Chen's annotation on Sep 26, 2004

Chen's annotation of bill defended by spokesman

SPELLING IT OUT: The president had a large number of reservations about the law he signed, so he wrote them on the document accordingly, Su Cheng-chang said

By Debby Wu
STAFF REPORTER

Presidential Office Secretary-General Su Cheng-chang defended President Chen Shui-bian's approach to the March 19 Shooting Truth Investiga-tion Special Committee Statute as focusing attention on the issues when he signed the law two days ago.

Su said Chen "also had special messengers send letters to the presidents of all five yuans yesterday to remind them of the major Constitutional disputes over the statute, and [said] it would be wise to seek a Constitutional interpretation of the statute or an amendment to the statute so the it can conform to the Constitution." Su was defending Chen's extra notations when signing the statute.

The Legislative Yuan delivered the bill to the Presidential Office on Sept. 14, and Chen signed it on Sept. 24, just meeting the Constitution's 10-day deadline for approving legislation. After the deadline, approved bills pass into law without the president's signature.

Chen signed, then added comments to highlight his reservations about the statute: "The president and vice president were both shot during the election campaign at the same time, and to find out the truth we should conduct an investigation ... The government supports the investigation, but the investigation should not be conducted against the Constitution ... The statute has raised major Constitutional disputes, and it would be wise to seek a Constitutional interpretation of the statute or an amendment to the statute so the statute can operate according to Constitutional order."

Su said that although it was unusual for the president to annotate a bill during its signing, there was also no precedent for what he called the Constitutional monster created by the Legislative Yuan.

"Adding the notation was President Chen's idea. In developed countries such as the US, the president would often add notations when promulgating a statute. So President Chen's notations were not strange," Su said.

"Earlier the Judicial Yuan's president also sent the legislative speaker a letter to highlight the Constitutional disputes, so it is only appropriate for President Chen to show concerns according to the Constitution," Su said.

In the letters to the presidents of all five yuans, the contents were similar to the statute notations, and the letters were numerated as official documents would have been.

But Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng said yesterday that the statute as returned by the Presidential Office to the Legislative Yuan was without any notation.

"The [unannotated] letter the Presidential Office sent to the Legislative Yuan will be considered as an official document, as it was numerated and sealed. I will reply to the president and send the document to all caucuses for review," Wang said.

Yu heralds a `balance of terror'

ARMS PROTEST: Yu Shyi-kun came out fighting on arms procurements, saying China needed to know that Taiwan would retaliate if it dared to launch its missiles

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER  

Taiwan should rely on a Cold War-style "balance of terror" to safeguard national security in the face of intimidation from Beijing, Premier Yu Shyi-kun said yesterday in response to a rally against his proposed arms-procurement package.

"The best scenario will see a `balance of terror' being maintained across the Taiwan Strait so that the national security is safeguarded," Yu said. "If you fire 100 missiles at me, I should be able to fire at least 50 at you. If you launch an attack on ... Kaohsiung, I should be able to launch a counterattack on Shanghai."

Unfortunately, Yu said, during Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule Taiwan failed to develop a counterattack capability comparable to that of Israel.

"That's why the NT$610.8 billion [US$18 billion] arms-procurement budget we're seeking from the legislature is necessary, because it'll keep us safe for at least 30 years, based on a study by the Ministry of National Defense," Yu said. "It seems like a good deal, because it'll cost an average of only NT$20 billion a year."

Yu said that the main purpose of the procurements was to sustain national development. Without it, he said, the nation may end up like Hong Kong.

"Arms procurement is necessary, otherwise many problems are bound to result, and it is our child-ren who will have to pay the price and shoulder the consequences," he said.

Responding to opposition criticism that the amount being spent was outrageously high, Yu called on the public to understand that US arms dealers were always going to make a profit from the deal.

"The US government is the only country in the world who has the guts to sell us weapons," Yu said. "We have to understand that it's a seller's market and that we have very limited space in which to haggle."

Cabinet Spokesman Chen Chi-mai said that the government's proposal was necessary as a price has to be paid to maintain national security.

"The weapons-procurement project is necessary because China has racked up double-digit increases to its military budget every year since 1995, while we have been cutting military spending," Chen said.

"We're very worried about the defeatism embraced by certain people. We hope they come to real-ize that there's no such thing as a free lunch: If you want peace and security, you have to pay for it," he said.

KMT Chairman Lien Chan, however, said that the time was not right for the legislature to handle the request and that the Cabinet should be using the budget for other things.

"The government should be allocating the nation's limited resources to solve urgent social problems such as unemployment, poverty and education to make the country a better place," he told the party's national congress yesterday morning.

Lien said that the amount the Cabinet requested would increase over time because of "maintenance fees."

Thousands protest against arms deal

THE COST OF PEACE: At the protest, marchers said that purchase of defensive arms will spark an arms race with China, and possibly lead the nation into war

By Lin Chieh-yu
STAFF REPORTER
 

Thousands of protesters from opposition parties and civil organizations yesterday marched on Taipei City to oppose the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's proposed NT$610 billion (US$18 billion) arms procurement plan with the US, saying the policy will lead to an arms race with China and lead to war.

"The slogan of opposing the arms purchase deal absolutely represents the majority of Taiwanese people, especially since the government is mired in financial problems," said Hsu Hsin-liang, a former DPP chairman and now an outspoken anti-DPP activist.

"The smartest course of action would be to avoid a war because Taiwan would lose," he said. "The DPP government's policy is pushing the nation to the edge of war."

The protest, entitled "Love Taiwan, oppose the arms-deal" began at 2pm at the Sun Yat-shen Memorial Hall. Participants marched toward Ketagelan Boulevard and held a "Love and Peace, Pray for Taiwan" rally in front of the Presidential Office.

Anti-Arms Purchasing Alliance convener Chang Ya-chung, who organized the protest, said that the purpose of the demonstration was to motivate the public to seriously consider the connection between their future and the arms deal.

The government expects to win the approval of the Legislative Yuan for the arms purchase before the end of the current session in January.

A number of protesters carried anti-US slogans, while one person was dressed as a monster-like Uncle Sam, cavorting with another protester wearing a mask of President Chen Shui-bian.

The the Anti-Arms Purchasing Alliance, along with the Democratic Advancement Alliance (DAA) claimed the protest was not tied to a specific political party.

Many People First Party (PFP) and New Party (NP) candidates for the year-end legislative elections attended the protest.

Independent Legislator Sisy Chen, former NP Legislator Lai Shih-pao, Hsin Hsin-liang, PFP vice chairman Chang Chao-hsiung and DAA member Hsieh Ta-ning joined in holding a huge banner while leading the protest marchers.

Members representing labors rights groups, education reform and gender equality organizations attended the protest.

"The country has so many important issues that need to be solved immediately, such as the high unemployment rate, education and women's rights. We can't let the government send money to the US and leave a huge debt for the next generation," said Tang Shu, leader of the Labor Rights Association.

According to the Cabinet, the arms deal package includes eight diesel-powered submarines, Patriot III anti-missile systems and 12 P3-C anti-submarine aircraft over a 15-year period beginning in 2005.

"One P3-C aircraft costs NT$5.9 billion, and we only need NT$1 billion to ensure that every primary student can eat a free breakfast at school," Tang said.

"The money to be used for the P3-missile could be used to feed primary students a free lunch for next 10 years," Tang added.

Meanwhile, at the KMT National Party Congress today, Chairman Lien Chan said that the arms budget should be reduced and paid for through "alternative methods."

"While the KMT supports strong national defenses, the massive arms budget is not the key to a stable future," Lien said.

"The KMT does support a certain level of military expenditure, however, we think that the government should cut most of the arms procurement budget to allocate money to education and social welfare," he added.

"Besides taking on national loans and selling national land, what other ways are there [to pay for the arms budget]?" Lien said, without elaborating.

Pan-blues have shot themselves in the foot

By Liu Kuan-teh

A recent survey by the local China Times showed that public approval ratings for the Democratic Progressive Party(DPP) are running at a high 42 percent. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was second in the level of public approval at 33 percent. Its ally, the People First Party (PFP) unexpectedly scored last, after the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

The results of the poll echoed one conducted by Formosa Survey Research two months ago. That poll also showed that the post-election protests launched by the pan-blue alliance against the legitimacy of President Chen Shui-bian's re-election led to the erosion of their public support. What exactly happened within the pan-blue camp in the past couple of months? What elements have dragged the KMT and the PFP into the political quicksand? And most importantly, what implications will the decline of pan-blue influence have for Taiwan's political landscape?

The more hawkish approach that the pan-blue camp has taken since the March 20 presidential election is the key to their loss of public confidence. In the beginning, both parties had diverse "exit strategies" to deal with what they characterized as the Chen's "illegitimate" administration. The PFP's more radical appeals to challenge the judiciary contributed to a severe erosion of its own political support.

Furthermore, while most pan-blue supporters anticipate a KMT-PFP merger, political considerations are preventing the merger until after the December legislative elections. PFP chairman James Soong publicly suggested that the merger should take place next February.

Ironically, as the PFP's base of support weakens, individual PFP candidates can no longer stay quiet as the PFP goes down a dead-end road. PFP legislator Diane Lee and her brother Lee Ching-hua unexpectedly announced last week that they would like to see the pan-blue merger occur on the Oct. 10 National Day, two days before the registration deadline for the upcoming legislative elections.

Now even the internal divisions within the PFP are coming to the surface. This complicates the KMT and PFP's ability to cooperate and move ahead together. The question is not how and when the KMT and PFP should merge, but rather whether or not the PFP will be absorbed by the KMT.

Why can't the pan-blue camp learn lessons from the past on failing to unite? In elections, you shouldn't get so carried away with being so gracious in victory that you forget what you were fighting for. All victories are fleeting. So when you win one, move quickly and decisively to consolidate your gains. This way you will avoid being dragged down by past glory, and avoid an obstructionist role.

Yes, the pan-blue camp's enemy is themselves. The fact that Chen and the pan-green camp are more united than their opponents in dealing with the post-election political dynamics constitutes the key reason for their increased political support.

Most people are tired of endless political finger-pointing. Nor are they interested in seeing who the leading competitors are for the next presidency in 2008. What the voters crave most is for the country to get back on the right track. Prospects look even more favorable for the pan-green camp if Lien and Soong persist in their unrealistic fantasy of overturning the last presidential election.

The best political picture after the year-end legislative election, therefore, will be a steady two-party system. As the New Party tilts toward the KMT and the PFP self-destructs, the pan-blue camp's base of support should remain solid. However, as the pan-green camp incrementally enlarges its piece of the political pie, it will attract more moderate and swing voters.

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.

There's little upstairs at the KMT

The legislative elections are fewer than 80 days away, so we might have expected the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would have come up with something bold in policy to sway those voters who have, under Lien Chan's abject mismanagement, been leaving it in droves. But all we saw was Lien telling the party faithful that calling Taiwan "Taiwan" would result in war with China. Calling Taiwan "China," however, would ensure peace. What Taiwan needs, according to Lien, is to negotiate a peace treaty with China. Apparently this is to be negotiated between the two governments "as equals." And it will guarantee peace for 30 years.

What might we make of this? For a start, let us note that trying to scare people with threats of war is a piece of nonsense that didn't work in the presidential election in 2000 (remember the sonar commercial) -- nor has it worked in any election since. Lien, like the Bourbons, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

It is hard to know what China's negotiating "on a basis of equality" would mean. For China to see Taiwan as an equal would be to admit either that Taiwan is a sovereign state, or that the PRC is not the successor state to the ROC it claims to be and that the civil war was not in fact decisively won. There is nothing to suggest that Beijing will favor either of those positions. And why 30 years? Why a time limit? This sounds suspiciously like the adoption of the notorious "interim agreement" strategy, where Taiwan is guaranteed peace for a certain period of time on the understanding that it will then open serious negotiations about unification at the end of that period. Since Taiwan's walking out of such negotiations would probably result in war, the interim agreement strategy means buying peace for yourself at the expense of leaving your children to submit to tyranny. From Lien we would expect no better.

But from whom might we expect more? Yesterday's conference came on the heels of last weekend's two-day think-in by the Taiwan New Hope Link, a group of younger KMT members trying to thrash out what, in the absence of any meaningful leadership from the top, their party should stand for. This badly needs doing, so it was sad that the ideas on display made a beauty pageant contestant's wish for world peace seem profound by comparison. Wang Jin-pyng for example, thought that Taiwan-China relations were best characterized as relations between the "free area" and "the mainland area" -- terminology and thinking straight out of the late 1980s.

Our favorite moments, however, were when academic Hsu Yung-ming said that the KMT's problem in elections was that Hoklo speakers were not smart enough to understand the intellectual arguments put forward by the "highly educated" KMT candidates, and Legislator Apollo Chen said they were so ignorant of history that they wouldn't understand the "significance" of the KMT's comparison of Chen Shui-bian  to Adolf Hitler in the runup to the Presidential election.

We think they understood the "significance" very well -- as another indication of the KMT's contempt for voters, its reliance on immoral demagoguery and its utter ethical and intellectual bankruptcy. And nothing has changed yet. The KMT reminds one of an anencephalic baby; that is, a baby that is born with most of its brain missing. One of the telltale signs of anencephaly is that a light shone on the back of such a baby's head will project through its eyes -- there is simply nothing in between. Put the KMT in the media spotlight and you get the same result, for the same reason.