in the Ma administration.

The DPP controls only three of the 17 counties and cities up for grabs in next month’s polls and hopes to capitalize on the public’s grievances to add to its total.

“The public’s strong distrust in the government is a disaster,” DPP Spokeswoman Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) said.

　

Hsiao criticized the government for disregarding the legislature when carrying out its policies.

Hsiao said the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had consistently ignored the advice and suggestions of the DPP, and urged the government to start heeding the opinions of others before public confidence in the administration erodes even further.

Meanwhile, Hsiao accused the KMT of using “dirty tricks” to sabotage the DPP candidate for Chiayi County commissioner, Chang Hua-kuan (張花冠), by nudging prosecutors to launch a probe into Chang’s campaign headquarters.

At a fundraising concert on Friday night, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said the party had information indicating that prosecutors were planning a large-scale investigation into Chang’s office.

Tsai called on the KMT to refrain from such tactics in order to prevent conflict.

“This is absolutely unfair to the DPP candidates. In the last few years, in every major election, the DPP candidates have been investigated by the judiciary. But the fact is, the recent string of lawmakers that have fallen from grace for vote-buying have all belonged to the pan-blue camp,” Hsiao said.

Hsiao insinuated that the KMT was trying to direct the attention of prosecutors to the DPP alone so that pan-blue candidates would be able to buy votes unhampered.

Hsiao urged the public to help end vote-buying by immediately reporting anyone purchasing or attempting to purchase votes.

At a separate setting yesterday, KMT Spokesman Lee Chien-jung (李建榮) dismissed the DPP’s accusations and urged Tsai not to shift the focus off prosecutors’ investigations into election bribery.

“The DPP is like a thief who is afraid of being caught and is trying to shift the focus by smearing the KMT,” Lee said.

Lee said the KMT would call for unity within the party and take precautions against potential election tricks by the DPP.
　

Rethinking education
　

Sunday, Nov 22, 2009, Page 8

Minister of Education Wu Ching-chi (吳清基) recently said that the “ultimate goal of education is to help students become independent learners and care about other people.” (“Ministry to help universities make top 100,” Oct. 13, page 2) This is the ideal goal of education, as defined by Wu. However, reflecting on Taiwan’s education system, many will agree that it is doubtful Taiwan can achieve this goal given its focus on examinations.

Many parents in Taiwan admire the Finnish education system. Finland scored highly and reached second place in the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2003 and 2006.

In Taiwan, students are frustrated by the endless series of examinations. Students are expected to explore and broaden their knowledge in schools; but in Taiwan, they spend most of their time taking tests instead of doing research or enjoying their studies. What is the purpose of these examinations?

Finnish students are happy to study. This is in sharp contrast to Taiwanese students, who get increasingly depressed by the endless exams. It doesn’t mean Finnish children do not have examinations. The purpose of conducting exams in Finnish schools is to help children strive and make progress at the same time.

Finnish teachers give students room to improve by giving them more opportunities. Students learn the value of self-reflection and gradually grow in confidence. They are also allowed to practice in their field of interest through project-based learning. Self-regulated learning and a proper learning attitude are established through the project.

Other than admiring the Finnish education system, we should rethink what the core value of education is. Getting high scores and entering a good university are the goals that most Taiwanese parents and teachers set for the kids. If we cannot change this focus on examinations, we can never reform our education system. The losers are the students, who fail to grasp the value of learning as it only becomes a means for scoring high in exams.

Change cannot happen overnight. We should seriously rethink what our goal is and how we — the ministry, parents and teachers — can work together to achieve it. I believe that schools in Taiwan can also cultivate independent learners like the Finnish system.

IRENE WANG
Taipei

Negotiating Taiwan’s sovereignty

Sunday, Nov 22, 2009, Page 8

Since taking office last year, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has many times assured the public that his administration will deal with economic issues first and not engage in political negotiations with China until Beijing removes the missiles aimed at Taiwan. However, the Ma administration has reneged on this pledge, just as it has on so many other promises it has made.

In reality, political contacts between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have already commenced in various hidden forms.

The latest move was the visit to Taiwan of Zheng Bijian (鄭必堅), a key adviser to China’s top leaders, who is also the former vice principal of the Central Party School in Beijing and author of China’s “peaceful rise” doctrine.

Zheng led a group of heads of Taiwan-related research departments from Beijing, Shanghai and Xiamen, as well as retired military officers and diplomats, to Taiwan for an academic seminar on the theme of 60 years of cross-strait relations.

Among their Taiwanese counterparts at the forum were key academic advisers to the Ma government, which gives credence to the belief that the seminar marks the start of twin-track political negotiations between Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The 60-year cycle of the traditional Chinese calendar makes this period of special historic significance. This year marks 60 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

The anniversary was celebrated on Oct. 1, China’s National Day, with a massive military parade on Beijing’s Changan Boulevard and Tiananmen Square. The parade was intended to demonstrate China’s military might to the international community — and to Taiwan.

It conveyed the message that, while stressing economic development, China also continues to expand its military capabilities.

As time goes by, China’s economic and military strengths will serve as carrot and stick as it seeks to achieve its national goals through a combination of favors and threats. With regard to the international community, China wishes to establish itself as the world’s No. 2 power, supplanting the G20 with a “G2” consisting of China and the US on an equal footing.

Given China’s current status, the notion that a “G2” can replace the G20 is sheer boasting and delusion, but there are a number of pro-China politicians and media in Taiwan — including the Ma government — who applaud the idea. They are convinced that the only hope for Taiwan is to go along with China. Begging China for economic favors is not enough for these people. They also favor leaning full tilt toward China in politics.

At this juncture, a worrying scene is playing out. Earlier this month, Liang Baohua (梁保華), secretary of the CCP’s Jiangsu provincial committee, visited Taiwan in the guise of heading a purchasing mission, masquerading as a friendly Father Christmas bearing gifts.

At the same time, China’s theoretical and ideological troops are massing at the border, marked by the appearance of Zheng and his group of Taiwan specialists for the 60th anniversary seminar.

Speaking at the Boao Forum in 2003, Zheng sought to paper over China’s hegemonic aspirations by assuring the world that its rise would be peaceful. However, at the recent seminar in Taiwan, Zheng brazenly declared that “the Taiwanese independence trend will inevitably go into decline.”

He also distorted the US’ use of military force to defend Taiwan and prevent a bloodbath, saying that the US’ deployment of navy ships to the Taiwan Strait after the outbreak of the Korean War was a direct interference in China’s internal affairs that caused the division between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Zheng further claimed that, although the global structures of the Cold War period have broken down, Taiwan had not fully escaped its reliance on the old framework.

The protective shield of the US’ military prevented infiltration and invasion by the communist bloc and protected democracies from falling like dominoes during the Cold War. It also protected Taiwan from the Chinese military menace, allowing Taiwan to build a to build a free and prosperous democracy.

Had the US not sent its armed forces to defend Taiwan, Taiwanese would have found themselves on the other side of the Iron Curtain. So the Cold War years, when the US used its superior strength as the leader of the free world to hem in the communist bloc, were a golden age in Taiwan’s historic development. How can Zheng dismiss the Cold War framework as outdated?

The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union broke up and communist rule crumbled in Eastern Europe. It was a positive development that some optimistic academics called “the end of history,” meaning that human society had reached a state of perfection. No one expected that the world’s biggest communist power — China — would survive intact, casting a shadow over historical progress.

With more than 1,000 missiles pointed at Taiwan, communist China poses a threat to the peace and stability of the East Asian region. And yet, retired People’s Liberation Army generals attending the recent seminar had the nerve to dismiss this missile threat as a “bogus issue” stirred up by the US to convince Taiwan to buy more of its weapons.

China’s top theoreticians have turned out in force in an attempt to use cross-strait academic exchanges to spread their propaganda and brainwash the Taiwanese public, laying the foundation for “unification.” Their efforts, however, have had little effect.

These people’s problem is that they were born under a dictatorship. Their heads are filled with dictatorial ideology and they only know how to serve their autocratic regime. Public opinion means nothing to them, nor do they understand what Taiwanese think.

That is why Zheng — China’s standard bearer on this Taiwan visit — revealed his ignorance of Taiwan’s history and mainstream public opinion as soon as he opened his mouth, along with his arrogant and high-handed manner.

Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, which, through its state institutions, exercises full sovereignty and government over its own territory. In Taiwan, public opinion comes first, and the mainstream public opinion identifies with Taiwan. Only a handful of people in Taiwan still favor unification.

Zheng’s claim that “the Taiwanese independence trend will inevitably go into decline” is an ignorant lie that will not fool anyone in Taiwan. Even these Chinese theoreticians, after seeing Taiwanese society up close, may now understand that identification with Taiwan is the mainstream of public opinion, and that Taiwan’s sovereignty and independence are an undeniable reality.

Beef protest: Overlooking a larger risk to health
　

By Bruno Walther
Sunday, Nov 22, 2009, Page 8

I have been following the recent political upheaval around US beef with slight bemusement. While there is certainly some risk attached to US beef, it appears rather small, as so far about 200 people have died globally of diseases associated with mad cow disease, most of them in Britain.

While I do not want to dispute the rights of Taiwanese to choose what kind of foods end up in their pots, what bemuses me is that in environmental issues, the actual associated risks often bear no relation to the political outrage created.

If thousands of demonstrators are willing to protest against US beef, should not hundreds of thousands show up to demonstrate against the thousands of toxins that are dumped into the Taiwanese environment and invariably end up contaminating plants, animals and eventually humans?

This stark reality was again made clear last week when thousands of poisoned ducks were slaughtered because industrial toxins had been indiscriminately dumped. Surely the health risk of eating chemically contaminated food is much higher than eating US beef. So how come the public and the media keep chasing the beef chimera when there is a much bigger monster out there?

Every year, the chemical industry invents thousands of new substances, all of which eventually end up in the environment, mostly with unknown consequences to environmental and human health. If I were to list all the diseases and causes of death associated with chemical pollution, I would run out of space here, but respiratory diseases caused by air pollution, cancers caused by toxic chemicals and brain diseases caused by heavy metals are just a few of the deadly consequences — throw in hyperactive kids, allergies or falling fertility for good measure.

As a concerned environmental scientist, I can only urge the public and media to inform themselves about actual risks from credible sources, such as the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US’ Environmental Protection Agency, and then act accordingly. However, it should be clear that the current policy of releasing chemicals into the environment and then waiting for the consequences is irresponsible at best and criminal at worst. Rather, the government should put the burden of proof on the chemical industry to demonstrate conclusively that a chemical will not cause environmental and health damage.

Otherwise, a chemical should not be produced, or, if produced, 100 percent recycled.

In the long term, it seems rather futile to try to manage the risk of chemical pollutants by trying to determine maximum levels of pollutants and risks to human health. This is simply impractical, economically impossible and scientifically unsound given the thousands of chemicals and their possible interactions in the human body.

Rather, we should revert to chemicals that are found in nature and can therefore be assimilated by natural cycles instead of accumulating to evermore dangerous levels. Here, new production philosophies such as biomimicry and “cradle-to-cradle” could create new jobs and save the environment. Our legacy to future generations can be a poisoned or a healthy planet — the choice is ours.

Bruno Walther is visiting assistant professor for environmental science at Taipei Medical University.