Report sheds light on 1981 mystery
　

WHITE TERROR: Authorities had said files related to professor Chen Wen-chen’s case had disappeared, but an investigator found records in the National Archives
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Jul 02, 2009, Page 1

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday called on the government to re-examine the case of Chen Wen-chen (陳文成), a math professor who is believed to have been murdered in 1981 during the White Terror era by the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, after a missing police file on Chen was recently uncovered.

“In order to give the public a clear and fair explanation, the government should investigate any unresolved cases that occurred during the White Terror era, including Chen’s murder, if and when any new evidence is revealed,” DPP Spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) said at a press conference.

In March, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) instructed prosecutors to set up a team to re-investigate Chen’s case as well as the murder of the family members of another pro-independence movement leader and former DPP chairman, Lin Yi-hsiung (林義雄).

Cheng said that during past investigations, the authorities had repeatedly said a written statement by Chen and audiotapes of his interrogation had disappeared.

However, a member of the Ministry of Justice team discovered Chen’s police file in the National Archives a few days ago, CNA reported.

The file shows that Chen told his interrogators that he had set up a foundation with 10 branches to support Formosa Magazine and push for democratic reform in Taiwan.

The branches collected donations and sent them back to the magazine via Shih Ming-teh (施明德), who later became chairman of the DPP.

The record shows Chen was questioned by the Garrison Command, a secret police body operated by the government, from 9am until 9:30pm on July 2, 1981.

The 31-year-old professor’s body was found on the campus of National Taiwan University the next day.

An autopsy report at the time said judging from Chen’s injuries, he had fallen to his death from either the fourth or fifth floor of a building, CNA said. However, it is still unclear whether the professor was pushed or committed suicide.

Calling the White Terror era one of the biggest blemishes in Taiwan’s history, Cheng said the DPP demanded that the government get to the bottom of all unresolved cases to achieve genuine transitional justice.

Chen was a native of Taipei and had earned an advanced degree in statistics from universities in the US. Upon receiving his doctorate, he was invited to join the teaching staff at 耶arnegie-Mellon University’s statistics department.

During his time in the US, the professor became involved in a movement fighting for more native Taiwanese to become government policy makers.

In May 1981, Chen, along with his wife and one-year-old son, returned to Taiwan for a vacation. However, shortly before their scheduled departure for the US, Chen was notified that his permit to leave the country had been rejected and he was wanted for questioning at the Garrison Command. On July 2, two Garrison Command agents showed up on Chen’s doorstep and took him away.

Grim Chen mum on case
　

By Shelley Huang and Mo Yan-chih
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Jul 02, 2009, Page 1

Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) court-appointed attorney yesterday said the former president has been “in a bad mood” since hearing that his daughter’s travel request had been denied.

On Tuesday, district prosecutors rejected a travel request from Chen’s daughter Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤), preventing her from registering for study in the US and disrupting her plans to live there with her three children.

After hearing the news on Tuesday, Chen Shui-bian refused to talk about his corruption and embezzlement cases, said Tseng Te-rong (曾德榮), the former president’s court-appointed attorney.

The former president appeared in court yesterday with a glum look on his face.

Chen was called by Presiding Judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) to appear as a defendant in his embezzlement case.

Tseng said that because the former president had been in a bad mood lately, he had been careful not to further aggravate Chen Shui-bian when talking about the case.

Chen Shui-bian has been distraught ever since his daughter visited him on Friday at the Taipei Detention Center, where he is currently being held. Chen Hsing-yu broke into tears as she told her father about not being able to go to the US.

Chen wrote a letter to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) imploring him to help his daughter travel overseas.

Chen said banning his daughter from leaving the country was illegal, and said that his daughter might develop a mental disorder or try to commit suicide because of the restrictions.

Through a court petition written by her lawyer, Chen Hsing-yu offered to leave one or all three of her children in Taiwan to show her sincerity about coming back to face her perjury charges after finishing registration.

Although Chen Shui-bian desperately hoped that his daughter would be able to go to the US, he has refused to plead guilty to his charges, his lawyer said.

“When discussing the case with the former president, I could tell he insists on his innocence,” Tseng said.

Meanwhile, the Chinese-language Next Magazine yesterday reported that Chen Shui-bian’s wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), sent a letter to her husband via her mother-in-law. In the letter, Wu reportedly reprimanded Chen Shui-bian for insisting on being a martyr even though it would ruin Chen Hsing-yu’s plans to move to the US.

Outside the Taipei District Court, Chen Shui-bian’s secretary Chiang Chih-ming (江志銘) yesterday confirmed that Wu had sent a letter.

“I did not read the letter, so I am not clear on the content,” he said.

However, Chiang confirmed that the letter was written by Wu to reprimand her husband.

Chen Hsing-yu was barred from leaving the country last Tuesday, after she, her husband Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), and her brother Chen Chih-chung (陳致中) admitted to giving false testimony during investigations into the former first family’s alleged corruption and money laundering.

Meanwhile, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that Ma had read the letter from Chen Shui-bian, but he would not interfere in any individual case.

“As a father, President Ma understood Chen’s feelings, but the president doesn’t have the right to intervene in any case. We hope Chen Shui-bian will understand that,” Wang said yesterday in Panama, as he accompanied Ma on a diplomatic trip.

Wang said the Presidential Office had no immediate plans to give the letter to prosecutors, and would discuss whether or not to reply the letter.

Also yesterday female DPP supporters across the country yesterday called on the court to lift the travel restriction on Chen Hsing-yu and said barring her from pursuing her education in the US was unfair.

Groups support PRC dissident, slam Ma over ‘indifference’
　

By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Jul 02, 2009, Page 3

“Ma cared about the human rights situation in China before he became president, but he has been indifferent [to the situation] since he assumed office. This is a pity.”— Hawang Shiow-duan, professor at Soochow University

A number of civic groups yesterday voiced support for Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) and expressed concern about whether academics in Taiwan might suffer the same fate as Liu amid warming cross-strait relations.

At a press conference, Hawang Shiow-duan (黃秀端), a professor of political science at Soochow University and president of the Taipei Society, urged China to release Liu as soon as possible and criticized President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for his silence on the matter.

Liu, who co-authored a manifesto calling for sweeping reform in China, was arrested on Wednesday last week for activities allegedly aimed at overthrowing the country’s socialist system.

“Ma cared about the human rights situation in China before he became president, but he has been indifferent [to the situation] since he assumed office. This is a pity,” Hawang said.

Hsueh Chin-feng (薛欽峰), director of the Taipei Bar Association’s Human Rights Protection Commission, said Ma’s silence made him wonder if the president really meant it when, in the past, he voiced concerns about human rights violations in China.

Judicial Reform Foundation executive director Lin Feng-cheng (林峰正) vowed to confront Ma face to face regarding the latter’s attitude toward Liu’s arrest after the president returns from his trip to Central America.

Hawang said she was “deeply worried” that cases similar to Liu’s might eventually occur in Taiwan.

“Over the past few months, human rights in Taiwan have suffered a setback because [the government] has sought rapprochement with China,” Hawang said.

She said the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法), recently passed by the legislature, and the Ministry of Education’s plan to extend impartiality regulations to all teachers could have a “chilling effect” on academics.

Hawang was referring to the act’s barring academics at public research institutes from wearing or displaying flags or emblems of any political party or group at the workplace.

It also bars academics from convening protests, launching signature drives and editing, printing or distributiing political flyers or related documents using public equipment at public offices.

The Examination Yuan and the Executive Yuan are also authorized to impose bans through administrative orders.

Renaming the hall could unify us
　

By Paul Lin 林保華
Thursday, Jul 02, 2009, Page 8

When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, he said citizen’s forums would be held to discuss whether National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (國立台灣民主紀念館) would have its name changed back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (中正紀念堂).

Now, after just a few closed-door meetings, it has been decided that the name will be changed back.

Pan-green supporters used to call the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall the “Chiang Temple,” as it was a product of the personality cult surrounding dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).

Taiwan is now a democratic nation and it is not right to worship the man mainly responsible for the 228 Incident. This is why, during the Democratic Progressive Party administration’s rule, the name of the hall was changed to the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall and the four-character inscription on the main gate, dazhong zhizheng (大中至正), or “great neutrality and perfect uprightness,” was changed to “Liberty Square” (自由廣場).

However, it now seems that Ma does not hold democracy and freedom close to his heart and is therefore changing the name back to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.

Taiwan faces several urgent problems, including economic woes, issues about democracy and the loss of sovereignty. Ma, however, views “democracy” and “freedom” as issues that are getting in his way and has said that he wants to clear up the issue of what to call the memorial hall before the end of the month.

Of course, Ma is doing this to please his rich and powerful Mainlander Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) cronies, as without Chiang, they would never have gained the special rights and privileges they now enjoy.

To ensure unity within the nation, it would be best if all sides involved took a step back and made a compromise on a neutral name.

This is why, in a speech I gave recently at the inaugural meeting of an anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) youth group, I suggested that the hall be called something like the “anti-CCP memorial hall.”

My reasons are as follows:

First, the status of Chiang is very controversial in Taiwan. However, I am sure that everyone in the pan-blue and pan-green camps will agree that Chiang was anti-CCP. Therefore, I believe this can be used as a consensus and that naming the hall something along the lines of an anti-CCP memorial hall could go a long way to bringing the pan-blue and pan-green camps closer together.

Second, Taiwan was once used by the KMT as a base to restore its rule over China and there are many historical relics that can be put on display to commemorate the past. Such a place would be the world’s most important anti-CCP venue and would also attract tourists from China, as they would also be interested in understanding the historical facts that the CCP has covered up and kept from them.

The CCP would of course have the most to say about an anti-CCP memorial hall being established in Taiwan.

However, there are many anti-Chiang and anti-Chinese Nationalist Party memorial sites in China, such as the Zhazi Cave (渣滓洞) and the Bai Residence (白公館) in Chongqing, where exhibitions show how the KMT persecuted members of the CCP.

So why can’t we have similar exhibits here in Taiwan?

Apart from showing the struggle that took place between the KMT and the CCP, an anti-CCP memorial hall could also show how the CCP hurt and persecuted the Chinese people, for example during the anti-rightist campaign, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. When the CCP gained rule over China, approximately 80 million Chinese died unnatural deaths and the CCP still hasn’t apologized to its people for this, but has instead worked hard to cover up the truth.

Setting up an anti-CCP memorial hall would be the biggest contribution we could make to promote political reform in China and improve the lives of its people, as well as to promote the universal values of democracy and human rights.

Naming the hall along anti-CCP lines would also be a test for Ma. Using such a name would remind KMT members how they were forced to follow Chiang to Taiwan and how their family members who stayed behind in China suffered so greatly when the CCP settled its scores. Even during the Cultural Revolution, former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) stated that those left behind by members of the KMT represented a continuation of the struggle between the KMT and the CCP.

However, when senior members of the KMT have “returned” to their “motherland” for visits recently, they did not say anything about these people, as if nothing had never happened.

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall should have its name changed to the anti-CCP memorial hall and it would be best that Liberty Square kept its current name. If Ma really cannot handle the idea of having a memorial dedicated to freedom, why not base it on the ideal of “success in defeating the CCP” (反共必勝), which was one of Chiang’s primary aims.

I am sure that Ma would not want to go against instructions left behind by Chiang just to please the CCP.

Paul Lin is a political commentator.

Ma’s deceit over nature of Republic of China
　

By James Wang 王景弘
Thursday, Jul 02, 2009, Page 8

‘Sun’s revolution was not to gain independence and build a new country ... it was simply done to overthrow the imperial rule of the foreign Manchu Qing Dynasty and replace it with a republican system.’

As President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) prepares to reclaim the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairmanship, he has begun asserting that the Republic of China (ROC) has been an independent, sovereign state since 1912 and that no country in the world needs to declare independence twice. This may sound appealing, but it is nothing more than a deceitful trick that does not stand up to the facts.

It is indeed surprising that Ma is confused about the nature of the revolution launched by Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙).

Sun’s revolution was not to gain independence and build a new country, in the way that the 13 American colonies became the original United States of America; it was simply to overthrow the imperial rule of the foreign Manchu Qing Dynasty and replace it with a republican system.

In other words, Sun merely established a new regime that replaced the Qing government of the national territory of the country known as “China.” The new regime, the ROC, inherited all the territories — excluding Taiwan and the Pescadores — citizens, foreign treaties and debts of the Qing Dynasty.

Sun did not declare independence or establish a new country. The US declared its legal recognition of the ROC government on May 2, 1912; that is, the US recognized the ROC as the successor government to the Qing imperial government. The ROC did not become an “independent, sovereign state,” because it inherited the unequal treaties that were signed by the Qing Dynasty with other countries and because the Western powers still enjoyed extraterritoriality in China, which meant that they were exempt from the jurisdiction of local law.

When the Chinese Communist Party took over China and established the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the ROC became a government in exile. For the past 60 years, the KMT has offered different definitions of the ROC.

Dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) once said that the rule of the ROC over China had come to an end. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was more pragmatic, talking about a “second republic” and placing the ROC in Taiwan, saying that the ROC was the national title of Taiwan — but that argument was severely criticized by hardline KMT members.

Ma has opposed both Chiang’s view that the ROC’s rule over China has come to an end and Lee’s “second republic” discourse, ignoring the fact that China has been taken over by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). He naively claims that the ROC has long been an independent, sovereign state, while at the same time accommodating the interests of the PRC.

How can he refute his assertions in this way and then claim that the ROC is an independent, sovereign state?

James Wang is a media commentator.