DPP
proposes parade law amendment
STUDENT PROTESTS: The DPP
hopes to abolish the legal requirement demanding that rally organizers seek
government approval before staging demonstrations
By Rich Chang, Flora
Wang And Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 1
|
A man with
chains wound around his body holds a placard that reads, “The Parade and
Assembly Law is unconstitutional” and “Human rights have disappeared” as
he shows support for student demonstrators at Liberty Square in Taipei
yesterday. PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES |
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus yesterday
proposed an amendment to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) that would
eliminate the requirement for protest organizers to apply for permission from
law-enforcement authorities.
The amendment would only require organizers to report planned rallies to police.
“If the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] caucus does not block the amendment at
tomorrow’s [today] meeting of the Procedure Committee and agrees to send it to
the legislative floor for Friday’s plenary session, the DPP caucus would ask
that the amendment be allowed to skip preliminary review so that it could pass
its third reading by Friday. This would mean the students at Liberty Square
could go home,” DPP caucus whip William Lai (賴清德) told a press conference
yesterday.
Lai was referring to about 400 students led by National Taiwan University
sociology professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁) who began a silent sit-in last Thursday
in front of the Executive Yuan in Taipei.
The students are demanding that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu
Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) apologize for what they term the “excessive force” police used
against demonstrators opposing the visit of China’s Association for Relations
Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) last week.
They are also demanding that National Police Agency Director-General Wang
Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明)
resign and that the government scrap the Parade and Assembly Law.
The students were forcibly evicted by police on Friday night because they had
not filed an application in accordance with the Assembly and Parade Law. They
later reconvened the sit-in at Liberty Square at the National Taiwan Democracy
Memorial Hall.
Two more groups of students in Taichung and National Cheng Kung University in
Tainan launched sit-ins on Sunday echoing their counterparts in Taipei.
Another two student groups began sit-ins yesterday at Hsinchu’s National Tsing
Hua University and Kaohsiung in support of the demonstration in Taipei.
The sit-ins have been dubbed the “Wild Strawberry Student Movement.”
Lai said the amendment would allow event organizers to report planned rallies to
police, rather than having to seek approval from law-enforcement authorities.
The amendment would also abolish an article banning rallies that advocate
communism or “division of national territory,” as well as an article stating
that rallies cannot be held around the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan,
the presidential residence, airports, important military facilities and
embassies or offices of foreign countries, Lai said.
The amendment also seeks to abolish the rights of law-enforcement authorities
to disperse rallies, Lai said.
According to the amendment, if two individuals or groups wished to hold rallies
at the same time and place, law-enforcement authorities would have to conduct
negotiations, and if the parties insisted on sticking to their plans, the
rallies would be held simultaneously, but separated by barbed wire fences.
DPP Legislator Chen Chi-yu (陳啟昱) said Ma had previously pledged that the Parade
and Assembly Law would be amended to a “report” system, and that the streets
would be “returned to the public.”
Ma should realize his campaign pledge while his party controls the legislature,
Chen Chi-yu said.
The Assembly and Parade Law, which took effect under the KMT administration in
1988, has come under fire from several rights groups over the years as an
instrument used by the government to control the public and curb freedom of
expression.
The premier said yesterday that the government’s stance on amending the law was
in line with that of the student protesters.
When asked for comment, Liu said he would urge the KMT caucus to hold public
hearings on how to amend the law, adding that he hoped the demonstrators would
also send representatives to attend the hearings.
Liu said the KMT had initiated proposals to amend the law to a report-based
system.
Nevertheless, he urged the students to end their demonstration and return to
school.
Meanwhile, Minister of Education Cheng Jei-cheng (鄭瑞城) called on the
demonstrators to express their viewpoints “legally.”
Hsu Jen-shou (許仁碩), spokesman for the students at Liberty Square, said the
government should communicate directly with the students and that they would
hold meetings to jointly decide whether they would accept the government’s
suggestion and end the sit-ins.
Chanting “the Assembly and Parade Law is unconstitutional and we are being
deprived of our human rights” simultaneously at noon, the students in Taipei,
Hsinchu, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung continued their campaign amid rain, cold
weather and sporadic protests from people opposing the sit-ins.
One woman brought a megaphone with her to Liberty Square and accused the
students of “twisting the meaning of freedom.”
“Kids, you should condemn corruption instead,” she said. “Shouldn’t those who
launched the rally and instigated the demonstrations apologize?”
Meanwhile, the KMT caucus said it was worth discussing whether the time was
right to amend the law.
KMT caucus secretary-general Chang Sho-wen (張碩文) told a press conference that
although he sympathized with the student protesters, they should be
demonstrating against the DPP.
The DPP had blocked the KMT’s proposals to amend the law 10 times during the
sixth legislative session, Chang said.
KMT Legislator Tsao Erh-chang (曹爾忠), a former police officer, said he hoped that
reasonable regulations for rallies could be established.
“The objective of amending the law is to help maintain peace in society,” Tsao
said.
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) declined to comment when asked whether
any caucus had boycotted amendments to the law in the previous legislature,
saying only that lawmakers could initiate their own proposals if they saw the
need to amend the law.
Wang said it was important that the public should reach a consensus on the
matter, because some people were concerned that protests could get out of hand
if all people had to do was notify the police if they were planning a protest.
The Presidential Office said that although Ma was in favor of amending the law,
it was important the public reach a consensus on the issue.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said the administration
supported revising the law, because it had been one of Ma’s election promises.
A Presidential Office official who asked to remain anonymous said that the law
had already been amended to bring it in line with the Constitution.
“It is wrong to say that the law is unconstitutional,” he said. “The police may
turn down some applications, but that hardly ever happens.
The official said the problem was not whether protesters should obtain a permit
or notify the police in advance, but whether organizers could prevent violence.
The official said the government had not dispersed the illegal gatherings
because they were peaceful and rational.
However, the government would like the students to obtain permits and
participate in public hearings so they could also listen to others’ opinions,
the official said.
Interior,
NPA chiefs grilled over police acts
COMPLAINTS: Both DPP and KMT
lawmakers were unhappy with last week’s protests, with the DPP calling security
measures excessive and repressive
By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 3
|
People join
the student demonstration at Liberty Square in front of the National
Democracy Hall Memorial in Taipei yesterday. A sit-in strike area was
set up to encourage the public to participate in the protest calling for
an amendment to the Parade and Assembly Law and demanding the government
apologize for heavy-handed policing during a visit to Taipei last week
by Chinese envoys. PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES |
Under fire from both the opposition and the governing parties over
security measures during Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait
Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit, Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以)
and National Police Agency (NPA) Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) insisted
at the legislature yesterday that the police had done nothing wrong.
Liao told the Internal Administration Committee that thousands of police
officers had been mobilized to secure Chen’s safety and to keep anti-China
protesters in check from last Monday to last Friday.
An NPA official said 5,000 officers had been called up from across the country.
Lawmakers from across party lines, however, criticized the security operation,
codenamed “Operation Concord.”
“The overly heavy security measures made it seem like we had returned to 30
years ago when the country was under martial law,” Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP) Legislator Chen Chieh-ju (陳節如) said.
“Why did police officers grab the national flag from people’s hands when they
tried to show Chen [Yunlin] that we’re a sovereign country?” he asked.
“Are we not allowed to display our own flag on our own territory?” Chen Chieh-hu
asked.
Liao and Wang denied police had deliberately confiscated Republic of China (ROC)
flags.
“It had nothing to do with the flag — it had more to do with whether the people
were standing in a restricted area or what they were trying to do,” Wang said.
Opposition lawmakers were not convinced.
DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) showed a video clip in which police officers
grabbed a ROC flag from a group of protesters standing on a freeway overpass as
Chen Yunlin’s convoy approached and apparently bent the flagpole in half. Chiu
asked Wang to explain what happened.
“The officer was worried that the protesters might have planned to throw the
flagpole at Chen’s convoy when it passed. The flagpole, which was made of
plastic, was already broken when the protesters clashed with the officer,” Wang
said. “So he did nothing wrong.”
Chiu cited several other incidents where she said the police had acted
illegally, including stopping or pushing people wearing T-shirts with the word
“Taiwanese” on them, halting the distribution of small ROC flags, and stopping
people who were waving Tibetan and ROC flags while walking past a building where
the ARATS chief was staying.
“The Police Duties Enforcement Law [警察職權行使法] stipulates that when executing an
order, police officers should take the measure that causes the least damage to
people’s legal rights,” Chiu said. “And the officers are supposed to clearly
state the legal basis of their action.”
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Wu (吳志揚) also questioned police
actions.
“I think the main objective of your mission was to keep Chen and the delegation
safe,” Wu said. “You should not have compromised on his personal safety, but you
should not have taken overly restrictive measures on non-security related
issues.”
“We just wanted to try to reduce tension — we tried very hard,” Liao said.
But when asked by DPP lawmakers to apologize to the public for the police
actions, Liao refused.
However, “there was always room for improvement,” he said.
Wang also rejected a call by KMT Legislator Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to investigate
reports that a police district director’s wife took part in the protests.
She told Wang that if a police official “can’t even guide his own wife, there’s
no way he can do so for members of the general public.”
Wang said that although he had not heard about the incident, there was no need
for an investigation because a police director’s spouse was fully within his or
her rights to take part in a demonstration.
The
greatest threat is yet to come
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin
(陳雲林) was the model of professionalism during his visit to Taiwan last week.
With his smiles, toasts, gifts and handshakes, he presented to Taiwan — and for
those who were watching elsewhere — the facade that Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
technocrats have long cultivated.
As many China watchers have observed, CCP cadres are increasingly charismatic
and professional, driven less by doctrine and more by political calculation.
Part of this strategy has been to reassure the region and the world about
China’s intentions as it grows in power and influence — and to their credit,
Beijing’s diplomats have been extremely successful in this regard.
Aware that its charm offensive is bearing fruit, Beijing has now turned it on
Taiwan, first dispatching ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) and then
Chen, both of whom presented a very “human” side of the CPP, tears and all. The
only difference this time around, however, is that despite its rational approach
to politics, the CCP remains religiously true to doctrine on the issue of
Taiwan, which remains of fundamental interest to Beijing and is paramount to the
legitimacy of the CCP.
Understanding this zeal is crucial, as it allows us to see past the illusion of
warm relations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP. For all
the wining and dining, agreements and accolades, Beijing sees the KMT as nothing
more than a means to an end: an instrument that can be used as long as it makes
the ultimate objective of unification possible. Otherwise, the KMT is
dispensable should it get in China’s way.
Beijing’s ability to hide its true intentions and to beguile the KMT should not
be underestimated. Like a snake charmer, the CCP appears to have had the KMT
government in its thrall since day one. Outmatched by the CCP, the bungling
administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) may, to be fair, have failed to
comprehend how divisive and disruptive Chen’s visit would be. But Beijing
didn’t. It knew full well what would happen and, relying on Niccolo
Machiavelli’s old military trick, used the KMT to drive a wedge within the
Taiwanese polity.
The plan worked to perfection, with Taiwanese turning against Taiwanese in
recrimination. A greater pan-green versus pan-blue divide has emerged, with
other factions seeking to distance themselves from the main parties, while the
gap between the government and the governed, the police and the policed, has
widened. Unable to present a united front, Taiwan has been weakened.
The second leg of China’s plan played out not in Asia, but in the US, with the
election of Senator Barack Obama. While the president-elect has yet to prove his
mettle, already there is widespread concern that he will not be as good a friend
to Taiwan as other presidents have been. Whether or not this is true, it is
likely that Beijing will reach that conclusion and do everything it can —
through charm, again — to ensure that Obama stays on its side.
Unless the Obama administration clearly states that the US remains committed to
defending Taiwan, Beijing could reach the conclusion that the time is ripe for a
takeover, especially with Taiwan disunited, disorganized and dispirited.
Who’s really to
blame?
After Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin
(陳雲林) returned home, there was deep disappointment. The Chinese Nationalist
Party (KMT) government, which oppressed the public during his visit, is blaming
the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the protests, and the DPP is blaming
the protesters and the KMT. What is this nation coming to?
The DPP should not be pushing the blame on the protesters. As people who had to
fight for their rights in their own country, they should be supporting them.
The DPP should shoulder full responsibility for the protests, and proudly so. It
is very disappointing to see the DPP join the blame game and let down the
hardworking protesters — those who trust the DPP to save the sovereignty of this
country. How many people will join the demonstration against the pandas if the
DPP is pushing its own supporters away?
Is Taiwan too busy trying to save face to protect its own people? Will Taiwanese
sacrifice their human rights, their democracy and their own country just for a
better economy?
Under police orders, Taiwanese didn’t even have the right to hold up their own
nation’s flag, and some had their flags confiscated. People were beaten to the
ground with sticks for simply standing in the way of the police.
All the people wanted was to express their own opinion in a land of freedom of
expression. Is this a crime?
In Chinese eyes it is. Beijing thinks we need to kowtow and follow its orders as
a precondition to talks on improving cross-strait relations. No politics
involved this time? How about the signing of the panda agreement?
Even the foreign press is disappointed with the abuse of human rights in Taiwan,
but who is supporting the protesters? The DPP? No. The Sunrise store owner? No.
She blames it on the police and the protesters. So who supports the protesters
except for the protesters themselves? Should we be trying to save face by
blaming them or trying to save our country by joining them?
For once, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was right on one point: “You can’t just
mobilize a crowd to attend a rally and then say the protesters were not your
people when violent incidents occur. Is that being responsible? I don’t think
it’s appropriate.”
Taiwanese should proudly join the protesters.
Take a look at protests around the world. Taiwanese protests are harmless
compared with the protests even in Europe. Six hundred thousand people protested
peacefully, and what did they get in return? Seven thousand police officers and
the government’s refusal to offer more rally permits. The KMT government
listened, but apparently not in a supportive manner. So it is only natural for
the average citizen to respond in the manner the protesters did.
Why did DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) order the protesters to leave at
5:30pm when they were simply protecting their own rights?
Alex Raymond
Kaohsiung
Ma has lost his mandate
When Ma was elected president with 58 percent of the vote he was given a
powerful mandate by the Taiwanese public. He promised to “move Taiwan forward.”
He had the opportunity to heal divisions in Taiwanese society.
Instead, it seems he is taking the country in the opposite direction. His
actions are creating further divisions. He is setting back the cause of
reconciliation.
The president has ultimate responsibility for the country’s national security.
In the past week he has acted in a manner that shows a reckless disregard for
that responsibility.
The actions of police in seizing Republic of China flags while allowing the
display of the flag of communist China sent a powerful message to Taiwanese. The
country’s sovereignty was under threat as the government sought to kowtow to
China. Taking to the streets to peacefully protest was the only avenue people
had to express their concerns.
Setting up barbed-wire barricades created a situation in which police and
protesters were unnecessarily put at risk. That Ma went ahead with his meeting
with Chen shows a distinct lack of judgment.
It is essential that Ma publicly apologize for the incidents that took place
last week.
He must also ensure that there is a proper investigation into alleged human
rights abuses.
If Ma cannot confirm his commitment to uphold human rights and safeguard
Taiwan’s sovereignty, then he has lost his mandate.
He is no longer the people’s president.
David Reid
Sindian, Taipei County
Economy not
worth the sacrifice
By Cho Hui-wan 卓慧菀
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) just signed
four agreements with Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS)
Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in Taipei, allowing cross-strait direct sea links,
daily chartered flights, direct postal service and strengthened food safety.
This is a critical juncture of cross-strait relations, which at times have been
so tense that this was considered one of the flash spots in world politics.
Although peaceful developments are welcome, neither the government nor the
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have contemplated the future of Taiwan
comprehensively.
What should Taiwan pursue in the long run? What kind of policies will achieve
this? Both the pan-blue and pan-green camp’s China policies are biased.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) asks those who accuse him of betrayal: How have I
betrayed Taiwan? He says that direct sea links, expanded charter flights and
even a peace agreement are all goals the previous DPP government pursued. Ma
also stresses the importance of cross-strait peace and trade to Taiwan’s
economic development.
Taiwanese want and expect cross-strait peace and prosperity. What worries some
is whether the country’s sovereignty is being compromised in the process of
pursuing peace and prosperity. The public desires peace, sovereignty and
prosperity — and nothing less. If there is no peace, both sovereignty and
prosperity are threatened. Overemphasizing sovereignty, on the other hand,
causes tension with China, making prosperity unattainable and possibly eroding
Taiwan’s sovereignty. However, sacrificing sovereignty in the pursuit of peace
and prosperity is a policy that the public will not permit.
Ma often says that he is doing exactly what the public wants: safeguarding
sovereignty while pursuing peace and prosperity. I am sure that is his
intention. However, the problem is not his intention but the possible
consequences of his policies and conduct.
Ma says that Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan are threats, but that China’s
huge market is a prime opportunity so a smart leader should minimize the threat
and maximize the opportunity. Smart, indeed. But are the missiles the only
threat that China poses? Is sovereignty being safeguarded as long as Ma ensures
no war across the Strait? No.
Beijing tasted the flavor of US intervention during the 1996 missile crisis, so
it has been actively modernizing and upgrading its military forces to prevent
the US from effective intervention. However, military action is not the only
means Beijing plans to use to achieve “national unification.” China’s rapid
growth has accumulated enormous economic strength and greatly expanded its might
in international politics and economics. President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) confidence
in China’s strength has afforded him more flexibility in his Taiwan policy.
There have been signs that Beijing will seek its “sacred duty of reunifying the
motherland” with soft power such as trade.
Taiwanese understood this while Ma talked about cross-strait relations being
“area-to-area” relations in an interview with a Mexican newspaper and while
Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet delayed its demand for a Chinese apology
and reparations for the melamine scandal. Better late than never, but the
Cabinet’s hesitation and delay caused doubt that the government will stand up
for Taiwan’s interests.
“One country, two areas” is stipulated in a constitutional amendment from 1991.
However, when Ma called Taiwan an “area,” he was not teaching a course on the
Constitution and was not explaining to Taiwanese the constitutional definition
of cross-strait relations. Instead, he was talking to foreign media and to the
international community at large. The elaboration was read as political — not
legal — and international — not domestic.
“Put aside disputes and create a win-win situation” is the best policy for the
two sides of the Strait. To put aside disputes over Taiwanese sovereignty,
Beijing cannot demand that Taiwan accept “one China” as a prerequisite for the
resumption of ARATS-SEF talks, nor for Taipei to continue its pursuit of de jure
independence. When Ma talks to the foreign media or delegations, he should say
that he will approach cross-strait relations according to the Constitution while
pursuing cross-strait peace.
In foreign relations what is said is important; what is not said is equally
important. Both strategies should be used to safeguard one’s position and
interests. Because the Constitution also stipulates “one China,” Ma’s mentioning
the Constitution would have satisfied the requirement of putting aside disputes.
He did not need to mention the two-area definition, which jeopardized Taiwan’s
stance that the Republic of China (in Taiwan) is a sovereign state.
The pan-green camp’s demand that no contaminated goods be imported from China is
a wish shared by the public. But Taiwan cannot just refuse trade with China in
its effort to prevent poisoned goods from entering the country. Establishing a
mechanism to screen and exclude importation of tainted goods should be a
high-priority goal.
Taiwan lost many economic opportunities over the last few years because
cross-strait air and sea transportation was not direct. Market opportunities are
abundant in China, so expanded links will bring great economic benefits. But the
possibility that China may use Taiwan’s dependence on its market as political
leverage is real. Taiwan should strive to link itself with the entire world when
linking with China, so that global business interests are connected to Taiwan’s
interest and serve to protect it.
Taiwan also needs to strengthen its democracy and freedom and use these soft
powers to counter the enormous economic power of China.
As the DPP tries to safeguard sovereignty, it should also propose feasible paths
toward peace and prosperity. The government pursues peace and prosperity, but it
should be more delicate in what to say and what not to say. Taiwanese want peace
and prosperity, but desire sovereignty even more.
Cho Hui-wan is an associate professor
in the Graduate Institute of International Politics at National Chung Hsing
University.
Protesters
scare KMT more than China does
By Cao Changqing 曹長青
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
When Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen
Yunlin (陳雲林) visited Taiwan last week, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou
(馬英九) deployed a police force much heavier than required, sending out security
normally used for visits by heads of state.
Before Chen arrived, the government promoted his visit with loud displays
including gongs and drums and made numerous security preparations because ARATS
Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) had fallen during a run-in with independence
activists during his visit in Taiwan last month.
At that time, protesters did not make any personal attacks on Zhang, who either
tripped or was knocked down while jostling amid a crowd of protesters. As soon
as he fell, he was helped up. Nobody punched or kicked him.
Yet for Chen’s visit, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government mobilized
7,000 policemen and the Grand Hotel was closed off by police from the eighth
floor up. Such heavy measures were so over the top they couldn’t have been
imagined by a comedy writer.
The lengths to which the KMT went to protect a minor government official from
China is indicative of its cowardice. Ever since it was defeated by the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) in the Chinese civil war, the KMT has been afraid of the
CCP. This makes one wonder whether the KMT-led government would beg for mercy —
too afraid to even surrender — if China were to invade Taiwan.
The government has treated protesters as terrorists, with police muffling
protests, using razor wire and treating ordinary people like bandits or
ruffians. This is exactly the kind of attitude that an autocratic government
would assume in dealing with protesters. The KMT is beyond help. Whenever there
is the slightest commotion, it mobilizes as many troops as it can, as if faced
with a formidable enemy. Why is it so nervous?
In treating the public as its enemy, the KMT forgot that the “honored guest” it
was showing such great respect for has more than 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan.
China is the real source of violence, but the KMT fails to distinguish friend
from foe. In its eyes the Taiwanese public is more dangerous than the CCP. When
Taiwanese seek to protect their own land, the KMT gets defensive. When the CCP
wants to “recover” Taiwan, the KMT thinks it is time to sit down and discuss
things.
Not only does the KMT treat its enemies as friends, it is also intentionally
moving closer to its enemies. While the KMT dispatched Chen Yi (陳儀) with troops
to take over Taiwan in 1945, Chen Yunlin came without troops because the KMT has
now become the CCP’s main force in taking over Taiwan.
On the surface, Chen Yunlin came to Taiwan to sign economic agreements, but in
reality his visit was a preparation for Ma’s proposal to sign a peace accord
with China during his presidency. This peace accord will undoubtedly be an
agreement to surrender, as no matter what, it will be forced to conform to the
“one China” principle proposed by Beijing that states: “The Mainland and Taiwan
belong to one China.”
In order to meet this condition and to show his goodwill to the envoy from
China, as well as to pave the way for the signing of a peace accord, Ma regards
Taiwan as an “area.”
A proverb says that it is easy to defend against foreign enemies, but much
harder to guard against thieves within one’s household.
If Ma should not be accused of being a traitor, what other label is appropriate
for someone who keeps a close relationship with a foreign enemy that has
employed military, economic, trade and political tactics to take over Taiwan?
Cao Changqing is a political
commentator. Translated by Ted Yang