Listen to the voice

‘State to state’ theory is dead, Ma says
　

BACK IN TIME?: In an interview with a Mexican newspaper, the president said the government should not waste time and effort trying to resolve the sovereignty issue
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 1

The relationship between Taiwan and China is not one between two countries, but a type of special relationship across the Taiwan Strait, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has told a Mexican newspaper, in a marked departure from former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) special state-to-state model of relations.

“Basically, we don’t think the relationship between the two sides is one between two Chinas, but a special one,” Ma said in an interview with Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26, the Chinese text of which was released by the Presidential Office yesterday.

During the interview, the reporter asked questions in Spanish and Ma replied in Mandarin.

Ma said the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) does not allow the existence of another country on its territory, nor does the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

“The relationship is a special one, but that relationship is not between two countries,” he was quoted as saying in the transcript. “While it is unlikely that double recognition of both sides of the Taiwan Strait can be obtained from any foreign country, we must maintain a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Beijing and at the same time we would like to see both sides enjoy dignity in the international community. This is our goal.”

Ma said that while both sides could not resolve the dispute of Taiwan’s sovereignty, Taipei and Beijing reached a consensus in 1992.

Under the so-called “1992 consensus,” Ma said each side accepted the principle of “one China” but agreed to have its own interpretation of what it meant.

While there were no immediate answers for the sovereignty issue, Ma said the government should not waste time and effort trying to resolve it. Instead, the government should focus its energy on more urgent issues that require both sides to attend to. Such issues were what his administration has been pushing, he said.

Ma said that while the ROC left China in 1949, it did not disappear from the surface of the Earth. He hoped both sides of the Strait would refrain from engaging in malicious competition on the diplomatic front.

As each side maintained relations with its own diplomatic allies, they could develop non-diplomatic relations with each other’s allies.

“Such peaceful coexistence is the most ideal way for interactions between the two sides,” he was quoted as saying in the transcript.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that the cross-strait relationship was not one between two countries but a special one defined by the 11th amendment to the ROC Constitution.

The article describes Taiwan as the “free region” and China as the “mainland region.” Wang said the two regions are equal and have two ruling authorities whose relationship is not between the central and local governments but one that is equal between the “Taiwan region” and the “mainland region.”

Wang said that while Ma has redefined cross-strait relations and proposed to assert sovereignty and shelve disputes, Ma’s policy was not a concession or surrender. Although both sides have different claims over their territory and the disputes over sovereignty are difficult to resolve, Wang said the administration would protect the sovereignty of the ROC, insist on the “three nos” and continue to extend goodwill to Beijing.

The “three nos” refers to no discussion of unification with Beijing during Ma’s presidency, no pursuit of de jure Taiwan independence and no use of military force to resolve the Taiwan issue.

Listen to the voice

Ma says achieving goal of ‘6-3-3’ will take eight years
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 1

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said his “6-3-3” campaign pledge was unlikely to be realized anytime soon, but he hoped it could be achieved by 2016 — at the end of two terms in office.

The “6-3-3” economic policy refers to an annual economic growth rate of 6 percent, an annual GDP per capita of US$30,000 by 2016 and an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent per year.

During an interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26 — the Chinese transcript of which was released by the Presidential Office yesterday — Ma said it would be difficult to reach the goal of 6 percent annual growth rate now or within the next six months or a year, taking into account the state of the global economy.

During the interview, the reporter asked questions in Spanish and Ma replied in Mandarin.

Ma said that while the economic growth rate was estimated at 4.6 percent this year, the unemployment rate remained at 3.8 percent and his administration would like to lower it to less than 3 percent.

“The election promises still stand, but it will take longer to deliver them,” he was quoted as saying in the transcript.

“Eventually, we hope to see the economic growth rate reach 6 percent, GDP per capita achieve US$30,000 and the jobless rate drop to less than 3 percent in 2016, the final year of my second term in office,” he said.

To stimulate the economy and increase job opportunities, Ma said his administration would push the “i-Taiwan 12 construction projects,” which should cost US$120 billion and take eight years to complete.

The government will continue to deregulate the economy, lower tax rates and build Taiwan into an asset management center in the Asia-Pacific region, an innovation center, an operation headquarters for Taiwanese businesspeople and regional operation center for foreign investors, he said.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that the government would try to realize the “6-3-3” goals by 2016, despite the deteriorating global economy.

Wang said Ma proposed more than 400 platforms during the campaign.

While the “i-Taiwan 12 construction projects” would be an eight-year project, the government has already delivered on its promises of cross-strait weekend charter flights, increasing the number of Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan and expanding the “mini three transportation links,” Wang said.

Listen to the voice

Researchers build green scooter that runs on air
　

By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 2
　

A National Central University professor and student have succeeded in creating a motorcycle that runs on air.

At a press conference in Taipei yesterday, Hwang Yean-ren (黃衍任), a mechanical engineer, said they had created a prototype scooter by removing the fuel tank from a motorcycle they had obtained from a junkyard and replacing its engine with an air motor.

The air motor is driven by high-pressure air coming from a compressed air bottle attached to the side of the scooter, Hwang said.

The research team is the first in the world to develop an air-powered scooter, Hwang said.

Citing the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), Hwang said the number of scooters in Taiwan had increased by 4.2 million to 14.2 million since 1993.

An EPA survey this year showed that about 53 percent of respondents complained about air pollution, and 58.1 percent attributed it to scooters, he said.

Shen Yu-ta (沈毓達), the doctoral student who participated in the research, said their prototype could travel at a maximum speed of 30kph for 1.2km using a 10-liter bottle of compressed air.

Hwang said the prototype would be able to travel at a higher speed if the structure of the motorcycle were refined to accommodate a larger amount of high-pressure air.

Hwang said that more tests are needed to improve the efficiency of the prototype and reduce the amount of noise it creates.

Listen to the voice

Taiwan Society receives inquiry letter over rally
　

CIVIL RESTRICTION: The Ministry of the Interior received a complaint that said the social group’s rally may have been in violation of the Civil Associations Act
　

By Loa Iok-Sin
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 3

The Ministry of the Interior (MOI) yesterday rebutted accusations from the Taiwan Society and others that it was breaching freedom of expression by issuing a letter of inquiry to the group that organized a major rally held last Saturday.

The rally drew tens of thousands of participants protesting the government’s cross-strait policies, and called on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty, save the economy and help to accelerate the adoption of “sunshine bills.”

“We received a letter from the MOI on Monday saying that someone filed a complaint with them that said [the Taiwan Society] may have violated the Civil Associations Act [人民團體法] by organizing the Aug. 30 rally and asked them to reply within 10 days,” Taiwan Society secretary-general Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) told the Taipei Times via telephone.

The person who filed the complaint said the Taiwan Society may have violated the law because the organization is registered as a social group, which could mean it may not engage in political activities.

“But we applied and received a rally permit from the appropriate government agencies, and the purpose of the rally was about social interests,” Lo said. “Rallies are a way for people to express their opinions. What the MOI is doing to us makes us feel that they’re trying to get revenge.”

The Democratic Progressive Party’s Department of Culture and Information director Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) also criticized the MOI, saying that “It is ridiculous to say that a social group may not hold rallies on political themes — there is simply no such restriction in the Civil Associations Act.”

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Justin Chou (周守訓) echoed the view, and said that the way the ministry was handling the complaint would “remind people of the authoritarian rule during the White Terror.”

In response, director of the ministry’s Department of Social Affairs Tseng Chung-ming (曾中明) told a press conference yesterday afternoon that asking for an explanation from the Taiwan Society was just part of standard procedure.

“We understand that our friends at the Taiwan Society may not feel very comfortable after receiving the letter, however, we ask for your understanding that handling complaints from people is an unavoidable responsibility of the Department of Social Affairs,” Tseng said.

However, Tseng also said that there may have been some problems with the way the issue was handled.

“We will humbly accept criticism and opinions from all, and will take care of similar issues more flexibly to meet public expectations,” he said.

Listen to the voice

Taiwan’s Ministry of Surrender

Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 8

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ reaction to various diplomatic developments is leading many to question the validity of the so-called “diplomatic truce” touted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and wonder whether it might not be a pretense for a surrender of sovereignty.

The latest example came in remarks by the ministry earlier this week in response to BirdLife International’s decision to change the Taiwanese chapter’s name from “Taiwan” to “Chinese.”

Most likely the result of pressure from Beijing, the non-governmental organization (NGO), a wild bird protection agency, changed the Taiwanese chapter’s name from Wild Bird Federation Taiwan to Chinese Wild Bird Federation.

In response, ministry spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said on Monday that because this organization is an NGO, the ministry could not interfere in its decision to change the name, adding that the group had been called Chinese Wild Bird Federation when it was established in 1988 and had only changed its name in 2000.

The ministry’s failure to act is dispiriting.

If rationalizing inaction is policy at the ministry, then Taiwan might as well abandon plans to join international organizations in a way that would uphold its dignity — that is, under its real name — because one thing is certain: Beijing is not about to stop applying pressure on global organizations, governmental or otherwise, to strike the name “Taiwan” from each and every one of them.

Beijing’s oppression of Taiwan is nothing new and at every turn it has endeavored to shoot down Taipei’s efforts to join organizations that require statehood. But if the ministry’s latest stance is any indication of future developments, all those who have worked to create space for Taiwan by joining NGOs under a name worthy of the nation have been served one hard kick in the guts.

Rather than criticizing Beijing for its relentless pressure on others to downgrade the status of Taiwan — something that any party even remotely interested in reciprocating Taipei’s recent efforts at peacemaking would have done — the ministry bent over backwards and used doublespeak to defend China while leaving Taiwanese NGOs in the ditch.

Active diplomatic work is needed to ensure Taiwan’s existence and rightful place in the world. However, when a country’s foreign ministry sounds more like a Ministry of Surrender than a government body in charge of protecting the country’s interests abroad — especially when that country faces a threat to its very existence — it is only a matter of time before the name “Taiwan” drops off the map altogether.

Ironically, what our spineless Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn’t seem to realize is that if it continues in this direction, it could eventually find itself without a job, or at best become a mere provincial government agency with little say over international affairs.

Surely this cannot be what the hundreds of ministry officials who worked hard to make a career in international diplomacy are hoping for.

Listen to the voice

Ads raise questions about democracy
　

By Lo Huei-Wen 羅慧雯
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 8

The Chinese National Federation of Industries (CNFI) recently ran three controversial TV commercials urging tax cuts to stimulate the economy and arguing for the existence of an inverse relationship between tax rates and economic development.

The commercials have resulted in protests from the “fair tax alliance,” which on Aug. 27 asked the National Communications Commission (NCC) to ban such “false” commercials. But the NCC, citing freedom of speech, said the advertisements were legal.

So far, the debate has for the most part limited itself to the rationale of the proposed tax cuts and whether the NCC should restrict commercials for such “non-commodities.”

Supporters of the tax cuts have argued that they are an emerging trend globally, citing the policy of former US president Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980s to back their claims. But they have purposely ignored the reviews of Reagan’s tax-cut policy that were later issued. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith severely attacked the policy in his book, The Culture of Contentment, arguing that tax cuts had led to excessive accumulation of private assets, while public interests were sacrificed and environmental protection and social welfare were overlooked.

Another economist, Lester Thurow, also commented on the policy in his book The Future of Capitalism, saying that tax cuts have not only widened the income gap, but also exacerbated social tensions. Thurow said that if the problem were allowed to continue, capitalism and democracy could be headed for a confrontation, which could eventually threaten the spirit of democratic politics. Indeed, looking back at the political and economic developments of the past decade or so, money politics has already risen as communist regimes collapsed one after the other. However, largely unnoticed was the fact that the very capitalistic democracy that was used to confront communism had also waned.

The most important confrontation between capitalism and democracy lies in tax policies. A government always has to balance economic development and social justice in its tax system, a thorny issue that has haunted every country.

Let us examine this from the perspective of broadcasting policy.

It is a well-known fact that media can affect government policies. Broadcasting policy is therefore another field on which the confrontation between capitalism and democracy will play out. Without a democratic media, there would be no democratic countries.

The CNFI is spending lots of money running the commercials, which quote British prime minister Winston Churchill and the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman to highlight the necessity of tax cuts. The way the commercials have been packaged gives them a veneer of objectivity and professionalism, but they have simplified the complex issue of tax policy. And more importantly, anonymous commercials may distort the issues, because their producers cannot be held to account. However, the authorities are unable to interfere with the commercials, as they are legal.

In future, an increased number of advertisements seeking to monopolize the “market of ideas” will appear. This will highlight the contradictions that exist between capitalism and democracy in the media and it will be up to the media to resolve these contradictions.

The media should play its role as a public tool with dexterity. When controversy arises, the media should bring its function as a public forum into full play, so that those without great amounts of capital can also make their voices heard. They should also promote communication and rational dialogue between people who hold different views. This is how we can resolve the contradictions that exist between capitalism and democracy.

The commercials touch on fundamental issues. Unfortunately, they have yet to receive attention from political talk shows, as the media have ignored this topic in the pursuit of higher ratings. The lack of discussion on political talk shows is aimed at balancing the effects of this commercial and therefore makes these shows accomplices of the federation. The value political talk shows attach to ratings is not a surprise and the reason behind this is perhaps the result of commercial TV stations’ capitalistic inclinations.

Thanks to the alliance’s recent protests to the NCC, the matter has now entered the public sphere, which has led to discussion in the print media. A call-in show on Public Television Service (PTS) also invited people with different views to discuss tax reform. Given its non-commercial status, PTS was in a position to freely promote diversity of opinion.

Let us hope that political talk shows on commercial TV will learn from PTS and not become mere mouthpieces for capitalist and oftentimes non-democratic interests.

Lo Huei-wen is an assistant communications management professor at Shih Hsin University.

Listen to the voice

Ma’s non-bid for the UN is anything but meaningful
　

Gerrit Van Der Wees
Thursday, Sep 04, 2008, Page 8

On Aug. 15, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) launched its version of the annual bid to join the UN. But instead of knocking on the front door and asking for membership — as was done last year by former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) Democratic Progressive Party government — Ma was meekly asking for “meaningful participation” in UN agencies.

By using this approach, Ma and his administration are undermining Taiwan’s position on a number of fronts.

First, it opens the door for China to claim Taiwan as its subsidiary; second, it endangers Taiwan’s sovereignty because it does not take its status as a free and democratic nation as a starting point; and third, it gives the US and other Western countries an excuse to maintain their “do nothing” approach and allow China to have its way in international organizations.

On the first point: Ma’s approach is to downplay the UN bid and then rely on Beijing’s “goodwill and flexibility” to allow some sort of participation at the WHO’s deliberative body, the World Health Assembly.

But what is the chance that Beijing will move on that issue? China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Chairman Wang Yi (王毅) has already said that China will never agree to WHO membership for Taiwan.

So the only thing left will be a pretzel-like construction whereby information on SARS, avian flu and other health threats would be channeled to Taiwan via Beijing.

This kind of participation is meaningless.

On the second point: Ma’s fuzzy approach seeks to sweep the issue of Taiwan’s status under the rug. While this may be expedient in the short term, it amounts to a strategy of hiding one’s head in the sand. Taiwan’s case to the international community would be aided immensely if Taipei would clearly lay out its bid for membership as an equal, free and democratic member.

Ma’s approach does the opposite and undermines Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Clear arguments in Taiwan’s favor do exist.

In a recent book by Peter Chow titled The One China Dilemma, Taiwanese professors Huang-chih Chiang (姜皇池) and Jau-yuan Hwang (黃昭元) of National Taiwan University provide an excellent legal appraisal of the statehood of Taiwan and show that under international law, Taiwan meets all criteria for statehood. They conclude that the lack of recognition by major Western powers is thus based more on political than legal considerations.

On the third point: While Chen’s front-door approach to UN membership may have made Western governments uneasy, it did appeal to their conscience in the same way appeals from Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938, before being invaded by Germany, made the West feel uneasy.

The subsequent developments in 1938 and 1939 showed how wrong it was for the US and Western Europe to look the other way and ignore the pleas of Czechs and Poles.

Ma’s approach has echoes of a modern-day Neville Chamberlain: He pretends to be working for “peace in our time,” but his actions and policies are strengthening a repressive giant’s claims on a democratic neighbor.

Ma likes to describe his policies as “flexible and pragmatic,” but he is giving pragmatism a bad name. His policies are an example of expediency rather than principle.

Chances are his UN “bid” will go nowhere and in the process risk undermining Taiwan’s position in the international community.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.