Tensions mount in the capital
　

DIRTY TRICK?: Protesters were incensed when the Presidential Office brought the meeting between Ma and Chen forward to 11am to avoid the opposition rally

By Rich Chang, Meggie Lu And Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, Nov 07, 2008, Page 1
　

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets close to the Presidential Office in Taipei yesterday to protest against the meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), before later moving on to the Grand Hotel where they continued the protests through the evening.

The “Yellow Ribbon Siege” organized by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was scheduled to begin at 1pm, with protesters walking to the Taipei Guest House on Ketagalan Boulevard and besieging the Boai District (博愛), where Chen was set to meet Ma at 4:30 pm.

But when news filtered through that the government had brought the meeting forward to 11am, DPP legislators and protesters rushed to gather on Zhongshan S Road (中山南路) in front of Jingfumen (景福門), where a wall of police stood waiting to block the protest.
　

DPP legislators Chang Hua-kuan (張花冠), Wong Chin-chu (翁金珠) Yu Tien (余天), Hsieh Ling (薛凌) and other protesters clashed with police as they tried to advance toward the Taipei Guest House, where the meeting was being held.

In the resulting scuffles, Wong and Hsieh were injured. Wong was sent to the nearby National Taiwan University Hospital for medical treatment, where she later told reporters she had a fractured left arm, which had required surgery.

DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), former premiers Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and Yu Shyi-kun and other DPP legislators arrived and sat in front of the police blockade, waiting for the public to arrive at the rally.

At 12:40pm, Tsai, Lu and the DPP legislators led the public in a series of chants, including “Taiwan, China, one country on each side,” “Ma Ying-jeou, step down,” “Ma Ying-jeou, stop selling out Taiwan” and “Taiwan is our country.”

The protesters walked down Xuzhou Road, Linsen S Road and Renai Road to join the protest at Jingfumen, where DPP politicians made speeches to the crowd.
　

Former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) told the crowd: “Ma has said that Taiwan is a sovereign state and that he and his party agree on ‘one China, with each side having its own interpretation.’ So why didn’t he mention this today in his meeting with Chen?”

Ma did not dare to confront China, so he belittled his own country, Su said.

Tsai said Ma was ignoring the voice of the people and that Ma’s move meant the DPP had scored a victory.

Tsai called for the demonstrators to act peacefully and reasonably “because we still a have long way to go.”

Lu said the protests showed that Beijing had miscalculated the political situation and underestimated the will of the Taiwanese.

“Ma has made big concessions to China and for Chen’s visit he has ordered the police to stop Chen from hearing the real voice of the people. Then he said the opposition party leader should take responsibility for the incident at the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei and other clashes that have occurred during today’s rally,” Tsai said.

“Is he fit to be our president?” Tsai asked.

“Ma must take full responsibility for the incidents,” Tsai said, adding that “an authoritarian government that uses violence against its own people” must take responsibility.

“It is the government that has forced people to take to the streets,” she said. “This is only the beginning and we will see each other on the streets again soon.”

Violence erupted while Tsai was delivering her speech.

“The enemies are in town and we’re still talking about being peaceful,” a man in the crowd said, others around him nodding in agreement.

“What you get is all our tax money and look who you’re protecting,” an elderly man who climbed onto the barriers shouted at police.

“Cover me,” said another man, while lighting a firecracker with his cigarette.

The firecracker was thrown over the barrier, exploding in front of the police as the crowd cheered and applauded.

“Stay calm, stay calm. Sit down please. Those who are creating chaos are not our people, they’re spies from the other side,” DPP officials urged, but an escalation seemed inevitable.

At around 1:30pm a group of protesters used pliers to clip through the barbed wire barricades, penetrating the line that police had set up.

Soon, other demonstrators started pushing down the barriers, advancing to the other side to confront police. Excited by the development, more and more people followed suit and the break in the police line grew larger and larger.

Shouting slogans and waving flags, some members of the crowd started attacking the police, throwing plastic bottles, dirt and stones, wounding not only officers, but also many reporters on the scene, as officers wearing riot gear appeared.

The DPP leadership continued to urge the crowd to stay calm and refrain from attacking the police, trying to lead the crowd away from the scene, but all attempts failed.

A few protesters were pulled from the crowd and beaten by officers behind the police line. Outnumbered by the crowd, the police advance stopped and was pushed back several times by the protesters until reinforcements arrived.

“I just can’t take it anymore — Ma has refused to listen to us and I feel obliged to stand up and take to the streets,” said Lee Chen-chen (李蓁蓁), a 29-year-old woman who skipped work to join the demonstration.

Before leaving home she sent a text message to her boss, saying: “My country is in danger, I have to fight for it.”

“We’re not looters, we know very well the history and politics of the country, that’s why we came out,” she said. “It’s like my mother is being raped — how can you ask me to remain calm?”

Protesters wore T-shirts or held banners that bore slogans such as “Taiwan does not equal China,” “Taiwan’s future should be decided by its 23 million citizens” and “Ma Ying-jeou step down.”

At around 3pm a group of protesters standing outside the Taipei Guest House were allegedly pushed, beaten with sticks and kicked by police.

“I was standing on the sidewalk outside [the Guest House] in front of three rows of police, the first row armed with shields, when I heard the police shout: ‘Push, Push,’” Taipei resident Tung Sung-yang (董嵩仰) said in National Taiwan University Hospital’s emergency room.

Tung sustained several blows to the head from police armed with wooden sticks as long as 150cm, he said, adding that he then fell on the ground and was kicked.

“I told the police that I would go to the emergency room to have my injuries examined and have them reported, to which they replied: ‘If you want to sue us, then go ahead and tell [the judge] who hit and kicked you.’ But I was on the ground, God knows who kicked me?” Tung said.

Asked why he joined the rally, Tung said: “I detest the Chinese Communists. I have a relative who is a high ranking Chinese official, but that doesn’t stop me from disliking them.”

“Our president does not even dare to protect our national dignity. He says he loves Taiwan, but when [Chen] visits, Ma doesn’t even dare call himself president … Such a person does not deserve to be president, he should step down,” Tung said.

At around 3:15pm a brief commotion broke out when a fire truck attempted to break a line of red tape on Zhongshan S Road. It was met by angry protesters shouting: “Get off the road or we will flip your truck.”

The firemen were apparently going to spray water to attempt to break up the crowd.

At around four, a woman surnamed Chen was hit by a falling metal barbed wire barricade, sustained back injuries and was sent to a hospital.

The violent scenes continued until around 7pm, when most of the crowd began to move on to the Grand Hotel where Chen Yunlin was staying.

Away from the protests, Chen Yunlin was forced to end his meeting with Dharma Master Cheng Yen (證嚴法師) about 20 minutes earlier than scheduled when the protesters started heading toward the Grand Hotel.

“I just received a note and I am very sorry. There seems to be some special situation and the police want us to end the meeting early,” he said.

After Chen left at 3pm, the police blocked all roads leading to the Grand Hotel.

At Yuanshan MRT Station, all cars were asked to make detours. Police with shields stood at the corner of every block in the vicinity with barricades in place.

The sudden move to block the roads came as a surprise to drivers, reporters and even the hotel workers, as they struggled to make their way to the hotel.

Two hotel workers, who had planned to take the hotel’s shuttle bus to work, were forced to walk instead.

“I have no idea why the police blocked the roads. I am late for work and I don’t understand why the police won’t let the hotel shuttle bus go through. We are not going there to protest,” one worker told the Taipei Times.

Many reporters were also forced to return to the hotel on foot.

The police later expanded the cordoned-off area to Minquan E Road. ARATS also canceled a press conference that was originally scheduled for 6pm.

Hundreds of protesters gathered on Jiuquan Street (酒泉街) near Yuanshan MRT Station at about 6pm as the roads ahead were blocked by thousands of riot police with shields.

Police closed Zhongshan N Road between Jiantan Road and Minzu W Road and part of Beian Road and north of Xinsheng Overpass at around 6pm.

A group of protesters then occupied the Taipei Fine Arts Museum, trying to tear down barricades and throwing bottles, rocks and other objects at riot police.

Reacting to the protests, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus Secretary-General Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) questioned the legitimacy of the protest.

“I don’t understand why the DPP staged the protest. The four cross-strait agreements were in the interests of Taiwan,” Lo said. “No matter whether police or protesters are injured, they are all our fellow Taiwanese ... What will the world think when it sees footage of these clashes?”

Lo said the conflict showed the DPP was afraid that the agreements would help boost the economy — something Lo said the DPP had failed to achieve over the past eight years.

Executive Yuan Spokeswoman Vanessa Shih (史亞平) asked Tsai to take responsibility for the clashes.

Tsai had refused to speak with Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) on how to cooperate with police to maintain order during the protest, Shih said.

Liao, however, had to talk to DPP Secretary-General Wang Tuoh (王拓) via telephone.

Police officers shocked by public anger, aggression
　

By Jimmy Chuang and Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 07, 2008, Page 3

“It makes no sense to hurt your fellow countrymen or yourself just because of a Chinese official.”— “Chen,” Zhongzheng First Precinct police officer

A police officer on duty near National Taiwan University Hospital during yesterday’s protests against Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit told the Taipei Times he was shocked by the hatred directed at the police in the past few days.

Statistics released by the National Police Agency yesterday indicated that 27 officers have been injured on duty since Monday.

“I understand that [the protesters] don’t like us and attack us because we have been trying to stop them from doing stupid things. But we’re Taiwanese too and we’re just doing our job,” said the officer, from Da-an Precinct. “The protests against China shouldn’t end in Taiwanese hating each other.”

The officer, who wished to remain anonymous, said that as a policeman, it was his duty to ensure public safety and his job to protect visitors, regardless of whether he likes them.

“There is a way to fix any disagreement, but violence is not always the answer,” he said before returning to his post.

When approached for comment, Wenshan First Precinct Chief Tsai Tsang-po (蔡蒼柏), who was in charge at the scene yesterday, said with agitation: “We will do whatever it takes to keep the peace.”

An officer from Zhongzheng First Precinct who gave only his surname, Chen (陳), directing traffic near Taipei District Court, said he would have joined the protests if he were not on the police force.

“I can’t because I am a police officer and I have responsibilities, but I am also against the way China has been treating us,” Chen said.

But Chen urged the public to remain calm. He hoped the public understood that most officers were simply doing their jobs.

“It makes no sense to hurt your fellow countrymen or yourself just because of a Chinese official,” he said.

More than 3,000 officers from several Taipei City Police Department precincts were on duty at yesterday’s protests.

Many protesters have reported rough treatment by police in the past three days. While some have been dragged out of restaurants and hotels, others have been pushed to the ground and threatened with violence.

Another anonymous police officer said the police would never touch the protesters if “they weren’t so ridiculously insane.”

“The protesters have abused their freedom. There is a limit to how much you can do in a free society and they have crossed the line,” he said.

Another policeman said he was simply following orders.

“You and I are both the same. We all need to make a living,” he said.

A letter to President Ma

Mr President,

Since you took office on May 20, you will no doubt have seen that the popularity of your policies and the public’s belief in your leadership have fallen considerably. Of course, in a democratic climate where very few media are impartial or objective it is hard to engage in constructive debate about complex policies in such a way to build genuine consensus. Just ask US president-elect Barack Obama.

Leading a country is a massive responsibility that comes with great recognition and honor but can also lead to shame and ignominy. A lack of information means that many citizens will no doubt judge you based upon the limited exposure they have to your ideas, and they are of course not aware of all the factors that may influence your decisions.

That being said, citizens are entitled to expect their president to actively lead and represent their country well. What separates former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt from US President George W. Bush and Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) from Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) is that the former saw their leaderships as duties that required sensitivity, restraint and intelligence, while the latter regarded their tenures as podiums for grandstanding, protecting personal business interests and lining their pockets. The former were refined, active and firm; the latter were crude, passive and aggressive.

In March, 57 percent of eligible voters chose you to protect their country and their interests and above all to act with the utmost respect for, and loyalty to, a nation they most commonly refer to as Taiwan. They heard you say you would protect “Taiwan” and they remember that you promised things would improve under your administration. Over 500,000 people recently gathered in Taipei to ask you why they haven’t.

A president needs to passionately love her or his country, the evidence of which is in their words and deeds. I have no doubt that you love a country, but I fear it is not the country beloved by at least two-thirds of the population who see in this native soil an inherent sovereignty. Instead, your prioritizing of the Republic of China (ROC), downgrading Taiwan to a region and your insistence on using the phrase “mainland” rather than “China” suggests an attempt to “re-Sinicize” Taiwanese.

After 12 years of rising identification with the “Taiwan country brand” it seems that Taiwanese are now being asked to once again regard their nationality as “Chinese” while retaining “Taiwanese,” “Hakka” and Aboriginal as their “local” identities.

Your conscientious observance of the ROC Constitution implies that you wish to lead as a model Chinese citizen in Taiwan.

If you insist on regarding Taiwan as a “local” part of the ROC, then you will at least need the ROC Constitution to be affirmed by voters through a referendum.

The Taiwanese have never been given the opportunity to vote for their own Constitution. This means that the existing document, and all its rules and institutions, have no popular mandate. Is this why there is little rule of law and heightened instability in this democracy?

Though you might wish otherwise, the name and identity of this nation are still undecided. The fate of democracy and freedom in Taiwan rests upon whether you are able to show sensitivity to this fact and respect the cultural heterogeneity of this, your sovereign country.

With my deepest respect, Sir.

Ben Goren
Taichung

Ma can’t ride Chen Shui-bian’s coattails
　

By Tung Chen-yuan 童振源
Friday, Nov 07, 2008, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has constantly mentioned in recent interviews with media outlets that the current cross-strait talks were also promoted by the previous government under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and thanked the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its past endeavors. He also said that this is a mode of cooperation between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the opposition parties.

Ma was not wrong about some things. The previous government hoped to sign a peace agreement with China, proposed establishing an interactive framework for cross-strait peace and stability and promoted cross-trait talks on 18 different issues. In addition, Taiwan successfully reached three agreements with China between January in 2005 and May this year, including two agreements on chartered flights during Lunar New Year and one agreement on special chartered flights. During this period, six rounds of negotiations on passenger and cargo chartered flights and eight rounds of talks on tourists were also held.

However, Ma was wrong about other things. There is a considerable difference between the foundation of cross-strait talks proposed by the Ma administration and those proposed by the DPP. The Chen administration insisted on Taiwan’s sovereignty and it refused to accept the so-called “1992 consensus” based on the “one China” principle as a basis for cross-strait talks. As a result, Beijing was not willing to conduct negotiations with the Chen government.

The Chen government held its stance firmly for four years and China finally gave up on the “one China” principle and was willing to conduct talks with Taiwan on issues such as chartered flights and tourism. China has constantly interfered with cross-strait talks in a political manner, limiting progress in talks for a long time. However, the Chen administration made the strategic choice to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and interests first.

Ever since Ma took office, he has publicly accepted the “1992 consensus” and said that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the greater China area. In addition, he gave up Taiwan’s UN membership bid and allowed Taiwan to apply to participate in international organizations using the title of “Chinese Taipei.” He was also willing to discuss Taiwan’s international situation with Beijing and agreed to be called “Mr Ma” by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林). In addition, he defined cross-strait relations as “not state-to-state” relations and described Taiwan as a “region.”

The previous government never accepted principles like these. Now they have become the premises that have made China willing to negotiate with the Ma government.

Faced with much public doubt and apprehension, the Ma administration should assume responsibility for promoting the legitimacy of its cross-strait policies instead of using Chen Shui-bian as a pretext.

If Ma thinks that his policies are in line with those of the previous government and that the DPP’s doubts are groundless, then he should immediately invite DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for a talk on cross-strait issues. This would not only contribute to dispelling public doubts, but would also help the ruling and opposition parties reach a consensus and promote mutual cooperation. These are serious matters at hand and Ma should not avoid them by using his pet phrase of: “Thank you for your advice.”

Tung Chen-yuan is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi University.

Ma must talk straight to Taiwanese
　

By Hsu Szu-chien 徐斯儉
Friday, Nov 07, 2008, Page 8

‘The concern is that Ma and his government have overlooked the need for an internal consensus before contacting China.’

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally explained the government’s stance a week before Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) was scheduled to visit Taiwan. While a late explanation is better than none at all, these TV interviews actually exposed more problems.

Responding to public doubts about his leaning toward China, especially his description of Taiwan and China as “two areas,” Ma gave a straight answer, saying that the areas of Taiwan and China coexist under the Republic of China (ROC) in accordance with the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the ROC and the Statute Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例).

If Ma were just a law professor, his explanation of the legal source of his two-area stance would be clear and definite, because it is valid, according to the law.

However, such a formulaic, law school professor-type answer clearly shows the lack of insight Ma has into our society’s doubts. The doubts and reservations the public has about his government are political in nature, not legal. He is either naive or irresponsible if he believes that complex political issues can be resolved by simple legal regulations.

Indeed, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have resolved a number of problems through their party-to-party platform and Ma’s government is very proud of that. However, this platform is not accountable to the Legislative Yuan, nor is it monitored by society in any way, creating suspicions. We have to ask the Ma administration to address these widespread suspicions in a more comprehensive manner.

If our government were able to quickly build mutual trust with the Chinese government after being in power for just a few months, why can’t the KMT and its government that enjoys an absolute legislative majority build mutual trust with the opposition camp? Is a consensus within Taiwan less important than a consensus between the KMT and the CCP?

Taiwanese society does not oppose cross-strait communication and negotiation. Nor does it seek to belittle the Ma government’s efforts. The concern is that Ma and his government have overlooked the need for internal consensus before contacting China.

To be frank, I am not sure whether the Ma administration and the KMT are truly aware of the fact that, because of their position in Taiwan’s political landscape, they have a responsibility to work harder to win the trust of the whole of society before conducting dialogue with Beijing.

Ma’s remark, “The pan-green camp proposed a cross-strait peace agreement during their time in office, so why can’t I?” is not only naive but also politically irresponsible.

He appears to be unaware of the fact that, as a pan-blue leader and given Taiwan’s political situation, he has the responsibility to strive for greater trust before contacting Beijing. This need can hardly be satisfied by merely nit-picking on legal matters.

Given Taiwan’s political reality, the fact that the Ma government has taken cross-strait talks for granted and did not bother to explain them to the public, while also making reckless comments about Taiwan and China being two “areas,” is just as irresponsible as the pro-independence camp when it provoked China and disregarded the concerns of the US.

Members of the pan-blue camp talk a lot about how the pro-independence camp’s provocation of China and its disregard for the US and its concerns caused long-term damage to Taiwan’s place in the international community. However, the pan-blue camp hopes it can relieve the administrative pressure it is facing by using the cross-strait talks without first gaining a domestic consensus or even communicating with the people of Taiwan.

These moves will cause distrust and dissatisfaction in the hearts of independence advocates and those with more neutral political views. This can only lead to erosion of the quality of democracy in Taiwan. The moves will also cause long-term damage to Taiwan’s overall interests.

The anti-independence groups hoped the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would not impose pro-independence policies on the entire nation while it was in power. Likewise, the pan-blue government needs to give clearer explanations when pro-independence citizens describe pan-blue policies as “tilted toward China.”

Only when the government holds a non-chauvinistic attitude can it create a real and solid foundation for Taiwan’s democracy, and only based on such a strong foundation can the government’s policies ensure genuine cross-strait stability and peace.

On the other hand, on the eve of Chen’s visit, the pan-green camp recovered enough morale to take to the streets in protest. But apart from provocation on such symbolic issues as whether our national flag should be displayed during Chen’s visit, the opposition parties should have conscientiously and systematically sorted out the propositions and important issues that are likely to be ignored during Chen’s visit.

Beyond obtaining political capital on the streets, can the DPP truly supervise the content of the government’s policies and establish a channel to discuss policies with the ruling party?

Can the DPP clearly and methodically explain the differences between the framework for cross-strait peace and stability it proposed while it was in power and the accord being proposed by the KMT? Can it point out the substantial risks in the KMT’s cross-strait policies?

The pan-green camp should respond to Ma’s remarks that “the pan-green camp proposed a cross-strait peace agreement during their time in office, so why can’t I?” at the level of specific policies rather than just from the level of unification and independence ideology. If the DPP can achieve this, then the KMT would have to take more responsibility for failing to communicate with the pan-green camp.

Hsu Szu-chien is an assistant research fellow at the Preparatory Office of the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica.