20041210

HUMAN RIGHTS: Vice President Annette Lu said that many of those who committed such crimes not only got off scot free but are still working for the government
By Huang Tai-lin STAFF REPORTER

On the eve of the International Human Rights Day, the Presidential Office's Human Rights Consulting Committee yesterday unveiled its list of the top 10 political injustices of the martial law era.

The timing of the announcement was meant "to highlight the administration's determination and commitment to uphold human rights as the guiding hand in its governing as well as to remind all compatriots to cherish the fruit of democracy," said Vice President Annette Lu, who is also the committee's director.

Lu said the committee will release a list of "Human Right Persecutors" on May 19 -- a date chosen to coincide with the anniversary of the promulgation of martial law on May 19, 1949.

"Many of those who violated human rights got off scot-free," Lu said. "Some of them still work in government agencies today."

The committee decided to hold off releasing the list of rights abusers because of tomorrow's elections, said Lu, who was jailed for sedition for her role in the Kaohsiung Incident.

"While the statute of limitations might have expired [for prosecuting such cases], we need to continue to look into these issues for history's sake," she said, adding that the committee was not motivated by revenge but by a desire to explain history.

She said the committee wanted to "to find out on whose order" people were persecuted.

Lu said according to an investigation by former DPP legislator and political prisoner Hsieh Tsong-min there were about 29,000 cases of political persecution during the martial law era, involving 140,000 people and then an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people were executed.

The review of cases was co-sponsored by groups such the National Archives Bureau, the Council of Cultural Affairs and the Compensation Foundation for Improper Verdicts on Sedition and Communist Espionage Cases during the Martial Law Period.

The selection of the cases was based on the number of victims involved, the significance of the case and level of absurdity, among others factors, said Chen I-Shen, a committee member.

The top 10 cases include those of Lei Chen , Peng Ming-min and the Kaohsiung Incident.

Lei, a founder and publisher of the Free China Journal was arrested on Sep. 4, 1960 for treason and sentenced to 10 years in prison on the behest of former president Chiang Kai-shek because of the magazine's pro-democracy stance. The magazine, which was launched in 1950, was then closed.

Peng was the co-author of the 1964 Declaration of Taiwan Self-Salvation. Publication of the declaration landed him in jail. He later spent more than 20 years in exile.

The Kaohsiung Incident occurred on Dec. 10, 1979 when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government imprisoned participants in an anti-government parade organized by Formosa magazine.

AP , TOKYO
Japan's ruling party yesterday endorsed a defense outline that would relax the nation's arms export ban and allow development and production of a missile defense system with the US, Japanese media reported.

The reported approval by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) defense panel paves the way for today's Cabinet approval and official announcement of the new outline of Japan's defense plan for next fiscal year.

The LDP panel also approved a 3.7 percent cut in defense spending to a total of ?24.24 trillion (US$233 billion) for the next five years, following an agreement reached between the defense and finance ministries, Japanese newspapers reported.

A plan to trim the Ground Self Defense Force to 155,000 by slashing 5,000 from the current level was also approved.

The new guidelines call for an easing of Japan's arms exports ban so that the nation can jointly develop and produce a missile defense system with the US, Kyodo News reported.

Japan in 1967 banned weapons shipments to communist bloc nations, countries under UN arms embargoes or those engaged in conflicts. The ban was extended in 1976 to exports to all foreign countries.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda will make an official announcement Friday, Kyodo said. Both the LDP and the Defense Agency refused to comment on yesterday's reports.

The new defense outline, which covers a period from April 1 next year through March 31, 2009, wears away at Japan's postwar policy to maintain a self-defense-only military.

The outline singles out China and North Korea as regional security concerns, and calls for a more assertive role by the military with "prompt, mobile, multifunctional and effective defense capabilities," Kyodo said.

Japan has been reviewing its defense policy amid threats from possible terrorist attacks and North Korea. The North has become one of Tokyo's biggest security worries; it test-fired a long-range ballistic missile over Japan in 1998 and has an active nuclear weapons program.

Japan's postwar pacifist constitution renounces use of force in settling international disputes.

Japanese forces possess short-range missiles under a defensive policy that falls within government interpretations of the constitution.

In a nod to preserving that policy, Japanese leaders set aside a plan to develop long-range missiles capable of making a pre-emptive strike in foreign territory, news reports said.

The LDP's coalition partner, the Komeito party, reportedly opposed the plan.

Picture dated Nov. 7 shows Japanese Airborne troops marching during the 50th anniversary ceremony of Japan's Self Defense Forces in Tokyo.PHOTO: EPA

By Ku Er-teh Human Rights Day on Dec. 10 has special meaning for Taiwan. The Kaohsiung Incident that took place on this day 25 years ago was an important watershed for the tangwai [outside the party] movement. The defense lawyers in that case are today's political leaders.

Due to the close relationship between Taiwan's political and democratic development and Human Rights Day, the latter has always been given a high political profile, as if political rights equal human rights. Articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are related to a person's basic rights to life and political participation, are for the most part protected in Taiwan -- at least in name. Of course, some people may argue that Article 15, which states that "everyone has the right to a nationality," is ambiguous for the people of Taiwan.

But more importantly, as technology continues to advance, such progress may easily violate our rights -- such as those stipulated in Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence," or Article 19, which protects a person's freedom "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

If those in power do not firmly uphold human rights, it is far too easy for them to interfere with the public's rights using technology. But they may also do so due to technological ignorance. Conflicts over proposed identification cards with electronic chips and a proposed database of the public's fingerprints underline this problem.

Perhaps Taiwan is weakest in the latter section of the declaration -- the protection of a person's economic, social, and cultural rights -- mainly stipulated in Articles 22 to 29. Although they are also basic universal human rights, they are more likely to be affected by changes in social and economic conditions than political rights. For example, Article 23 states that "everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration." But this is actually decided by different social conditions. People's rights to leisure, education, medical care and cultural life also vary in different societies.

In the lead-up to this memorable day, we saw merely activities on "cultural citizenship" held by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA). Other government agencies only care about political rights -- such as the right to participate in legislative elections -- and seldom hold activities to boost people's social, economic and cultural rights. We are witnessing new challenges to people's rights in Taiwan.

Other bad news was cause for uneasiness, such as poor students being unable to afford lunch, increased numbers of low-income households, poverty brought on by globalization and the violation of foreign spouses' working and cultural rights, and even the right to ethnic equality. We need new policies in the face of these human rights problems brought on by social changes.

Recently, Minister of the Interior Su Jia-chyuan, who is closely associated with these problems, was named the Human Rights Trampler of the Year by the Taiwan Association for Human Rights just because he has been incapable of resolving new problems.

What is more regretful is that President Chen Shui-bian, who has vowed to turn Taiwan into a human rights-oriented nation, repeatedly announces a determination to amend the Constitution to fulfill our needs. But what human rights will be protected in the Constitution? To this day, the government has failed to undertake serious discussion of this. How will it be possible for the government to suddenly come up with a perfect Constitution when Chen amends it?

The EU's fifteen-year-old arms embargo against China will remain in place -- for now. Yet there's little cause for celebration, since all signs indicate that it's only a matter of time before the embargo is lifted. Right now, observers estimate it will happen in the spring of next year. However, the EU will be making a grave mistake if and when it does lift the ban. According to EU spokeswoman Francoise le Bail, "concern" about "civil rights, freedom of expression" and other human rights in China was the reason for the decision made during a two-day summit held between leaders of the Chinese and EU governments this week.

It's hard to imagine that human rights conditions in China will improve significantly in the future. After all, Beijing has had 15 years to improve things, but no serious efforts have been made. Human Rights Watch said it best in a statement released before the summit, in opposition to lifting the ban: "China's army turned its guns on its own people. If the ban is lifted, the next attack could be with weapons supplied by EU states." That is real food for thought, though EU governments are eager and desperate to export their advanced weapons to Beijing.

Proponents of lifting the embargo, including France and Germany, argue that things have changed over the past 15 years since Beijing's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy student protestors in Tiananmen Square. They are certainly right ? not only has Beijing failed to show any repentance for the crackdown and continued to abuse basic human rights, but they have gone on to become an even greater threat to regional peace. Fifteen years ago, China began developing economically, and today it is both backed by enormous wealth accumulated from rapid economic growth and propelled by its endless ambition. It has become a rapidly rising military power that poses a serious challenge even to the US, the world's superpower.

China's neighbors, of course, have a deeper appreciation of the threat posed by their powerful neighbor. Take Japan: Only this past Tuesday, the Japanese government lodged protests through formal diplomatic channels after confirming that a Chinese ship was conducting research off Japan's southernmost island Okinotorishima, and asked China to cease all unannounced geographical research in Tokyo's exclusive economic zone. Less than a month before, the Japanese protested a brief incursion by a Chinese submarine in Japanese waters.

Then there is of course Taiwan. Surely, no country in the world knows better what it is like to live with China's military threats, day after day. China's threat against Taiwan is so real that it was the reason the US opposed lifting the EU ban. According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue (章啟月) "to maintain such an embargo is discriminatory." Beijing has gone all-out in ensuring discriminatory treatment against Taiwan in the international community, including forcing even non-political organizations such as the World Health Organization to shut their doors to Taiwan. This is not to mention the de facto arms embargo imposed against Taiwan as a result of Chinese protest against any government that tries to sell arms to Taiwan. As a result, the US has become the only country that dares to sell arms to Taiwan. Now that is what one calls discriminatory treatment.

On Dec. 3, I attended the "Evening of Defending Taiwan's Roots," sponsored by Lee Teng-hui School, campaigning for Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) candidates in the legislative elections. Typhoon Nanmadol was creating a storm outside and this unseasonable assault made me think of Taiwan's situation, buffeted by China and Taiwan's pro-China politicians. It gave me a sense of urgency about "defending Taiwan's roots."

Although I am a Chinese, I have led a life drifting about many countries in the world, including 17 years in Indonesia, 21 years in China, and another 21 years in Hong Kong after leaving China. I acknowledged mainstream values in Hong Kong, but when Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997, I then went into exile in the US.

My life has been rootless; therefore, knowing that Taiwanese people were gathering to defend their roots, I could very much understand their feelings and also envy them for having such an opportunity.

No matter whether it is a presidential or legislative election, the veteran's community votes has been a hot topics. It makes me think of the film, Spring Outside the Bamboo Fence starring Cherie Chung as lead actress. This film reminds me again of the term, "bamboo curtain."

The Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 was referred to as the "iron curtain," and China was called the "bamboo curtain" after 1949. It seems that the "bamboo curtain" is milder than the "iron curtain," and this was why western countries preferred China back then. But, in reality, communist China's dark and barbaric regime is a curtain of blood.

Since emancipating myself from China's "bamboo curtain" in 1976, I have tasted the beauty of the outside world. Looking back at my life, I feel shame at having taught the "anti-Chinese Nationalist Party (anti-KMT)" line of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) textbooks.

Although I regarded the KMT as a dictatorial political party, it was not as evil as the CCP, and I could also better identify with its anti-communist stance. I identified more closely with the KMT as democracy began to develop from the end of the administration of the late president Chiang Ching-kuo and through that of former president Lee Teng-hui.

But since Lien Chan became KMT chairman, the party's orientation has changed. The KMT's "conspiracy" with China on major national issues is especially contrary to my viewpoint.

Since Lien's defeat in the March election, he has forsaken localization policies and notions of having roots in Taiwan; not to mention forsaking the notion of "defending Taiwan's roots."

As a result, pro-China politicians like Lien have incited confrontations among different ethnic groups in Taiwan, and created civil disturbances, as if to facilitate China's political intervention in Taiwan.

People within the KMT, or the "bamboo fence," thus become the victim of the KMT's political bargaining counter. The KMT made themselves a mini-China behind a "bamboo curtain" of their own, detached from the outside world and today's ever-advancing era, and unable to empathize with the sentiments of Taiwanese people.

I sympathize with many members of the KMT for having been forced from their homes in China. The older generation, though they have lived here for half a century, still do not identify with Taiwan and although the next generation may seem better, the younger ones have also been influenced by their seniors. While some have escaped the "bamboo curtain," many others are still trapped behind it.

It might seem that the Mainlanders' insistence on being Chinese is a result of cultural factors, but in reality, isn't Taiwanese culture a part of Chinese culture? Contemporary Chinese culture has been devastated by Marxist-Leninism, and distorted by the culture of communist China; in other words, this was true "desinicization." Analyzing simplified Chinese characters invented by the current Chinese authorities, the heart (心, hsin) is missing from the word, love (愛, ai), and the verb, to see (見, chien), is left out from the word, intimacy (親, chin). The demoralization of modern China is no coincidence, either. So if you recognize China, doesn't your love for Taiwan lose its heart?

Some days ago, I attended a political discussion on TV, hosted by Chin Heng-wei (金恆煒) and Hsieh Chih-wei (謝志偉) about the issue of national identity and involvement. When Chin expressed his gratitude about Taiwan and Hsieh described his late recognition of Taiwan after he went abroad to study, I also had similar feelings.

My heart is filled with gratitude to Hong Kong, but after its return to the Chinese government, I couldn't stay there any longer. After escaping China's "bamboo curtain," I then led my own life without looking back. I hope that my Mainlander friends also have this kind of gratitude for Taiwan, and don't have any delusional thinking about communist-ruled China. More importantly, they should not sacrifice themselves to the ambitions of the two pan-blue leaders, Lien and James Soong.

Wealth Magazine recently disclosed that Lien transferred some party assets to a friend of his son for management. Isn't this, again, overstepping the boundary between national and party assets, to mix party and family assets? Can Mainlanders really depend on such political leaders?

I understand the different viewpoints of Mainlanders about localized politicians. Taiwan still has a long road to democracy, and its politicians are also not mature enough, but what makes these localized politicians important is their recognition of Taiwan's identity, and their effort to achieve a true democracy in Taiwan.

Only by casting your ballots for these localized legislative candidates can Taiwan gradually be free of the ruckus caused by Lien and Soong, and thus refrain from being swallowed up by a despotic dictatorial China. Only in this way can Taiwan develop and mature in a healthy way.

`Pro-China politicians like Lien have incited confrontations among different ethnic groups in Taiwan, and created civil disturbances, as if to facilitate China's political intervention in Taiwan.'

By Jason Lee Boon Hong
Once again, I share the same sentiments as President Chen Shui-bian when he pledged to correct the names of all relevant government agencies to "Taiwan" by 2006 ("Chen pledges to change names," Dec. 6, page 1, and "Chen stands by name change," Dec. 7, page 1).

While I am not familiar with all Taiwanese companies and government agencies, I would urge Chen also to push for the changing of name of Taiwan's national air carrier -- China Airlines. It is indeed misleading.

On my first trip to Taiwan eight years ago, I traveled by China Airlines and I was confused. Two years later, I visited Beijing on an Air China flight, and then I understood the cause of my confusion, or the root of the problem. Even as an Asian Chinese, I have been confused by the names of the national carriers of both countries. As such, would foreigners from Western countries not be misled by the name? Would they then not conclude that Taiwan equates to China?

Taiwan is in the midst of building its own unique and sovereign identity. It may take time for Western countries to be fully aware of the fact that Taiwan is not China.

However, it is heartening to note that Chen will do his utmost to safeguard and further enhance the identity and recognition of Taiwan. That is important, otherwise five years down the road, Taiwan would probably be considered by others to be a small part of China, as in the case of Hong Kong, which is grossly wrong.

Indeed, Chen is right to urge Taiwanese not to focus on whether the constitutional reform entails an "amendment" or a "rewrite." Either way, if it is not carried out conscientiously, be it an amendment or a rewrite, it may merely just result in an addition of an insignificant clause. What matters more is support from the Taiwanese, including the opposition parties, given to Chen and his administration so that he can translate the hopes and aspirations of 23 million Taiwanese into action, via the new constitution.

In this respect, I am certain the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) will offer its support to Chen. Former president Lee Teng-hui has consistently said that the title "Republic of China" is misleading and should not exist. Lee is absolutely right in that Taiwan should be known simply as Taiwan ("TSU, KMT draw thousands to rallies," Dec. 6, page 1).

It is heartening for me, a foreigner, to note that Lee is still going on strong and as enthusiastic as ever, in his pursuit of greater progress and recognition for Taiwan, even four years after stepping down as president.

Since March 2000, when the KMT lost its 51-year rule over the nation to the DPP, many things have changed. One thing that has been consistent over the past four years is the determination of both Lee and Chen to fight for the best interests of the Taiwanese and Taiwan in general.

Both these men deserve to be applauded for their love for Taiwan. Come Saturday, I urge Taiwanese not to let them down.

Please vote for the DPP and TSU candidates because by doing so, you will not be letting down yourselves and future generations to come.

The future of Taiwan is in the hands of the voters, who should entrust Lee and Chen with such a task. The KMT and PFP cannot be entrusted with such a sacred task.