Commenting on the referendum, Hsiao said, "What we really want to see is a normalization of the concept of the referendum identified with public policy issues, just like the United States."

"This is in response to what we see as paralysis in the current system [of handling contentious issues in Taiwan]", she said.

Lack of legal basis

"What we're really talking about are a series of public welfare issues," she said.

Hsiao said that while the Constitution allows referendums, there is no law to regulate them.

"If we have a referendum before we pass a law, that referendum will not have any legally binding power," she said. "It would be used for consultative purposes. It will be used for mobilizing enough public pressure to enable progress in our country to overcome the stagnation and paralysis that we all see in our legislature, to overcome the structural problems we have between the executive and legislative branches."

Policy tool

She said a referendum could be used to deal with issues such as the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, legislative reform, changes to the electoral system and cutting down on the number of legislators.

"These issues are not going to get through the normal process, given our political culture in Taiwan and given what we can see in party politics in the next year and in the next few years," she said.

She described the current blowup over the referendum issue a "serious misunderstanding of the referendums we're talking about in Taiwan right now."

Referendum issue up to Taiwan: US

CLARIFICATION: Legislators visiting the US said officials reassured them that Washington did not mind if Taiwan conducts referendums

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER WITH AGENCIES , WASHINGTON

The US has said it does not care if the government conducts referendums on domestic public policy issues as long as they do not concern Taiwan's independence or sovereignty, according to a Legislative Yuan delegation in Washington.

US officials conveyed the policy to visiting members of the legislature's Foreign Affairs Committee during a Wednesday morning meeting at the office of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) in the US capital.

Meanwhile, a minor storm erupted in Washington over an interview that delegation leader Parris Chang granted The Washington Times, in which Chang accused Washington of "tilting" toward Beijing in cross-strait issues.

At the Wednesday meeting, US officials denied his suggestions, saying US policy was balanced between China and Taiwan.

On the question of referendums, US officials "made it clear it was Taiwan's own decision to make," KMT Legislator Sun Kuo-hwa told reporters.

"However, they said they have not seen compelling reasons to justify" holding the two referendums that President Chen Shui-bian has suggested -- on Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization and on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant -- Sun said.

Sun said the Americans were concerned that holding a referendum near the presidential election would raise its profile.

On whether the government should hold a referendum on Taiwan's independence or sovereignty, Sun said, the US officials said "they are after the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait."

"We people in Taiwan, the government and the politicians, have to know the potential consequences" of such an action, Sun said.

The legislators and US officials discussed the matter following media reports in Taiwan last week that AIT Director Douglas Paal had told Chen that the US was opposed to any kind of referendum because Beijing would construe them as provocative. Paal on Wednesday denied making such comments.

At the Wednesday meeting, Chang said that the US officials "tried to play down any kind of controversy that may have occurred" as a result of the discussions of referendums.

"They are now saying that both sides of the Taiwan Strait should refrain from any kind of provocative statement or action," Chang said.

"They are saying, we are not interfering with your domestic affairs. It's your decision to make whether to go ahead or not. But remember about peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait area," he said.

But the Americans cautioned that "the United States is not a disinterested party; the United States has an interest in the whole thing," he said.

Nevertheless, delegation members said that the US officials expressed dismay that the Chen government had raised the referendum issue without consulting with Washington beforehand, a reaction reminiscent of Washington's statements after Chen's "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait remarks last August.

US officials reacted with apparent anger Wednesday over the Washington Times article that quoted Chang as saying that "concern is rising that there is a perceived tilt toward China" in the George W. Bush administration that is demonstrated by its opposition to the two planned referendums.

"They had a different view," Chang conceded to reporters after meeting with US officials. "They said the United States commitment to Taiwan has remained strong. They said the United States has a parallel interest in also improving relations with China and Taiwan at the same time."

The Americans also cited a string of pro-Taiwan actions taken by the Bush administration as examples of Washington's firm commitment to Taiwan.

"They're not going to sacrifice Taiwan," one delegate quoted the Americans as saying.

A US official said Washington was "uncomfortable" over the Chang interview, a delegate said.

The legislators said that comments attributed to Paal did not come up in their meetings with US officials, who refused to answer questions about the AIT director.

Meanwhile, Pentagon officials said Taiwan must be self-reliant when it comes to its national defense as it would take at least two weeks for US support to arrive, Chinese-language media reported yesterday.

The officials made the warning to another legislative delegation, comprising members of the National Defense Committee and led by legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng.

"The two-week delay is because the US must go through its own procedure, including military deployment," lawmaker Sun Ta-chien told a news conference.

"The message is to let the Taiwan government and legislature know that in case of military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan should be prepared to handle it on its own, and not think that the US Big Brother will come and help Taiwan," a Chinese-language newspaper quoted Sun as saying.

The delegates met with senior US defense officials at the Pentagon, including Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Peter Rodman and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless.

According to Wang, the US officials re-affirmed Washington's commitment to Taiwan but expressed increased concern about China's military threat.

"They warned that between 2005 and 2008, China's military modernization will reach such a stage that there will be certain changes in the military situation in the Taiwan Strait," another Chinese-newspaper quoted Wang as saying.

In their discussion of Taiwan's weapons shopping list, US defense officials mentioned three priorities: the PAC-3 anti-missile defense system, advanced long-range early-warning radars and the so-called C4ISR capabilities, which are command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Wang said the purchase of eight diesel-powered submarines had been put on the back burner because of the cost and the time needed to deliver them.

Hong Kong betrayed by its own

By Paul Lin

When SARS was spreading in Hong Kong, the government of the territory never ceased moving toward passage of legislation mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. Instead, they took advantage of the public's preoccupation with the epidemic to play a few tricks.

For example, on April 12 the Legislative Council Bills Committee convened its first public hearing on Article 23. The original purpose of the session was to collect opinions from the public, but the Legislative Council was exceedingly low-key in the run-up to the event. Being concerned with the SARS epidemic, the opposition didn't take note of this meeting, with the result that those attending were all "insiders."

Thus, the meeting evolved into a forum for the camp supporting legislation to settle accounts with the opposition. The Democratic Party, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the Hong Kong Bar Association, the media and the Hong Kong Journalists Association were all described as traitors and "black hands" blocking the passage of legislation. In short, "national security" took precedence over everything else. This is also why the government has termed the legislation mandated by Article 23 national security legislation.

The debate between the two sides has come to a head. The government-manipulated council broke the government's promise to consult the public fully and passed a resolution to hold an additional three-and-a-half hours of meetings every Saturday beginning last month. In other words, every week a total of seven-and-a-half hours of accelerated deliberations are being held to discuss the legislation mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. The goal is to pass a second and third reading in the Legislative Council by July 9.

On June 3, the government took advantage of the public's focus on the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident to suddenly push forth yet another draft revision of legislation pertaining to national security. On the surface, the government appeared to have made some compromises.

For example, authorization for searches and seizures made without a warrant must now come from a police officer of the rank of assistant commissioner instead of merely a chief superintendent. Like previous amendments, however, these have also added some harsher regulations. Those that most shocked the legal world are related to mechanisms in the appeals process for societies that are proscribed under Chinese law and which Hong Kong has accordingly proscribed as well.

Certain powers originally assigned to the Court of Final Appeal -- including the power to proscribe societies in absentia and hold closed-door hearings to consider appeals against proscription -- were partially allotted to the Secretary for Security, who will be responsible for setting legal principle. The actual letter of the law will be determined by the court in accord with such principle, but based on this principle, the Secretary for Security will be able to legally present evidence that has not been accepted by the court. In other words, groundless rumor will now be usable as evidence.

A number of prominent lawyers have described this situation as giving a blank check to the Secretary for Security. For this reason they charge that the more the draft bill is revised, the worse it becomes. One can understand why the authorities are acting this way.

First, the point of establishing national security laws is to extend China's law to Hong Kong in order to destroy the rule of law in the territory. Thus, expanding the powers of the Secretary for Security is a way of replacing the rule of law with "rule by personality."

Second, Secretary for Security Regina Ip has been a valiant fighter in the legislative process. She has been described as a "female Hitler" and as another "Jiang Qing". From China's point of view, this naturally means that she can be relied upon and might as well be given major powers to oppress the territory's citizens.

This is not the full extent of the problem. On June 14 and 15, the Hong Kong Bar Association, the University of Hong Kong Law School, and the City University of Hong Kong Law School sponsored an international symposium to discuss Article 23. Legal experts and authorities from the US, the UK and Canada participated, and legislators from Hong Kong's democratic faction also attended.

Pro-Communist legislators on the Legislative Council Bills Committee grasped this opportunity to complete all deliberations on the draft bill within the span of a few hours on June 14. Then they also passed a resolution "never to overturn the bill," thereby preventing legislators from the democratic faction from requesting any further deliberations.

Since the territory's government has been pushing to pass national security legislation without the slightest regard for public opinion, it has become clear that the chief executive selected by a small group of several hundred people and a minority of legislative councilors who are popularly elected will never be able to prevent pro-Communist figures from selling out Hong Kong. Thus cries for a popularly elected chief executive have once again arisen.

Moreover, the Basic Law stipulates that how the chief executive is elected after 2007 can be discussed in the Legislative Council, with any decision submitted to Beijing for approval. When the Legislative Council Constitutional Affairs Committee recently convened a public hearing to discuss the method of electing a chief executive in 2007, however, pro-Communist groups turned out in force at the meeting to voice their opposition to a popular election.

Furthermore, when the meeting was nearly over and most democratic legislators had already left to attend other meetings, the remaining legislators passed a motion by a seven-to-one vote preventing further discussion on the question of electing a chief executive in the remainder of this legislative session.

The above-mentioned despotic behavior on the part of pro-Communist figures and the government's suppression of public opinion are provoking more and more public anger. The only chance for the people of Hong Kong is to take to the streets in protest on July 1, the sixth anniversary of the territory's retrocession to China. It is predicted that this will be the biggest street demonstration in Hong Kong since 1997, far exceeding the 60,000 people who took to the streets on Dec. 15 last year to oppose national security legislation.

Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.

Okinawans struggle in love-hate relationship with US

RYUKUAN REBELLION: The island bears the brunt of the US-Japanese security alliance in terms of land for bases and number of troops. Its residents want a change

REUTERS , NAHA, JAPAN

"Frankly, I want them [the American forces] to leave. I don't have any positive thoughts toward them."－Tomiko Kohatsu, an Okinawa resident

Yoshi Kagami was a young woman of 26 when some 140,000 fellow civilians, many forced to commit suicide by fanatical Japanese soldiers, died in the Battle of Okinawa, one of the bloodiest battles of World War II.

The octogenarian resident of Japan's southernmost island says she isn't sorry the US won the war.

But almost six decades later, she thinks it's time for the Marines to leave.

"I don't think we need them here, we have our own Japanese Self-Defense Forces," said Kagami, just days before the 58th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Okinawa on Monday.

"But I don't think they will leave," she said.

Once a proud, independent kingdom with a rich culture and its own language, Okinawa has been trapped in a strategic triangle with Japan and the US ever since Commodore Matthew Perry arrived in the port of Naha with his "Black Ships" 150 years ago.

Perry then sailed to Tokyo to demand Japan open diplomatic and commercial ties with Washington.

"Perry saw Okinawa as a geopolitical strategic point to cover all of East Asia and tried to use it as a lever and a wedge to move Japan into submission," columnist Yoichi Funabashi wrote in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper recently.

A century and a half after Perry, the top Marine in Okinawa says the island is still key to America's ability to respond to regional threats, including North Korea.

"The simple fact is, it's closer to more important things than any other place," Lieutenant-General Wallace "Chip" Gregson said in an interview.

Speculation that most of the 17,000 Marines based on Okinawa may be shifted elsewhere as part of a global realignment of US forces has raised residents' hopes that the the American military presence may finally shrink substantially.

Okinawa -- Japan's poorest prefecture and a two-and-a-half hour flight from Tokyo -- has long resented bearing what many see as an unfair burden for US-Japan security ties.

The anger is targeted as much at Tokyo for treating the prefecture like a neglected stepchild as at Washington.

With about 1 percent of Japan's land area and population, Okinawa is home to 75 percent of the area used for US bases in Japan and some 60 percent of the US military personnel.

Periodic crimes by US servicemen, including the 1995 rape of a 12-year-old girl, have sparked outrage, and memories of past misdeeds run deep.

"Frankly, I want them to leave," said Tomiko Kohatsu, 41, grasping her small daughter's hand.

"I don't have any positive thoughts toward them," she said.

Some Okinawan residents, however, fear damage to the local economy if the US military shrinks its presence significantly.

Others say they feel safer knowing the Americans are helping to defend Japan.

"I don't like the incidents, so I wish the bases weren't here, but they are protecting us, so I feel safe," said Chika Arakaki, 18.

Back in Tokyo, talk of withdrawal prompts concerns about Washington's commitment to the US-Japan alliance, the bedrock of Japanese postwar diplomacy and security policy.

A withdrawal "might send an unfortunate message to North Korea and to China, and might create a loss of confidence among many Japanese people towards the United States," Kunihiko Saito, a former Japanese ambassador to the US, said.

US officials have denied media reports that most of the Marines could be moved to Australia or elsewhere in the region.

But Gregson and others acknowledge that changes may lie ahead as the US military seeks to improve its ability to cope with modern threats of terrorism and rogue states.

"The reason the Marines stayed in Okinawa long after reversion [when the US returned Okinawa to Japanese sovereignty in 1972] had to do with three great items -- location, location, location," US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Japanese media in Tokyo earlier this month.

"But ... the Department of Defense is going to a more global approach in these matters, and who knows where that will lead us," Armitage said.