Primary for Lee’s seat set for Feb. 8
　

CHANGING HANDS: Two city councilors have expressed interest in the legislative seat, while prosecutors are likely to go through Diane Lee’s tax returns for evidence
　

By Mo Yan-chih and Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTERS
Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009, Page 3
　

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will hold a primary election on Feb. 8 to determine which candidate will run in the by-election to fill the seat left vacant by former KMT legislator Diane Lee (李慶安).

KMT Taipei City councilors Chiang Nai-shin (蔣乃辛) and Lin Yi-hua (林奕華) have both expressed interest in running for the seat. The party will choose the final candidate through the primary and formally nominate the candidate during its central standing committee on Feb. 11, said Pan Chia-sen (潘家森), director of the KMT’s Taipei City branch.

Another possible KMT candidate, Taipei EasyCard Corp chairman Sean Lien (連勝文), son of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), yesterday reiterated that he had no intention of running in the by-election.

Lee, who allegedly holds US citizenship in violation of the Nationality Act (國籍法), stepped down on Thursday.

A by-election in Taipei City’s Da-an (大安) and Wenshan (文山) election districts will be held on March 28.

Meanwhile, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) yesterday declined to discuss details of the party’s candidate selection process, but said the party would choose a candidate who can represent the party’s spirit.

“Aside from winning the by-election, the candidate should also represent the party’s spirit and help us achieve the party’s goals,” she said after meeting with the DPP Taipei City Council caucus.

Several DPP Taipei city councilors, including Lee Chien-chan (李建昌) and Lee Shu-hua (李淑華), however, said the party could choose a non-DPP member to represent the party in the election as the district has traditionally been a pan-blue stronghold.

However, they said that the party remained optimistic about its chances of winning the by-election.

Meanwhile, Diane Lee yesterday reported to the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office for questioning over her alleged dual nationality.

Lee arrived at the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office at about 9:50am and entered the building without comment.

The questioning lasted for approximately two hours.

“I have given all the details to prosecutors. I have no comment at the moment, thank you,” Lee said as she left the building.

Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office Spokesman Lin Chin-chun (林錦村) said that all the evidence collected so far showed that Lee remained a US citizen.

Should that be the case, Lee may have committed forgery or falsification of documents as she did not tell the truth when participating in elections.

Since she has served as a Taipei City councilor and legislator since 1994, she may also have violated the Nationality Act (國籍法).

Lee is barred from leaving the country and has been named a defendant on suspicion of committing forgery or falsification of documents and corruption.

Prosecutor Huang Hui-ling (黃惠玲) said the next questioning was scheduled for Feb. 10.

A prosecutor not connected with Lee’s case who wished to remain anonymous told the Taipei Times that prosecutors plan to go through Lee’s US tax returns and details of her US properties in search of more evidence for the case.

As Lee had questioned former Taipei deputy mayor Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) regarding his US citizenship in 1994, prosecutors believe that Lee was fully acquainted with the relevant regulations. Consequently, saying that she was not aware of the law would not be an acceptable defense, according to prosecutors.

2009 crucial year for Taiwan: group
　

DEMOCRACY:: Taiwan retained its rating in terms of political rights and civil liberties, but this year could be a test of its judicial independence, Freedom House said
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009, Page 4
　

While ranking Taiwan as a free country in its annual Freedom in the World 2009 report, the US-based Freedom House said this year was a pivotal year in the country’s democratic development.

Dubbing Taiwan as a “vibrant democracy” and “one of Asia’s success stories,” Sarah Cook, an Asia Researcher with Freedom House, told a press conference in Taipei that this year would be a crucial test of whether the nation’s self-correcting mechanisms would kick in to ensure that judicial independence and the due process of law are upheld.

The group expressed concern over the heavy-handed police action and the obstruction of protesters’ freedom of expression and assembly during the visit by Chinese envoy Chen Yun-lin (陳雲林) last November.

Estimates put the number of injured during that week at more than 100 people, including protesters and police officers. Several people reported being beaten by police.

Police also prohibited people from carrying Republic of China flags and shut down a record store for playing a pro-Taiwan song.

To date, the government has not apologized for reports of police brutality and argued that an independent commission to probe the issue was unnecessary because such tasks fall under the jurisdiction of the Control Yuan.

Cook said the Freedom House and other international human rights organization would monitor judicial impartiality in the case against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), due process rights for the general public, as well as the nation’s self-correcting mechanisms.

The group said that its freedom rating is based on an overall evaluation of a country’s democratic process and institutional trend rather than on isolated incidents. On a scale of one to seven, one being the most free and seven the least free, Taiwan received a two in political rights and a once in civil liberties — the same rating it was given last year.

This year’s report covered 89 countries, or 46 percent of the 193 nations in the world.

The number of “free” countries, the group said, declined by one from the previous year’s survey. North Korea was rated as the least free, while Finland topped the list as most free.

The group said that last year saw a regression in freedom in sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Union states.

South Asia, however, showed the most improvement, with Pakistan, the Maldives and Bhutan recording progress linked to elections.

Other Asian countries, such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Tibet dropped in the scale.

China’s increased repression instead of promoting human rights reform as it had pledged in connection to hosting the Summer Olympics saw it score seven in political rights and six in civil liberties.

Freedom House director of studies Christopher Walker said the global economic slump presents a severe challenge to many countries but the effects of the financial crisis have yet to be seen.

This is the first time Freedom House released its annual Freedom in the World report in Asia, and Taiwan was chosen as the venue because the group regarded it as one of the most “vibrant democracies” in the region.
　

Freedom House stresses safeguarding of democracy
　

Freedom House released its annual ‘Freedom in the World’ report in Asia for the first time yesterday. The Freedom House delegation — Christopher Walker, director of studies; Bridget Welsh, academic adviser and a professor at Johns Hopkins University ; and Sarah Cook, Asia researcher — talked to ‘Taipei Times’ staff reporter Huang Tai-lin on Monday, sharing their thoughts on Taiwan’s democracy and how they are looking closely at the ‘bumps in the road’ it has encountered late last year to see whether they would have any larger implications this year

Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009, Page 4
　

Taipei Times: On Nov. 20 last year, Freedom House issued a statement calling on the Taiwanese government to set up an independent commission to investigate the clashes between demonstrators and police during Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit. Have you seen anything that has either eased or aggravated such concerns?

Christopher Walker: There have been some developments in Taiwan in recent period that’s been a cause of particular concern, and that was one of the driving reasons for the issuance of the statement we released late last year, and something we are monitoring very closely now. So 2009 is really a critical year for Taiwan in our evaluation, because many of the proceedings, measures and events that we started to track last year will be moving forward and perhaps moving toward completion, so this would be a critical year for seeing how Taiwan institutions respond, and to see whether they self-correct that suggest the democratic system is working effectively.

Bridget Welsh: A lot of things involving trials, for example, we wait to see the overall process. When a trial begins, you don’t want to judge too quickly, you want to wait and see how the process evolves. Before we make an assessment, we try to look for more effectively how things have changed, as opposed to event-driven.

Sarah Cook: We understand several channels have been found. I think there was a police investigation started internally; there had been a request for an investigation by the Control Yuan, and we are following that to see how those have been investigated. There have also been some cases that have been submitted directly to the courts by people individually who think their rights have been violated by the police, or by some other restrictions. All these are all in a very kind of early stage now. Nonetheless, it is an encouraging sign to see at least steps are being taken. But we will be following to see how fair and how in-depth and how impartial this judiciary goes.

TT: Taiwan qualifies as an electoral democracy. However, some have expressed concern that with the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) controling both the executive and legislative branches, there maybe a democratic tyranny in the making, or an authoritarian regime that exploits democracy. Have you come across such concerns in your analysis?

Walker: I think there’s always the concern that if you have a dominant political force, this may somehow diminish the checks and balances. But I don’t think it is necessarily the case. I think you have to keep a close eye on whether the institutions of democracy are doing their job in preserving the independence of judiciary.

For example, in a democratic context — ensuring that prosecutions are not done selectively, that they are being done according to the rule of law, being done on the basis of facts, and not on basis of some sort of political direction. In any sorts of setting where you have a single party dominate democratic institutions, you have to be mindful and careful about [these things]. The priority is not to say that it will be the case, there’s more of a question of keeping a close eye on the institutions that retain their integrity, whether or not there’s one party in control.

TT: So, so far there has not been any flag that has prompted concern about Taiwan in that regard?

Welsh: Next year’s [this year’s] local elections will be really important. The process of electoral campaign, the issues of free demonstration and protests, these things are really important and we look at every country when we are making an assessment. The rights of assembly and the rights of people [from all sides] to express themselves — all these things are what we look at consistently, and not just in Taiwan, but across the board. I’d say these things are very much on our agenda and we’ll look at Taiwan and see how Taiwan evolves this year.

Cook: The KMT has a very specific history, and there are other concerns in Taiwan. That’s one of the reasons why we are watching it closely, but I think it does not necessarily need to be an assumption that there would be an erosion of democracy because a particular party holds both the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan.

TT: On the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), the ruling and the opposition parties have reached a consensus on amending the law, requiring protesters to notify the authorities ahead in lieu of the practice of seeking permission from the authorities. There has been debate on whether notifying the authorities should be voluntary or mandatory. What are your thoughts on it?

Walker: The first thing I would say is democratic societies tend to have a variety of different ways in treating this issue within the democratic [framework], so there are instances where some sort of notice is required. I think the key is that the notices and the requirements are not applied in a selective way, or that diminishes opportunity for a meaningful assembly, association and vocalization on these issues. And we have heard a lot on this issue because of events [that happened] last year. Because of the issues we just discussed, it is important that steps are taken to ensure that freedom of assembly is fulfilled.

Welsh: We look at things very comparatively. I just came from Burma, and Burma is not Taiwan in terms of what the conditions are on the ground, what the circumstances are, same thing for what’s going on in Thailand, what’s going on in Malaysia, in Korea, there are different circumstances. For Taiwanese, they are thinking in chronological process, they are thinking from a historical framework, which we appreciate and we understand. But at the same time, what we do is we look at how Taiwan compares to other countries.

TT: We understand that the Freedom of the World report compares the practice of democracy in different countries. Since Freedom House conducts an annual survey, we can compare how a country, in this case, Taiwan, is doing this year compared with last year or two years ago. There’s concern that might have been some democratic regression in Taiwan based on what happened in the past couple of months. What are your thoughts on that?

Walker: I think the point to keep in mind in the Taiwan case is that when we evaluate a democratic system — and Taiwan is clearly in a democratic group of countries — there is the assumption that the democratic institutions should respond.

It is not to say that they do in every instance, but for our purposes, given the chronology of events in 2008, when the elections occurred, when the rotation of power occurred, some of the events of concern that emerged near the last quarter of the year, the question now is, these are events that are in process, how they are fulfilled and completed, so our expectation is that these will move along over the course of this year in a way that will allow a meaningful evaluation of the way they have been fulfilled or not. 2009 is a pivotal year on many of these important questions that are now moving to the top of agenda in Taiwan.

When [you] talk about a country like Taiwan, you really are talking about the challenge of how you can improve a democratic process that is strong, but not perfect. It is a very different sort of conversation when we are talking about countries in the middle of category [for our report], very different sort of conversation once you talk about Burma, North Korea, and the rest of the world.

The media, of course is critical. When you look at countries that are successful in tackling corruption, invariably they have open, independent, and vibrant media, in addition to an independent, capable judiciary and a compatible political environment. You can have countries that are horribly corrupted, where not only don’t you have discussion of corruption but you don’t have meaningful means to tackle it in a tyrannical setting.

So conversely when we look at country like Taiwan, we say what is it that worked to ensure that the institutions are doing what they are meant to do, that they are being safeguarded, that the debate is constructive, not polemical, and the judiciary is working according to rule of law, not according to select application of it, towards one political party, or another, certain people. It is important to emphasize that we are looking at institutions’ performance, we are looking at how these institutions fulfill their responsibilities.

By way of comparison, China will have an enormous problem tackling corruption over time, in our view, precisely because the media has so many obstacles to operate in an open and independent way. Likewise, while there have been efforts to modernize the judiciary in China and to add to its capacity, there is really a significant question mark as to whether that will be successful over time.

In the Taiwanese context, we are really looking to make sure that these institutions are safeguarded and that they are fulfilling the roles that they achieved with work and success over these last 20 years.

TT: Freedom House has ranked China in the past as “Not Free,” whereas Taiwan has often been praised for it democratic achievements and dubbed a beacon of democracy for China. In light of recent events, however, some fear that in the tug of war between Taiwan and China, rather than Taiwan pushing China gradually toward democracy, it is China that is influencing Taiwan. The KMT government is known for its pro-China policy. Some fear that Taiwan’s closer alignment with China may be made at the expense of Taiwan’s democracy.

Walker: Last year was the year of the Olympics, and there was hope that this would inspire more progress on human rights and democratic reforms. We didn’t see it and that was really disappointment, and also, a missed opportunity in many ways.

Cook: We have to keep thing in perspective in terms of whether it is one incident that is a violation of civil liberty versus the full grown regression of democratic, and I think that’s the problem that’s trying us now — are these just bumps in the road ... or is there something bigger happening here now that’s more institutional level.

In terms of what you are talking about, we are very much paying attention, particularly when there’s any kind of links between complaints about rights violation in Taiwan. It maybe a little too early to judge right now, but it will be one of the things we will be looking at in 2009.

TT: You mentioned bumps in the road. In your assessment, how many bumps, or incidents billed as isolated cases, will there be before you start thinking something might not be right?

Walker: I’d think of how much these cases have actually worked through the process. If the judgment is that the process hasn’t been responsive and, for example, the trials for former president Chen [Shui-bian (陳水扁)] are decided a week from now, I suspect over the course of this year, that case or other important cases, will [give us] sufficient information to make assessment. Again, not to repeat, but in 2009, given things that started after last year’s elections, after the rotation of power, after some of these events again in the last part of the year, all of these things suggested that this year, depending on how they are administered, or dispensed with, will determine our evaluation on these issues.

Welsh: One thing I’ll say is although there’s the polarization, blue and green and so forth, there’s a healthy debate. There’s a healthy discussion here on some of the key issues, and even the most recent negotiation on the assembly provision, I think about how to a certain degree, the system is working. Not to say that it is perfect, nowhere is it perfect, but you have the dialogue and discussion, and some compromise is being reached. That made some changes already in the way the law is being amended. Process is very important. Democracy is not just about elections, but is also about process.

TT: There is concern that the with new US administration under president-elect Barack Obama, Washington may be anxious to promote good relations with China and overlook human rights violations in Taiwan. What approach would you suggest to show the new administration’s support for Taiwan’s democracy?

Walker: I think it is pretty fundamental. I think you’d hope any administration would keep a close eye on developments here and do anything in its power to enhance, and safeguard the country’s democratic development.

The Freedom House’s position is that, there are a range of interests and concerns that the United States would have with many countries, but in no case, should issues of human rights, transparency, democratic accountability be set aside, it should be part of that larger discussion.

Security before money

After reading Gordon Allan’s letter (Jan. 2, page 8), in which he criticizes Tristan Liu’s (呂曜志) article (“The risks and costs of opening to China,” Dec. 30, page 8) as isolationist and insular, I just had to compare the articles. While I believe a free and independent Taiwan reflects the values of the US, I accept the reality that Taiwan and China need healthy economic relations.

Liu’s editorial left me with the impression that his primary concern was the negative consequences of rushing the implementation of the “three links.”

The list of potential national security concerns is enough reason to pause. Sure, the Chinese have some idea of Taiwan’s military capabilities, but let’s not make those direct commercial flights a training exercise for an aerial invasion. After all, why else were direct flights banned for so long?

Are domestic airports ready to handle immigration matters and screening of diseases? Chinese tourism in Taiwan is a fantastic way for China to embed spies and offload criminals, who may ditch their tour groups.

Were direct cargo links hastily implemented? Sure, Taiwan can ship premium mangoes to China, but China will smuggle drugs and weapons into Taiwan with ease. It is reasonable for someone with more than an ounce of brain matter to consider such risks before opening the gates.

Allan’s letter gave me the impression that China’s economic potential is his primary concern. While a strong economy is in everyone’s interests, ignoring concerns about opening the gates to China is putting on blinders.

I admire his optimism, but tossing away sovereignty for the chance to earn a quick buck doesn’t make sense.

At least one should take time to negotiate favorable terms. In case he hasn’t noticed, the global economy — not just Taiwan — has slowed, so what’s the rush? It’s going to be a while before it gets better.

Yes, I agree with Allan that getting wealthy Chinese to spend money in Taiwan on medical procedures, resorts and shopping centers are creative ideas. However, the much anticipated boost from Chinese tourism has been disappointing. Perhaps Taiwan doesn’t promote itself effectively. (“Mr” Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) sure doesn’t.) Or perhaps some of those wealthy folks have been busy lately planning to launder money out of China before things get worse.

As for Allan’s comment encouraging students to “take risks and be creative,” I agree. After all, that’s how humans progressed from dragging their knuckles to walking upright.

But remember, too, that the best and brightest on Wall Street took risks in excessively creative ways that have severely damaged the US financial system.

It’s clear that Liu is more concerned for the security of the Taiwanese public than Allan.

CARL CHIANG
Richmond, California
　

Media toss out journalistic ethics
　

By Lu I-ming 呂一銘
Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009, Page 8

Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inauguration as president on May 20 marked the return to power of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) after eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rule and a watershed for media in Taiwan.

Over the past few months, the media have been transformed from tools to weapons. The media arena has become a new battlefield of political struggle. The professionalism and ethics that were once considered all-important to reporting have become vague and confused and the media have lost sight of their role as instruments of public service.

Furthermore, as Taiwan and China lift restrictions on each other’s media, there has now arisen in Taiwan a three-way competition between blue, green and red (pro-China) media.

As politics take over, the media no longer serve their role in upholding democracy, fairness, justice and human rights. Instead of pluralism and tolerance, they encourage blind faith and self-deception. That is the real tragedy.

Around the time when martial law was lifted in Taiwan in 1987, the media were an important force in promoting democracy.

By the time of the first transfer of political power — from the KMT to the DPP in 2000 — calls for the KMT, the government and the armed forces to withdraw from the media and for the creation of public television were widespread. Unfortunately, the changes were only partial, which is why we are seeing problems today.

When former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was re-elected in 2004, the KMT and allied parties claimed the vote had been swayed by the two bullets fired in an apparent assassination attempt against Chen and his vice president, Annette Lu (呂秀蓮).

Suspecting the attack to be a set-up, the KMT and its allies refused to accept the result of the election, sparking a long period of political unrest. The standoff was reflected in the media, which departed from professional neutrality in news reporting and took sides in the conflict.

Later, Chen’s government was implicated in a number of alleged corruption cases, including accusations that Chen had misused his “special affairs fund.” Since then, the media have had a field day publishing “leaks” and revealing “facts,” many of which proved to be unfounded.

With this trend of irresponsible reporting, the media have almost completely lost sight of journalistic ethics. Instead of clarifying issues, they muddy the waters, provoking increasing public discontent and criticism.

With its return to the Presidential Office, the KMT now has control of all branches of the central government and most local governments too, in effect creating a new one-party state that is as bad as, if not worse than, the old one.

The KMT and the government are taking control of national radio, the Public Television Service and the Central News Agency. At the same time, the government has given a green light for Chinese state-run and party-run media to set up offices in Taiwan.

Over the past six months, the red and blue media have fallen over themselves to join the chorus of praise on everything related to cross-strait relations, including the meetings and forums held by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party, the meeting between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS); the Beijing Olympics; and the government’s policies on a diplomatic truce, dovish defense and deregulation of cross-strait transport.

Striving to convince the public that peace reigns in the Taiwan Strait, the red and blue media insist that Taiwan’s sovereignty is not being diminished, even when the very name “Taiwan” disappears and all that remains in its place is “Chinese Taipei” or “Taipei, China.”

Even when bloody clashes broke out during November’s SEF-ARATS meeting in Taipei and when ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) addressed Ma as “you,” Hong Kong and Chinese media insisted that Ma had gained “face” and concrete benefits from the talks.

Since Ma took office, power has changed hands not just in terms of government but also in terms of the media, with the blue and red influences gaining the upper hand.

Taiwan’s second transfer of power was a turning point in the role of the media. Just as the DPP is now the opposition, so are its allies, the green media. No longer in the role of defending government policy, they have gone on the offensive and are no less aggressive in their criticism than the DPP.

The blue and green media would do well to bear in mind that they both belong to Taiwan. When they struggle against each other, they give the red media an advantage.

What they should both do is return to professional news reporting.

It is acceptable for the media to represent different political shades, but when it comes to reporting the news, they should stick to the facts.

Sadly, this is not the case in Taiwan. Even before May, there were problems such as broadcasting news without checking sources and interspersing it with commentary. Reports were often insufficiently researched, came from unreliable sources or were unbalanced.

Now, in addition to these faults, a serious phenomenon of “subjective structuring” has emerged in news compilation. Many newspapers have added new pages devoted to cross-strait political and economic news.

With so much reporting about China, the papers act as tools promoting unification.

In the case of politically charged court cases, they engage in trial by media, attempting to steer the cases and pronounce a verdict before they have even reached the court.

Jeffrey Dvorkin, of the journalism department at Ryerson University in Canada, said during a recent visit to Taiwan that the most important facet of news reporting was trustworthiness.

Only through accurate and balanced reporting can the media fulfill their social obligations, Dvorkin said. While newspapers in the US and Canada have various political standpoints, these are only expressed in editorials and opinion pieces, he said. When reporting news, they maintain neutrality.

There is no denying the fact that media in Taiwan today are divided into blue and green. Together with the red media, they are waging a three-way struggle. Politicians of both ruling and opposition parties seek to turn media professionals into political hatchet men by such means as “subjective structuring.”

In such circumstances, the media are gradually drifting away from their true role and are turning a blind eye to the downfall of democracy, national dignity, freedom and human rights.

Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.