Prev Up Next


The reality of ‘Serf Liberation Day’

Wednesday, Jan 21, 2009, Page 8

For Tibetans, this March will be a more solemn reminder of the human rights denied them than previous years. In addition to marking the one-year anniversary of last year’s unrest in the region, it will be 50 years since the Dalai Lama fled into exile and a Tibetan uprising was crushed.

China, well aware of the symbolism, has added to the misery of millions in exile and in Tibet with the creation of a holiday to celebrate the Dalai Lama’s flight and the defeat of the rebellion in 1959. The holiday, which will be observed annually on March 28, has been dubbed “Serf Liberation Day.”

The Tibet Autonomous Region’s puppet people’s congress — created to offer a semblance of democracy where there is none — voted over the weekend in favor of the holiday without a single dissenting voice.

The move was an added slap in the face to Tibetans who had hoped that mass demonstrations last March in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics would force China to grant them greater freedom or face international condemnation.

The aftermath of that unrest continues, with Chinese authorities still in the process of convicting and sentencing participants in the protests to years’ imprisonment, regardless of whether they committed any internationally recognized crime.

“Serf Liberation Day” is a reflection of the fact that China remains wholly opposed to dialogue or compromise on the Tibet issue. It is a reminder that Taiwan, too, should note, as concerns persist that the flow of cross-strait “goodwill” since the inauguration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is one-way.

Although China responded to international pressure over its crackdown last year in Tibet with claims that it was open to sincere dialogue, no progress has been made. A meeting between representatives of the Dalai Lama and Beijing in May led nowhere and was unlikely to have produced results — even if the earthquake that devastated Sichuan Province just a week later had not led to follow-up talks being shelved.

More disturbingly, Tibet has dropped largely out of view again for many media outlets and governments and many Tibetans feel disappointed in and frustrated with the Dalai Lama’s efforts to secure true autonomy for the region through peaceful dialogue.

“Serf Liberation Day” may only exacerbate the discontent felt by many Tibetans and fuel ethnic tensions, Tibetan activists said, with the International Campaign for Tibet calling the move “provocative and irresponsible.” The organization said that the holiday was only the latest attempt by China to rewrite Tibetan history to its own taste, a form of propaganda that China has used with great success to stoke public ardor for its claims not only on Tibet and neighboring Xinjiang, but on Taiwan as well.

Tibet’s new holiday — a day that will no doubt become a symbol of oppression and sadness for Tibetans — celebrates “the landmark democratic reform initiated 50 years ago” in Tibet, Xinhua quoted a member of the Tibetan people’s congress as saying ahead of the vote.

As usual, China’s rhetoric is laughable. Terms like “democracy” are words of convenience, exploited for Beijing’s propaganda with no relation to their actual meaning. March 28 will not mark the liberation of “millions of slaves,” as China put it, but the passing of another year with no sign of progress on cultural and religious rights for Tibetans.



Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3

Wednesday, Jan 21, 2009, Page 8


We the undersigned, scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, consider ourselves long-time supporters of a democratic Taiwan. We write to express our concern regarding the erosion of the judicial system in Taiwan during the past few months.

On two previous occasions we have publicly expressed our concerns to Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰), but the minister’s responses are troubling in their persistent failure to acknowledge that there even is a problem, and in their attitude of denial that the judicial process is flawed and partial. We trust that our raising our concerns with you as president will be treated as advice from international supporters of Taiwan’s democracy who care deeply about the country and its future as a free and democratic nation.

First we may mention the fact that your administration has not yet acted upon recommendations — made both by Freedom House and Amnesty International — to conduct an independent inquiry into the events surrounding the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), and in particular the police behavior and infringements on basic freedoms. The establishment of a scrupulously neutral commission is essential if there is to be a fair and objective conclusion on the disturbances that occurred during the Chen Yunlin visit.

Second, we are concerned about the legal proceedings in the case of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The switch of the case from a three-panel court that released him on his own cognizance on Dec. 13 to a court that subsequently re-incarcerated him on Dec. 25 — both Christmas Day and Constitution Day — seems to have resulted from political pressure from KMT members of the Legislative Yuan. In his commentary in the South China Morning Post of Jan. 8, 2009, professor Jerome Cohen presented details of such political interference in the judicial system, while The Associated Press on Jan. 4 also gave incisive insights in the process that took place.

Third, we are deeply concerned by the widespread pattern of leaks to the media regarding ongoing cases — leaks which because of their content and nature can only have come from the prosecutors’ offices. As was reported by The Associated Press on Jan. 4, 2009, prominent observers in Taiwan such as professor Wang Yeh-lih of National Taiwan University charge that these leaks come from prosecutors who “consistently violated the principle of guarding the details of investigations during the Chen case.”

This pattern of behavior displays a distinct bias in the judicial system and a disregard for fair and impartial processes.

The lack of attention to professional judicial standards reached a new low with the skit by several prosecutors who satirized those whom they are prosecuting. We are disturbed by Minister Wang’s defending this as “just for fun.”

Press agencies quote the minister as saying: “It was just a play to help everybody relax. There’s no reason to take it too seriously.”

In our view the actions by the prosecutors and the comment by Minister Wang display a lack of judicial professionalism and political neutrality.

We reiterate that any cases of alleged corruption must be investigated, and that if the defendants are found guilty in a scrupulously impartial process, they should receive just punishment after trial. We thus emphasize that the political neutrality of the judicial system is a fundamental element in a democracy. The examples mentioned above indicate that the investigative process has been conducted and sensationalized to the extent that both the right of the accused to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence have been seriously jeopardized. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights.

In addition to the harm done to the personas of those accused, the international image of Taiwan has suffered. A president of a country bears political responsibility for the conduct of his subordinates’ actions, and we therefore urge immediate and decisive action to correct the severe flaws in the process that are staining the national honor, perhaps irreparably.

Taiwan’s judicial system must be not only above suspicion but even above the appearance of suspicion of partiality and political bias. We appeal to you, Mr President, to restore the credibility of the judicial system in Taiwan and ensure that your government and its judiciary and parliamentary institutions safeguard the full democracy, human rights and freedom of expression, for which the Taiwanese people have worked so hard during the past two decades.

Respectfully yours,

Nat Bellocchi,

former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan

Coen Blaauw

Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC

Stéphane Corcuff

Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon, France

Gordon G. Chang

author, “The Coming

Collapse of China”

David Curtis Wright

Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary

June Teufel Dreyer

Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Florida

Edward Friedman

Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Mark Harrison

Senior Lecturer, Head of the Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

Bruce Jacobs

Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Richard C. Kagan

Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St Paul Minnesota. Author, “Taiwan’s Statesman, Lee Teng-hui and Democracy in Asia” and other works on Taiwan

Jerome F. Keating

Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, “Island in the Stream, a quick case study of Taiwan’s complex history” and other works on Taiwan’s history

Hon. David Kilgour

former Member Parliament and Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, Canada

Victor H. Mair

Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania

Donald Rodgers

Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas

Terence Russell

Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba, Canada

Christian Schafferer

Associate Professor, Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, Chair Austrian Association of East Asian Studies, Editor “Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia”

Michael Stainton

York Center for Asia Research, Toronto, Canada

Peter Tague

Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington DC

John J. Tkacik Jr

former Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC

Arthur Waldron

Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

Vincent Wei-cheng Wang

Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia

Gerrit van der Wees

Editor Taiwan Communique, Washington DC

Stephen Yates

President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs

Terri Giles

Executive Director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles

Daniel Lynch

Associate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California



Prev Up Next