20030618

China blasts passport change

China yesterday criticized Taiwan's addition of the word "Taiwan" to its passport cover and urged other countries to back Beijing's claim of sovereignty over the nation. China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the passport revision was a form of "progressive independence separatist activity and another step to undermine cross-straits relations. ... It cannot but give rise to a high degree of alert from the Chinese people." The new passport design, unveiled on Thursday, adds "Taiwan" below Republic of China. Liu urged other countries to "respect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity and remain vigilant against the Taiwanese authorities' activities. ... No matter what tricks the Taiwanese authorities play it cannot change the fact that Taiwan is a part of China.

Vice president fires salvo at Soong's maneuverings

By Lin Chieh-yu

STAFF REPORTER

"People are talking about who will become the next vice president but nobody is concerned about what the incumbent vice president has achieved."－Annette Lu, vice president

Vice President Annette Lu yesterday said PFP Chairman James Soong's recent performances show that he is overweening and too ambitious.

Lu said Soong will make an all-out effort to violate the country's Constitution to possess more power even though he is the running-mate of KMT Chairman Lien Chan.

"Everybody can see that Soong has worked very hard recently, and it is obvious that he is trying to secure a `dual-presidential system' before winning next year's presidential election," Lu said yesterday.

"I must urge the public to seriously consider whether we can accept such a system?" she asked.

Lu yesterday held a press conference to promote her new book which details her experiences assisting President Chen Shui-bian during the past three years.

Lu criticized the opposition's cooperation in seeking the presidency.

"People are talking about who will become the next vice president but nobody is concerned about what the incumbent vice president has achieved," Lu said, adding that Premier Yu Shyi-kun is endeavoring to protect the semi-presidential system while Soong has made an all-out effort to ensure that the country has two leaders of equal power.

Lu said if the president and the vice president belong to different political parties, then the country will face a constitutional crisis.

"The Constitution is ambiguous on the interpretation and definition of the vice president," Lu said.

"It only uses four words -- reserved head of state, which can be interpreted in two ways -- a standby post that will not necessarily be used, or the other one -- a post prepared to replace the presidency," Lu said.

"In the former situation, the vice president may be regarded as the president's right-hand man to observe policy-making processes," Lu said.

"However, in the latter situation, the two may keep a distance due to mutual mistrust, just like they are political opponents."

"Unfortunately, the latter always happens in those countries where the president and the vice president are not from the same party or those two posts were voted in different times."

Responding to Lu's remarks, Lien accused Lu of misunderstanding the Constitution and said that Lu has no cause for worry

"The Constitution gives a very clear definition to regulate the duty of those in government posts, and it stipulates that the president can authorize the vice president to assist shouldering state affairs," Lien said.

"And I will give my deputy my full authority to endeavor to the best of his ability as long as he is willing to do anything for the people," he said.

Soong said that he is 100 percent behind Lien and fully realizes his duty as Lien's deputy.

"The DPP should stop trying its old trick of separating its opponents," Soong said.

"The ruling party has nothing better to do than to expect our cooperation to fall apart," he said,

"The public should ask that why the DPP pays attention to how others will serve their posts but still hasn't managed to propose its vice presidential candidate until now."

Kao's visit not official: DOH chief

BROUHAHA: The DPP lambasted James Soong's party for allowing one of its lawmakers to attend the WHO conference under the auspices of China

By Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTER

Department of Health Director-General Chen Chien-jen yesterday said since PFP lawmaker Kao Ming-chien has not participated in Taiwan's battle against SARS, his invitation to the WHO-held anti-SARS meeting in Kuala Lumpur was not recommended by the government.

"He is neither a member of Taiwan's delegation, nor did his remarks concerning Taiwan's anti-SARS efforts represent the government of Taiwan," Chen said yesterday.

The DPP yesterday also lambasted the PFP for allowing Kao to attend the WHO Global Conference on SARS in Kuala Lumper at China's invitation.

Kao accepted a WHO invitation which indicates in French that Kao is from the People's Republic of China.

The DPP said that Kao, a neuro-surgeon, was invited by the WHO at the behest of China.

Four members of Taiwan's official delegation had also received invitations with their title under the PRC, but the four members immediately protested to the WHO about the wording of the invitations.

The WHO delivered new invitations through e-mail without putting their titles under the PRC, while Kao seems to have accepted the invitation that indicated that Taiwan was a part of the PRC without protesting.

DPP Legislator Lin Chou-shui said, "It is obvious that China wanted to invite Kao to reward his efforts for holding the anti-SARS videoconferences across the Taiwan Strait in May.

"Those videoconferences have become a propaganda tool for China to prove it is providing care and assistance to Taiwan in the battle against SARS.

"This resulted in Taiwan losing its bid to become a member of the World Health Assembly in Geneva last month."

Lee pointed out that while the PFP-KMT alliance has actively promoted "Taiwan Priority" as a major focus for the 2004 presidential campaign, the PFP and Kao's behavior has contradicted their message and shown that they are staunch followers of China.

Lee questioned whether Kao was attending the SARS conference in an attempt to realize PFP Chairman James Soong's promise that he could enable Taiwan to join the WHO under the "one China" framework within two years if he and KMT Chairman Lien Chan won the presidential election.

"Soong has to make clear if Kao was acting as an advance party on behalf of Soong to show his docility to China and whether his so-called `one China' framework refers to the PRC or the ROC?" Lee asked.

In response to PFP spokesman Huang Yih-jiau's claim that Kao was not to blame for taking the invitation under China's title because Taiwan is a province of China under the WHO's framework, Lee said the PFP shouldn't have regarded the WHO's arrangement as its top priority.

"It is the difference of whether or not the individual bears the conscience for Taiwan as a nation, and puts Taiwan's interests as a priority," Lee said.

ON THIN ICE: James Soong and his party are skirting around the edges of the debate over its lawmaker's invitation to a WHO-sponsored SARS conference

In view of the PFP's response to the controversy surrounding party Legislator Kao Ming-chien's invitation to a WHO-sponsored conference, political observers said that the party has not addressed the core issue but instead shifted the focus in a bid to fudge the situation.

"Instead of addressing the issue of whether Kao was recommended by China, the PFP highlighted the fact that Kao's invitation letter was passed on by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs," Holmes Liao, a political observer and research fellow at the Taiwan Research Institute's Division of Strategic and International Studies, said.

Liao was referring to comments by PFP leaders defending Kao, who is attending the conference in Kuala Lumpur.

PFP Chairman James Soong delivered a stern rebuttal to the charge that Kao's invitation to the global conference made it look as if the lawmaker was representing China and not Taiwan.

Soong said Kao was invited to the conference because the WHO recognized his efforts in fighting the SARS epidemic in Taiwan and that the invitation had originally been sent to the foreign affairs ministry.

Before leaving for the conference, Director of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Su Ih-jen, head of Taiwan's delegation to Kuala Lumpur, said that Kao was not a member of the delegation.

However, Soong challenged Su's statement by showing a document issued by the foreign affairs ministry on June 12 asking Kao, along with others who had received the WHO's invitation to the conference, to attend a meeting before leaving for Malaysia.

"If Kao is not a member of the delegation, why was he invited by the ministry to take part in the meeting?" Soong asked.

Chang Hsien-yao, director of the PFP's Center of Policy Research, claimed the DPP is trying to gain political points from the incident in a bid to generate anti-China sentiment in the run up to next March's presidential election. Chang said the situation has been exacerbated by DPP jealousy that Kao was at the conference, but not at the invitation of Department of Health (DOH) Director-General Chen Chien-jen.

According to Liao, the point that needs to be addressed is whether or not Kao is a willing participant.

"For an invitation letter to have been issued there first of all had to be a recommendation," Liao said. "Therefore, one obvious question that arises is who recommended Kao, because the government clearly stated that it had only recommended four people to take part in the conference."

"If it is true that Kao is unaware he has fallen under the spell of China and its `one China' propaganda, then he is guilty of naivety." Liao said.

"However, it would be worse if Kao is aware of China's propaganda and yet was still willing to participant in it," Liao said, adding that the public should examine both Kao and the party he represents when deciding if he is guilty of a "quasi-act of treason against Taiwanese."

Moments after the PFP concluded its press conference yesterday, a group of TSU supporters showed up in front of the PFP headquarters protesting Kao's acceptance of China's recommendation to attend the conference.

Journalists at the UN are planning a briefing on self-determination for Taiwan today at the organization's headquarters in New York, less than a month after China blocked their attempts to hold a briefing on Taiwan's response to the SARS epidemic.

On May 23, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan barred Andrew Hsia, director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in the US, from attending a UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) press conference on SARS at UN headquarters.

The UN acted in response to objections from the Chinese delegation, sparking a street protest the next day by the journalists' organization, led by association president Anthony Jenkins.

Jenkins later wrote letters to Annan and Chinese Ambassador Wang Yingfan, criticizing their lack of respect for freedom of the press.

The association has invited Chen Lung-chu, a founder of the Taipei-based New Century Foundation, and Nancy Soderberg, who was the deputy to Madeline Albright when she was the US ambassador to the UN, to speak today.

The reaction of the Chinese delegation and the UN bureaucracy to this week's planned press conference was not clear Monday.

Meanwhile, 10 pro-independence Taiwanese-American organizations have written to Jenkins praising his efforts to bring Taiwanese issues before the world community and condemning Chinese actions to stymie those efforts.

"We wish to express our appreciation for your courageous actions," the group wrote in a letter to Jenkins on Monday. "We are grateful that the UNCA has tried its best to give the Taiwanese people a voice in the ongoing SARS crisis, and that it has fought for the right of the island's political leaders to disseminate and receive the information they so desperately need to combat the disease."

Citing the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, which formally ended World War II, the Taiwanese-American groups called the treaty "the legal basis for the right of self-determination for the people of Taiwan."

"Despite the incessant threats from Chinese quarters, Taiwan is nevertheless gradually moving from a state of de facto to de jure independence," the groups said.

This week's conference, "The Applicability of International Law on Self-determination and Decolonization for Taiwan," is scheduled to be held in the UNCA meeting room in the UN building.

The Taiwanese groups said that a discussion of Taiwan's self-determination "is long overdue and will hopefully serve to dispel the various myths surrounding Taiwan's place in the international community."

Wu Ming-chi, the president of a Taiwan lobbying group in Washington, the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, voiced support for the planned UNCA conference.

"The United Nations must hold itself accountable to the ideals it stands for, Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of the press. This guarantee cannot be subject to narrow political considerations or to pressure from the PRC government," he said.

President Chen Shui-bian's administration is pushing hard for a referendum on Taiwan's entry into the WHO and is also preparing to sneak in a referendum on the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant as an important component of next year's presidential election. But the draft bill that would have provided a legal basis for these referendums was tabled at the end of the recent legislative session.

It is urgent that the Chen administration push for a referendum on the fate of the power plant. Even if former DPP chairman Lin Yi-hsiung, who strongly backs the plan, has already focused on the big picture by emphasizing that he won't necessarily switch allegiance away from Chen if a referendum on the power plant is not held, this matter concerns a promise that Chen made to Lin and others. At the same time, Lin has said that holding a referendum is a right that citizens should have. He has said, "Those opposed to referendums are unqualified to become politicians in a normal country with a democratic system."

So the long struggle for a referendum on the power plant is less about the anti-nuclear movement than it is about winning rights for the public.

But the Chen administration isn't starting off with the plant issue. Instead it has chosen the WHO as an issue because Taiwan was bullied by China in its recent attempt to join the global health body, and the entire country is seething. While these wounds are still fresh, the popular will can be harnessed to push for a referendum on the WHO, paving the way for a referendum on the plant. A draft bill for a referendum law will be sure to succeed as well.

Unfortunately, the Chen administration's drive for a referendum on the WHO, like the hastily conceived referendum on the power plant, is all based on expediency and passivity. Presidential Office Secretary-General Chiou I-jen said that Chen has raised this issue because his administration has continuously signalled goodwill toward China but received no response and that, therefore, "we are angry." In other words, the WHO referendum was proposed to express dissatisfaction.

On the other hand, in response to claims by the opposition parties that no one in Taiwan opposes joining the WHO and therefore there is no need for a referendum, the government replies that if the status quo is maintained, China "won't take notice of us." Thus, it follows we must use this gentle and democratic method to demonstrate our determination.

The only problem is that if a referendum is being pushed because the government is "angry" or to get attention from China, then it has already become a tactic and not a goal in itself. It has already become an expedient of the government and not a fundamental right of the people. This differs little from the governing style of fits, starts and sudden retreats that the Chen administration has demonstrated over the past three years.

Sun Tzu's Art of War states, "A ruler must not raise an army on account of wrath. A general must not do battle on account of rancor."

If the push for a referendum is driven by momentary pique, then no wonder that when the Presidential Office made clear it hoped the driving force for a referendum would come from the public, the Northern Taiwan Society threw cold water on these hopes by saying, "President Chen should say something first to show his determination so that when the time comes and everyone is mobilized, the Presidential Office won't pull back."

The primary reason the referendum issue has gotten off track is that referendums have been linked to the unification--independence debate and thus are viewed as something inimical to the nation's interests or too dangerous.

In fact, in modern nations where power is in the hands of the people, it isn't enough just to have a system of elected representatives in the legislature. This merely creates "rule by a political elite." After voters have cast their ballots, those elected can act however they please, and political parties become the politicians' only bosses.

To balance the major shortcomings of this sort of representative government, it is necessary to strengthen popular democracy by giving added weight to direct democracy. In the past, such direct democracy faced difficulties in practice, but today's communications revolution has already removed such obstacles. For example, the US has a federal system, and it has long been commonplace for states to hold referendums. When an important state-level election comes around, items of disputed legislation are frequently put to the public for a vote.

Designing referendums on issues ranging from the people's livelihood to domestic administration and urgent matters of foreign policy -- and quickly passing legislation to put such referendums on a sound legal basis -- should be the common responsibility of all political parties in Taiwan and the public as well. As for the various tangential issues such as "anger" or "wanting to get noticed," let's save our breath.