CEC to
check candidates' citizenship
BALLOT NUMBER: Hsieh's camp
celebrated on drawing the number `one,' while Ma said he was pleased as the hand
gesture for 'two' was the same as the sign for victory
By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, Feb 16, 2008, Page 1
The Central Election Commission (CEC) said yesterday it would employ the help of
foreign diplomatic missions in Taiwan to check if either of the two presidential
candidates holds foreign citizenship.
The commission's decision came in the wake of allegations from Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) presidential hopeful Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) that his Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) rival, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), has a US green card.
Ma recently admitted he had applied for permanent residency when he was studying
in the US, but contended that his green card had already expired.
Hsieh insists Ma's green card is still valid.
The DPP candidate accused Ma last month of holding a US green card and early
this month disclosed the alleged card number -- "AXXX39789" -- saying it was
granted to Ma on Aug. 26, 1977, in New York.
Ma at first denied that he had a green card, but later said he once owned one.
He said he had obtained a green card in 1977, but the green card was
automatically invalidated in 1985 when he applied for a visa at the American
Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to travel to the US.
To ensure that neither of the candidates is a citizen of a foreign country, the
CEC said it has decided to seek help from foreign diplomatic missions.
"Since the two candidates have clearly said they do not have foreign
citizenships, we have decided to get in touch with foreign diplomatic offices
and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ... to confirm that information," CEC
Secretary-General Teng Tien-yu (鄧天祐) told reporters yesterday.
If either of the candidates is found to be in possession of foreign citizenship,
"his candidacy will be considered void," Teng said.
Hsieh's manager, Lee Ying-yuan (李應元), backed the move.
"We respect and abide by the law," Lee said. "The president of a country should
certainly not be a citizen of another country -- a president should not even be
only one step away from having another country's citizenship."
Ma yesterday also welcomed the commission's decision.
Ma's spokesman, Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓), said the KMT would comply with the law and had
confidence in its candidates, while at the same time condemning Hsieh's camp for
making groundless accusations.
"Our rivals made accusations without evidence, but we will not join them," Su
said yesterday in front of the commission's office.
In related news, campaign officials from both camps drew lots to decide the
order in which the candidates will be listed on the ballot.
Hsieh was represented by his campaign manager, Yeh Chu-lan (葉菊蘭), who drew the
number "one."
"Taiwan's No. 1, prosperity all the way," Hsieh's campaign officials shouted
outside the CEC's headquarters.
Chanting "Ma-Siew team wins, victory for Taiwan," Ma's campaign director Chan
Chun-po (詹春柏) said they did not have any number preference and did not think one
was a "luckier" number.
Chan and Su later joined KMT Youth Corps members outside the CEC, cheering
"March 22, cast your vote for number two."
Ma said that he was pleased with the number two, as the hand gesture for two was
the same as "V" for victory.
Kissinger
put off ties with Beijing ahead of election
AP, WASHINGTON
Saturday, Feb 16, 2008, Page 3
Mindful of right-wing Republicans and their affection for Taiwan, former US
secretary of state Henry Kissinger rejected the advice of his top China hands in
1975 and influenced former president Gerald Ford to put off establishing
diplomatic relations on a trip to Beijing that year, State Department documents
show.
It was not until 1979 and another administration, that of president Jimmy
Carter, that the US went ahead with diplomatic recognition and at the same time
downgraded its relationship with Taiwan and its Nationalist government.
Memos and other documents released this week by the historian's office at the
State Department provided unusual insight into what was a delicate political and
diplomatic decision.
China experts in the US government believed Ford should use his invitation to
visit Beijing to promote "normalization" of relations. In a speech to Congress
in April 1975, the president spoke of wanting to "accelerate" it.
In a memorandum to Kissinger in July, his advisers made clear they agreed with
that goal and saw the trip as an opportunity.
"Our own judgment is not that there should be `normalization at any price,' but
that long-term American foreign policy interests will be served by a
consolidation of our present, if limited, relationship with Beijing ... if an
acceptable normalization deal can be worked out now," it says.
Kissinger believed that downgrading Taiwan could touch off a right-wing backlash
against Ford in the 1976 presidential election, which Carter won.
"For political reasons, it's impossible for the US to go for normalization
before '76," Kissinger told his advisers at a meeting in July. "If there is any
one thing that will trigger a conservative reaction to Ford, that's it."
Kissinger prevailed.
Beijing, while eager to upgrade relations with Washington, patiently accepted a
visit to Beijing by Ford that did not achieve that goal and broke little ground.
Looking back in a telephone interview on Thursday, Winston Lord, director of
policy planning for Kissinger and a senior adviser at the time, said: "It's true
that many of us wished to move the relationship forward significantly in the
remainder of Ford's term."
And, Lord said, given Ford's challenge from conservatives and looking toward the
election, this was difficult for Ford -- and for Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), who was in
the midst of taking charge in Beijing "and couldn't afford to look soft on
Taiwan."
Meanwhile, among the documents released was a transcript of a conversation
between Kissinger and Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in Beijing in 1973.
During the conversation, Mao said trade between China and the US was "very
pitiful."
"We don't have much. What we have in excess is women. So if you want them we can
give a few of those to you, some tens of thousands," he said.
"We have too many women ... They give birth to children and our children are too
many."
"It is such a novel proposition," Kissinger replied. "We will have to study it."
Helpful comments
Dear Johnny,
I don't know whether to feel sad or to laugh as I don't know what sort of
journalist you are. Let me explain.
I feel sad that the DPP under Chen Shui Pian [Johnny asks: Is this meant to be a
pun?] has proven to be typical of Third World politics whereby the party and its
leaders cannot be trusted to govern for the good of its people. The mistake made
by the Taiwanese people was to elect Chen for two terms. They should have kicked
him out after four years.
Is it any wonder that the Western media are outright critical (and also happy)
with the big loss by the DPP in the recent elections? They see corruption so
entrenched from top to bottom in the DPP. It is sad that the DPP cannot
understand why they were thrashed in the elections.
I watched all sorts of media in Brisbane via satellite TV and also have good
friends living in Taipei. Just compare the difference with Singapore and Hong
Kong. While Taiwan suffers from economic stagnation, the people in Singapore and
Hong Kong are enjoying robust economic growth and a higher standard of living.
Why? Because they are fortunate to have honest political leaders that govern for
the good of the people and have improved the quality of life.
I can go on and on but you know the gist of my letter. I hope that the Taiwanese
people will follow through and get rid of the DPP from the presidency on March
22.
It is better for Ma Ying-jeou to be elected as the next president to enable the
KMT to govern effectively for the good of Taiwan.
If the KMT cannot do the job, then you can kick them out four years later. This
is what effective democracy is all about. No tears for the inefficient and
corrupt president, but make a decision for the good of the country. If the
Taiwanese decide to elect another DPP president in March, then I say that you
deserve what you vote for.
Here in Australia, we recently elected a Labour [sic] government and prime
minister, although the previous Conservative Party [sic] had done a great job
managing and uplifting the economy. The people felt that it was time for a
change and it just happened without any pain or fury.
If the Taiwanese people can achieve 25 percent of what the Australians have
done, then it would be a great start. Journalists like you should take more
responsibility and urge your fellow Taiwanese to simply kick out the DPP for the
good of Taiwan. Like rotten eggs, they should be thrown into the rubbish bin.
Hope my comments are helpful.
David Lee
Boondall, Australia
Johnny replies: If my readers haven't already suspected it, it seems the DPP is
in diabolical trouble. Its fortunes have sunk so low that it has now lost the
coveted pompous-children-of-expat-Australian-Chinese vote.
David, my friend, don't expect me to buy you a beer if you haven't got the
intelligence to understand that corruption is everywhere in this country, and no
more so than among the very people you admire.
So try visiting Taiwan. Meet some captains of industry. Read some history books.
Travel the countryside and ask people why they vote for who they do. Then you
might understand why Hong Kong and Singapore are irrelevant to Taiwan as far as
politics is concerned, and also why Taiwan has nothing to be ashamed of under
Chen Shui-bian, regardless of his regular forays into stupidity and tactical
ineptitude.
Hope my comments are helpful.
Thoughts on
small states and loss of our rights
By Chen Yi-shen 陳儀深
Saturday, Feb 16, 2008, Page 8
A CONFERENCE ORGANIZED by the 228 Memorial Foundation marking the 61st
anniversary of the 228 Incident will be held at the National Central Library
next weekend. The theme of the conference will be the hegemony of large states
versus the human rights of small states. As a trustee of the foundation, I want
to elaborate on this theme.
At the end of World War II, Taiwan was at a turning point. Was it victorious or
defeated? Conceiving of Taiwan as victorious could be seen as taking advantage
of historical circumstance and runs counter to 50 years of history.
Yet the Japanese occupation did come to an end, and the Chinese Nationalist
Party (KMT) did arrive to "return Taiwan to the embrace of the ancestral
country" -- after all, wasn't Taiwan part of China?
This was an issue that perplexed many people on the eve of the 228 Incident. And
the root causes of the incident are intimately related to the awkward position I
have outlined above.
Whether it was the letter from executive administrator Chen Yi (陳儀) to Chiang
Kai-shek (蔣介石) on Mar. 13, or the ideology promulgated during the ensuing period
of "pacification" and purging of opponents -- all in effect denounced the
Taiwanese for their "mistake" of not identifying with China and emphasized the
importance of enforcing Sinicization through education.
The postwar carving up of colonies is an extremely complex problem.
Why is it that, according to the Treaty of San Francisco, the Ryukyu Islands
went to US trusteeship, South Korea became independent and Taiwan and Penghu
were merely renounced by Japan as its territories?
Various signs indicate that the politics of large states is the determining
factor of the fate of small states.
Other than expressing anger, what precise means of self-determination do
citizens of small states have?
Those who desire a deeper understanding of the anger that formed the background
to the 228 Incident need to understand the corruption of Chen Yi's
administration, the aforementioned international factors and comparable
experiences of other nations.
Taiwan's fate was obviously determined by larger states: It was handed over to
the Chinese government.
The Chinese considered Taiwan to be their property. So how should Taiwanese
interpret "China"?
How can they respond to this new identity, this new relationship? Can the
experiences of Mongols, Uyghurs and Tibetans in negotiating with the Beijing or
Nanking governments offer us any enlightenment?
Human rights are universal values. Whether or not you are a Chinese citizen, you
have basic human rights against which the government's actions can be evaluated.
If postwar Taiwan was only an occupied territory and not part of China, then the
laws of war and international law should have applied to forbid massacres and
pillaging.
Finally, can large states always enforce their hegemony? Must the human rights
of small states be trampled?
There is no definite answer, but there is one thing that is certain: If a small
state were sovereign and could become part of international organizations,
especially the UN, then to some extent that state might just have a chance of
defeating this historical curse.
So isn't the direction that Taiwanese should follow abundantly clear?
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research
fellow at the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica.