More detained in Xinjiang, Kadeer’s family accuses her

AP AND AFP , BEIJING
Tuesday, Aug 04, 2009, Page 1

“Because of you, many innocent people of all ethnic groups lost their lives in Urumqi on July 5.”— from a letter allegedly by relatives of Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer

Police in western China have detained another 319 people suspected of being involved in deadly ethnic unrest between Muslim minority Uighurs and the dominant Han Chinese community last month, a state news agency said.

Police in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, said the detentions were made in the city and elsewhere in the far western region, based on information given by the public or obtained in investigations, Xinhua news agency reported late on Sunday. It did not say how many of those detained were Uighur or Han Chinese.

The detentions came in addition to earlier announcements by the government that more than 1,600 people have been detained over the July 5 riots in Urumqi that started when police stopped a protest by Uighurs. The Uighurs smashed windows, burned cars and attacked Han Chinese. Two days later, Han Chinese took to the streets and staged retaliatory attacks.

Xinhua said Urumqi police would not say how many — if any — of the 1,600 detained earlier have been released, and that suspects will face charges related to the July 5 riot.

The government says 197 people were killed and more than 1,700 were injured in the violence and that most of the victims were Han Chinese.

Meanwhile, Chinese state media reported yesterday that relatives of exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer had blamed her for the deaths of innocent people in the unrest early last month.

Kadeer’s son Khahar, daughter Roxingul and younger brother Memet wrote an open letter to her, expressing “their moral indignation at the riot” in Urumqi, Xinhua said.

“Because of you, many innocent people of all ethnic groups lost their lives in Urumqi on July 5, with huge damage to property, shops and vehicles,” Xinhua quoted them as writing.

“The harmony and unity among ethnic groups were damaged,” the letter allegedly said.

The Chinese government says Kadeer was behind the July 5 violence.

Kadeer, a former businesswoman who spent several years in Chinese jail before leaving for US exile in 2005, has denied the charges.

Among those of Kadeer’s children who remain in China, her son Ablikim Abdiriyim was sentenced in April 2007 to nine years in prison for what Beijing called “secessionist” activities.

It was not possible to immediately ascertain the authenticity of the letter, which was widely reported in the Chinese-language media.

Chinese state TV showed footage from the alleged letter, written in the Arabic script of the Uighur language.

Court upholds ban on foreign travel for Chen Hsing-yu
　

DO NOT EXIT: The former president’s daughter said that the court’s travel restrictions had caused her place in a US school to be given to another person

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Aug 04, 2009, Page 3

“Like the judge said, pre-trial proceedings will not take long, so there is no need to waste too much time arguing over [the travel restrictions] now.”— Chen Kuo-hua, defense attorney

The Taipei District Court yesterday ruled not to lift travel restrictions imposed on former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) daughter Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤).

Chen Hsing-yu said because of the travel ban, she could not complete registration at a US school to which she had applied and been admitted.

“My spot was given to another person,” she said.

Presiding Judge Chen Hsing-pang (陳興邦) said at a pre-trial hearing that because the case was not very complicated, he predicted litigation would not take long and told Chen Hsing-yu to stay in the country until the court had tried the case.

However, if it was necessary to go abroad for a short trip, she could ask her lawyer to submit a petition to the court, which would then evaluate whether to temporarily suspend the travel ban.

Chen Hsing-yu yesterday told the court she had not changed her mind after pleading guilty to perjury charges.

The judge set the next pre-trial hearing for Aug. 13.

After the hearing was dismissed, defense attorney Chen Kuo-hua (陳國華) told reporters outside the courtroom that he had no objections to the decision.

“Like the judge said, pre-trial proceedings will not take long, so there is no need to waste too much time arguing over [the travel restrictions] now,” he said.

Chen Hsing-yu, her husband Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), her brother Chen Chih-chung (陳致中) and former Taipei Financial Center Corp chairwoman Diana Chen (陳敏薰) were charged on July 17 with making false witness statements in relation to the former first family’s embezzlement and corruption cases.

It’s possible to participate with dignity

Tuesday, Aug 04, 2009, Page 8

Contrary to what President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would have us believe, Taiwan’s breakthroughs and successes at home and abroad are not always contingent on Beijing’s “goodwill.”

An example of this is the ongoing World Police and Fire Games in Vancouver — where the Taiwanese team is participating under the name “Taiwan” rather than “Chinese Taipei,” the usual formulation at international events — which were first held in 1985. At the opening ceremony on Friday, the Republic of China flag was on full display and drew loud cheers from the audience.

The National Police Agency said that its persistent requests and those of Taiwan’s representative office in Vancouver, as well as the goodwill of the host country — Canada — helped to achieve the use of the name “Taiwan” at the Games. This shows that when the conditions are right, Taiwan can make its presence abroad felt and can do so with dignity.

The event Web site says that to be eligible to compete at the Games, participants must be law enforcement or firefighting personnel employed by “any duly organized governmental sub-division, such as municipal, provincial/state, national, etc.” On Monday, the National Police Agency said in a press release that Taiwan’s 49-member team was organized by the National Police Agency and the National Fire Agency, which means Taiwan’s eligibility had been assessed on a national basis.

Some factors that made this possible include the fact that the Games are being held in Canada, a liberal democracy that, under the administration of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has shown an occasional willingness to upset Beijing. The large and influential Taiwanese community in British Columbia probably played a role as well.

This contrasts with venues where Beijing has more political clout, such as the World Games in Kaohsiung last month and the Asian Martial Arts Games that opened in Bangkok on Saturday. Given that China is Thailand’s second-largest trade partner (bilateral trade was estimated at US$41 billion in 2007) and given its membership in ASEAN, which by next year is expected to become China’s third-largest trade partner (trade between China and ASEAN countries was US$231 billion last year), it is obvious that even if the organizers of the Martial Arts Games wanted to show goodwill to the Taiwanese team, their hands would be tied by Beijing.

Bilateral trade between Canada and China last year, meanwhile, was estimated at US$34.52 billion, less than that between Thailand and China and lagging far behind the US$560 billion US-Canada bilateral figure for 2007. As such, Beijing’s ability to influence Canada on its own turf is far less than that in Thailand.

This situation should be noted by Taiwanese who endeavor to increase the nation’s image abroad, as it could serve as an indicator for fights that are winnable and those that should be avoided. In areas where Chinese political and economic influence is minimal, and where the Taiwanese community has little influence, efforts to secure Taiwanese dignity by having teams participate as “Taiwan” should be avoided. When the conditions are ripe, however — and Vancouver is a perfect example — Taiwanese and their supporters should go all out to ensure that the nation’s colors are displayed proudly.

Judging by the warm welcome the team received on Friday, there are a lot of people out there rooting for a dignified Taiwan.

Taiwan can learn from Hong Kong
　

By Kay Lam 林忌
Tuesday, Aug 04, 2009, Page 8

When Taiwan lifted Martial Law in 1987, Hong Kong already enjoyed freedom and the rule of law. While pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong were striving for direct elections to the Legislative Council in 1988, Taiwanese had just freed themselves from the White Terror era.

In the past two decades, Taiwan has witnessed four presidential elections and two transfers of political power. What can Taiwan learn from the democratic development of Hong Kong over these years? Why is it that Hong Kong has fallen so far behind Taiwan in its democratic development?

Hong Kong’s chief executive is elected by an 800-member committee, mainly appointed directly or indirectly by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Such an election system is even more ridiculous than what was described as the “permanent term of office of the National Assembly of the Republic of China (ROC).” This refers to the members of the ROC’s first National Assembly, who were allowed to hold office indefinitely because the fall of China to the CCP made it impossible for the ROC to hold new elections in the original districts after retreating to Taiwan. In addition, only 30 of the 60 legislative seats in Hong Kong are elected by universal suffrage in geographical constituencies, with the other 30 elected from so-called functional constituencies. For example, the representative of the insurance industry is elected by the votes of about 100 corporations. Surprisingly, such an absurd election system, which was abolished during the term of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), is still in place in Hong Kong.

The economic development of Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems” framework has indeed served as a mirror for Taiwan — as a negative example. Because of its close proximity to the mainland, Hong Kong seized the advantage of low-cost manufacturing in China and moved all its high-tech companies there, completely ignoring the importance of improving professional skills. As a result, all Hong Kong’s low-skilled workers have been forced to switch to the service sector and the economy only survives thanks to Chinese tourists.

Besides, only two-thirds of college graduates in Hong Kong are locals, with college admission rates remaining the lowest among the Four Asian Tigers. Hong Kong is filled with students from the mainland, who have not only occupied local graduate schools, but also become the first choice for Chinese-funded institutes. Every time it comes to an election, these students will solicit votes and campaign for CCP-affiliated political parties.

Recently, Henry Tang (唐英年), who is the second highest Hong Kong government official and also expected to be a candidate in the chief executive elections in 2012, has said in public that a household with an income of around NT$80,000 in Hong Kong would live “a better quality life” if it moved to the mainland and that he wants to integrate Hong Kong with Guangdong Province by 2020 to create a market of 10 million people. He only spoke of economic development, never mentioning politics. With China repeatedly breaking its promises on democratic development, members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong will not be elected entirely by universal suffrage until 2020 at the earliest.

What have Taiwanese learned from this lesson?

Will Taiwanese want to regress? Will they want to lose their national sovereignty? Will they want to become colonial slaves again? Will President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who managed to avoid attending a memorial for the Tiananmen Square Massacre this year, have the nerve to say: “Unification with China cannot even be discussed until Hong Kong is democratic?”

Kay Lam is a political commentator.

Education never free from politics
　

By Tsai Bih-hwang 蔡璧煌
Tuesday, Aug 04, 2009, Page 8

The legislature recently passed the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法). As public school teachers have traditionally been regarded as the same as public officials, it is easy to conclude that the legislators are attempting to extend the power of the act by making it applicable to public school teachers. The legislative passage of the act unexpectedly gave rise to wide discussion on the topics of neutral education, freedom of speech and freedom of academic instruction, which caused uproar in academic circles.

Objectively speaking, our society has always had unrealistic expectations about education being neutral, while our legislators have also exaggerated the original intention of the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials to a certain degree.

Textbooks on the politics of education have over the years taught us that the myth of non-political education was debunked a long time ago. First, education institutions are a part of government policy and politics will always be at play in either the administration of education or legislative forces. Second, school systems are a microcosm of entire sociopolitical systems, with each different society having its own unique makeup of politics and education. Throughout history, education has been used by those in power as a tool to achieve political motives, with schools being used by modern governments as places to train our citizens and spur political developments. Third, by nature, education policies are a form of value choice and without a doubt the hierarchy of resource allocation affects value choices. Moreover, it is inevitable that the allocation of resources will be influenced by competition between different political parties over ideology and it is therefore impossible that the allocation of resources can be free of political influence.

If we look at the development of political parties in Taiwan over the last decade or so, we can see that our education policies have always been influenced by politics. More distant examples include sinocentric ideas, political taboos and cults of leadership that were taught across the board at all school levels during the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) era of authoritarian rule. More recent examples would be the Democratic Progressive Party’s language education policies and the ideological opposition between different schools toward the 98 Curriculum Outline. Let us think of even more recent education issues, such as choices on the romanization of Chinese words, the debate over the name of Liberty Square and even the timetable for the implementation of a 12-year compulsory education system. Just which one of these issues is non-political in nature?

We can clearly see that education cannot be totally free from politics, but we continue to expect neutral, unbiased education. It is contradictory to admit that those in charge of education administration cannot cut off their political resources, while also demanding that teachers strive to be neutral and unbiased. This contradiction obviously comes from traditional ideas about educational institutions having to be free of ideology and the hope that educational institutions be kept pure, which stems from real life situations in which we see struggles between political parties and the dislike we have for corruption among politicians.

The UK and US faced a similar situation at the start of the 20th century, with schools in the US calling for politics to be left out of schools and for schools to be left out of politics. A recent report on education reform released by the Ministry of Education also mentioned the ideal of neutral education, while Article 6 of the Educational Fundamental Act (教育基本法) also mentions the principle of neutral education.

The academic circles of the UK and US eventually realized that education cannot be entirely free of politics, but they also decided that education should not be controlled by politics. They discovered the only middle path was to pay special attention to checks and controls of various political forces and encourage academic circles involved in teaching politics to be brave enough to speak up against those in power, while passively insisting administration remains neutral in an attempt to regulate those in power and those in charge of managing and allocating public resources.

The Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials is a product of compromise under such an environment. The act aims to guard against the inappropriate use of public power and public resources, while respecting the rights civil servants and teachers have to participate in political parties and support different political ideas. In other words, for educators, the original intention of the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials is actually in line with the original intention of the current Educational Fundamental Act and its aims to regulate those in charge of education administration and school authorities. To be precise, it means that management in schools cannot utilize its power to promote a political party, political group or religious belief. Administrative powers in charge of overseeing education in schools also cannot put pressure on lower-level administrative staff, teachers or students to take part or not take part in activities organized by political or religious groups.

To take positive action against these problems, schools and research institutions should encourage professors and researchers to discuss politics and research current affairs. A responsible teacher should not avoid discussing politics in relevant classes and should also widely discuss the diverse range of political ideas and allow critiques of different ideologies. In addition, according to the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials, if teachers wish to run for an official position, they can ask for temporary leave from their teaching responsibilities according to regulations and their administrative superiors are obliged to grant them this leave.

Therefore, unless professors and researchers use teaching or research resources or conduct election campaigns for official positions in educational institutions, their freedom of speech and freedom of academic instruction will not be restricted in any way. Viewed in this light, the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials is actually a form of guarantee.

It is not unconstitutional for the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials to regulate civil servants who control the allocation of administrative resources. However, the original meaning of the act will be totally lost if our legislators are making the act applicable to researchers at public academic research institutes and make supplemental resolutions and request revisions be made to the Educational Fundamental Act to make it applicable to teachers in all public schools who do not also hold administrative positions.

Tsai Bih-hwang is a member of the Examination Yuan.

Inaction on Xinjiang is a concern for Taiwan
　

By Chiang Huang-chih 姜皇池
Tuesday, Aug 04, 2009, Page 8

The unrest in China’s Xinjiang region has quieted down, leaving us with the Chinese government’s number of casualties and its conclusion that it was a conspiracy incited by ambitious overseas activists requiring a powerful crackdown on “illegal elements.”

This conclusion is beyond comprehension. Taiwan’s government has remained silent, turning a blind eye from beginning to end. Even more alarming is the coldness and silence of the international community.

China behaved in Xinjiang almost exactly as it did in reaction to the unrest in Tibet last year: It blamed “external factors” and resolved it by force and going from door to door to find protesters. Western countries repeatedly condemned Beijing for the Tibetan incident. France even threatened to boycott last year’s Olympic Games. France, however, did not say a word about the Xinjiang incident, while the US simply called for self-restraint from both sides.

The EU is acting like this is none of its concern. EU Ambassador to China Serge Abou even said European countries also have minority issues and that they do not want other countries to tell them how to handle them. Later, Russia and China held a joint anti-terrorist military drill. Is discontent and ethnic conflict triggered by long Chinese rule now seen as terrorism?

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an association of 57 Islamic states, merely expressed its “deep concern” on July 6, asking China “to deal with the problems of the Muslim minority in China in a broader perspective that tackles the root causes of the problem” for the sake of “historical friendly relations with the Muslim world.” Turkey, the only OIC member that strongly condemned Beijing, did so because of its close linguistic, religious and cultural ties with the Uighurs. It called the incident an act of ethnic cleansing and threatened an appeal to the UN Security Council.

Almost identical incidents therefore draw very different reactions from the international community. Some believe this is because other countries are preoccupied with the economic crisis and need China’s help. In addition, Chinese help is needed to deal with the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. These international economic and political issues, however, existed last year and the knowledge that China can play a role is not a new realization. So what is the cause of this major difference?

The key lies in the fact that the world does not doubt that Xinjiang is part of China, while they question that Tibet is part of China. The significance of this difference and the consequences for Taiwan are self-evident.

As I mourn the deaths of wronged Uighurs, I think of Taiwan’s situation. Looking back at the Taiwanese government’s actions, they are taken in order to pave a whole boulevard for the “one China” principle. Will such actions further suppress the international community’s room for maneuver on the Taiwan issue?

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) sees Taiwan’s participation at the World Health Assembly as a diplomatic breakthrough made possible by Chinese goodwill, but he completely ignores the “one China” curse. After the Chinese team boycotted the opening and closing ceremonies at the Kaohsiung World Games, can Ma still claim that Beijing is extending goodwill?

As Taiwan’s diplomatic space is gradually shrinking, the push for unification grows. Unfortunately, some are still praising the goodwill of the “motherland.”

English poet Percy Shelley once wrote: “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” Led by such a “brilliant” government, if unification comes, will there even be a spring?

Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s Department of Law.