Government defends visa rejection
　

'UNDEMOCRATIC' : The Ma administration called Rebiya Kadeer's criticism unfair after the government allowed the screening of a documentary on the Uighur leader
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 1

The Presidential Office yesterday defended the government's decision to reject a visit by exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, saying it was a matter of sovereignty.

In a statement, the Presidential Office said it was unfair for Kadeer to say Taiwan was undemocratic simply because she could not visit.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said in the statement that a documentary about Kadeer was screened in Taiwan despite protests from Beijing, which showed that her right to free speech was protected and that Taiwan was on a par with other advanced democracies.

The statement said the fact that her interview with the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper) criticizing President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration as being undemocratic was published was another reflection of democracy in Taiwan.

“We do not deny entry to all those listed as persona non grata by mainland authorities,” it said. “The administration has allowed Chinese democracy activists and the Dalai Lama to visit the country despite protests by the Chinese Communist Party [CCP].”

Whether a person can visit Taiwan is not a human rights issue, but rather one of sovereignty, it said.

“The decision to reject Kadeer's visit was made on the basis of national interests. It is the exercise of a country's sovereignty and has nothing to do with the issue of freedom or democracy,” it said.

The statement was issued in response to Kadeer's interview in the Liberty Times yesterday.

Kadeer said she had always thought Taiwan was a democratic country but that now she had doubts. If she ever had the chance to visit Taiwan someday, she said she would like to say to Ma that he should serve the people in Taiwan rather than listening to the lies of China.

She urged Taiwanese to continue to fight for freedom and democracy and never to become a propaganda tool of the CCP, or Taiwan would end up like the Uighurs.

Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said last month that Kadeer, president of the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress (WUC), should not be allowed into the country since she has “close relations to a terrorist group.”

He also accused WUC secretary-general Dolkun Isa of involvement in terrorist activities that led Interpol to issue a “red notice” for him.

Jiang's remarks were criticized by opposition legislators, civic groups, Kadeer and Isa. Kadeer said that she would file a lawsuit against the government unless it apologized for the terrorist remark.

Chinese tourists have boycotted Kaohsiung over the screening of a documentary featuring Kadeer as part of the Kaohsiung Film Festival.

Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) also said Kadeer's criticism was “unacceptable.”

“It is unacceptable to us for an individual who does not have a thorough understanding of Taiwan to criticize the Republic of China as being undemocratic,” Su said.

“We accept Ms Kadeer's ideals and her documentary was screened in Taiwan without any interference. This shows Taiwan is a democracy,” Su said.

Su rejects press freedom assessment
　

CREDIBILITY: The Executive Yuan spokesman said that the government could not accept Reporters Without Borders’ statement that it had interfered with press freedom
　

By Flora Wang and Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 3
　

Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) yesterday continued to protest against the nation’s poor press freedom ranking by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), saying that the review was “unacceptable.”

“We cannot accept [the organization’s] criticism that the government interfered with freedom of the press,” Su told reporters at the Executive Yuan.

“Members of the [Taiwanese media] can tell that none of the media outlets have been pressured for criticizing or questioning the government,” Su said.

The spokesman said the government’s determination to protect press freedom in the nation ­remained unchanged.

The comments came after RSF’s latest press freedom ranking released on Tuesday.

Taiwan’s press freedom ranking slipped 23 spots to 59th place in the RSF’s report this year from 36th place last year.

Developing countries such as Mali and Haiti ranked higher than Taiwan.

This is the second drop in Taiwan’s press freedom rank since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regained power in May last year.

“The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and ­privately-owned media, while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom,” RSF said on its Web site.

In May, the US-based Freedom House ranked Taiwan 43rd in its global survey, a drop of 11 spots from a year earlier, saying “media in Taiwan faced assault and growing government pressure.”

When asked for comment, KMT caucus secretary-general Lu Hsueh-chang (呂學樟) dismissed the significance of RSF’s evaluation, saying that it could only serve as a reference to the government at best. Lu said freedom of the press in Taiwan had been abused, adding that he hoped representatives from the RSF could visit Taiwan to gain a better understanding of Taiwan’s press freedom.

KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) questioned whether RSF was politically biased.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus, meanwhile, yesterday accused the KMT administration of ruining the country’s journalistic credibility and said the government’s control over the media must stop immediately before Taiwan’s hard-won democracy is sabotaged.

Speaking at a press conference, DPP Lawmaker Yeh Yi-jin (葉宜津) lambasted the Government Information Office (GIO), saying sources show the GIO is planning to augment its control over the media by amending three laws on radio, cable television and satellite broadcasting.

The amendments would require all radio and television stations to re-apply for a broadcasting license every six years while the current law only requires the license to be renewed every six years, she said.

“We ask the GIO not to use ­Taiwan’s democracy as an excuse to influence the media. Changing the policy from renewal to reapplication is just a disguise for the government to extend its control over the media,” said Yeh, adding that such an amendment sends a message that only “obedient” media outlets would have a chance to survive.

Yeh also called GIO Chief Su Jun-pin a “liar” for his strong denial of the allegation.

“Don’t try to smart mouth us. Which media company hasn’t received a so-called ‘call of concern’ from the government?” she said.

Another DPP lawmaker, Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲), also joined in the criticism, saying she was a victim of censorship when appearing on a political talk show. Kuan said she was asked by the station’s upper management to halt the discussion when she mentioned that the father-in-law of Vice Premier Eric Chu (朱立倫) had made a windfall in the stock market.

‘Apple Daily’ not invited on cross-strait media trip
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 3

Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) is scheduled to take a delegation of local media to China later this month, but the Apple Daily, which has been a vocal critic of the Chinese authorities, was not invited.

Chiang and the delegation are scheduled to leave for Beijing on Oct. 28 and return on Nov. 1. The foundation yesterday said that the purpose of the trip was to allow media from both sides of the Taiwan Strait to interact with each other.

The SEF has invited the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper), but the paper declined the invitation. Other pro-independence media such as Formosa TV and Sanlih E-TV will attend.

The Apple Daily was the only media organization not invited. The SEF yesterday said that its Chinese counterpart, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, told them it was “inconvenient” for the Apple Daily to participate in the exchanges.

An SEF board member who spoke on condition of anonymity said that it had much to do with the sour relationship between the Apple Daily and Chinese leaders.

He said the paper had harshly criticized Beijing since the ­Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. The grudges former leaders hold still affected successors, he said, adding that the ban was unlikely to be lifted soon.

The Apple Daily yesterday said that they “understood” why they were not invited.

Since taking office in May last year, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has focused cross-strait negotiations on boosting trade and investment.

To promote “Chinese culture,” Ma in June proposed that both sides venture into the “cultural” sphere.

The idea was echoed in the recent Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-Chinese Communist Party forum. The forum agreed to push for cross-strait cultural and educational cooperation and strengthen media exchanges.

Last month, the two sides held a “cultural summit” in Beijing to discuss several issues important to the promotion of cross-strait cultural exchanges, including arranging exchange visits by cultural officials, organizing exhibitions, protecting intellectual property rights, cooperating on film production and promoting media exchanges.

NSC files lawsuit against DPP legislator Chai
　

By Ko Shu-ling and Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTERS
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 3

The National Security Council (NSC) yesterday filed a lawsuit against Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) for slander after Chai alleged that NSC Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) asked the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) to provide China with maritime research on the waters around Taiwan.

Su’s lawyer, Taipei City Councilor Lai Su-ru (賴素如), filed the suit seeking NT$3 million (US$92,500) in compensation and a half-page apology in four major newspapers, at the Taipei District Court, saying the case against Chai was meant to convey the council’s firm position on its innocence.

“We are sorry to see Chai refuse to apologize or retract his allegation,” she said. “Chai’s accusation is very serious. It involves the sale of national security information and the national interest. The council cannot tolerate any politician undermining its reputation.”

Su asked Lai to issue a written request demanding Chai apologize within 24 hours and retract his allegation or face a defamation lawsuit.

The two became embroiled in a dispute last week when Chai said that according to a “reliable source,” Su had instructed an assistant to hand the data to Beijing.

Chai said Su gave the Chinese government the results of maritime research conducted by the MOI on Taiwan’s seabed and reefs, including classified information. The information was given to Beijing with Su’s assistance, Chai said.

The data would be forwarded to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as part of information submitted by China, said Chai, who said that providing Beijing with Taiwan’s oceanographic research data is a severe breach of national security and a denigration of Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Pan-green legislators said on Tuesday that they would sue President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Su for treason.

In response, Chai yesterday said he was prepared to battle Su in court and plans to counter-sue Su for false charges against him.

“When I asked MOI Minister Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) if a Taiwanese maritime expert delegation had visited China, the answer was yes. When I asked who arranged the visit, he said he did not know, but he did confirm that the data from the research project had been handed over to the NSC,” Chai said, adding that Jiang told him the information was to be given to the UN on May 20 this year.

The question, he said, was whether the UN had a copy of the data and, if so, who gave the global body the information on Taiwan when Taiwan is not eligible to provide such information itself because it is not a member.

“I will fight to the end. I will not be intimidated,” Chai said.

At a separate setting yesterday, Jiang told a legislative committee that they never handed any “basic” information about maritime research to the NSC. However, he said the council did receive regular “preliminary analysis reports” on a research project from the MOI.

Jiang said the five-year, NT$700 million (US$21.6 million) project was established by the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) administration, which had hoped to complete it in time for the UN deadline in May. As long as Taiwan is not a UN member, Jiang said the UN would not have the information.

Chai asked Jiang whether it was correct to assume that the information came from another source if the UN did have it in its record.

Jiang said that he was not in a position to make such a deduction, which he described as “similar to a detective story.”

He also asked Chai to publish the information he was referring to and name the person who told him about it.

Jiang said the five-year research project involved three groups of people, with the first dealing with the field survey, the second with data integration and the third with administrative matters.

Jiang said the ministry had not arranged any trips for the first group of people to visit China, but he said that some did make such trips, but only to gather information.

US free press rank jumps under Obama
　

SHAKE UP: Press freedom improved in the US while Denmark snared top honors. Israel’s ranking plummeted, while Iran moved closer to the bottom of the survey

REUTERS WITH STAFF WRITER , NEW YORK
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 7

Press freedom has improved in the US in the last year and the country jumped 20 places to No. 20 on this year’s international ranking by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released on Tuesday.

The media watchdog said US President Barack Obama taking up the presidency in January brought a new approach in Washington after eight years under former US president George W. Bush, while some European countries fell in the group’s Press Freedom Index.

RSF expressed concerns about US attitudes toward the media in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it said journalists had been injured or arrested by the US military.

“President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but his country is still fighting two wars,” the group said. “Despite a slight improvement, the attitude of the United States towards the media in Iraq and Afghanistan is worrying.”

The US came in just behind Britain on the press freedom index of 175 countries, while China was at No. 168. Afghanistan No. 149 and Iraq at No. 145.

As the Taipei Times reported yesterday, Taiwan’s press freedom ranking slipped by 23 spots to 59th this year from 36th last year. RSF attributed the slide to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) interference in state and privately owned media and violence by “certain activists.”

Reporters Without Borders said that in the US the House of Representatives this year backed legislation to allow journalists to protect their sources — it has not yet been voted on in the Senate — and the Obama administration had promised better access to public information.

The group said civil liberties were violated in the name of national security during the Bush era.

European countries hold the top 13 spots, led by Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. France fell eight spots to No. 43, Slovakia dropped 37 places to No. 44 and Italy fell five spots to No. 49.

“Europe should be setting an example as regards civil liberties. How can you condemn ­human rights violations abroad if you do not behave irreproachably at home?” said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-Francois Julliard.

Press freedom in France has been worsening for several years, the group said, with the authorities placing growing pressure on journalists to reveal sources and proposing legislation that could reduce their freedom.

In Italy, Reporters Without Borders said press freedom was being stifled by threats from the Mafia and various lawsuits being brought or considered by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi against news organizations.

The group also drew attention to Israel, which fell 47 places to No. 93, losing its place as the top country for press freedom in the region and falling behind Kuwait at No. 60, Lebanon at No. 61 and the United Arab Emirates at No. 86.

“Israel has begun to use the same methods internally as it does outside its own territory,” said Reporters Without Borders, adding that journalists had been arrested and imprisoned and that military censorship also posed a threat.

But as a result of actions during Israel’s war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip in December and January, Reporters Without Borders ranked the country at No. 150 for its “extraterritorial actions.”

“The toll of the war was very heavy. Around 20 journalists in the Gaza Strip were injured by the Israeli military forces and three were killed while covering the offensive,” it said.

At the bottom of the list were Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea, “where media are so suppressed they are nonexistent,” ­Reporters Without Borders said.

Iran dropped to No. 172 from No. 166, with Reporters Without Borders saying the disputed reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had fostered a paranoia about journalists and bloggers.

“Automatic prior censorship, state surveillance of journalists, mistreatment, journalists forced to flee the country, illegal arrests and imprisonment — such is the state of press freedom this year in Iran,” the group said.

The ranking was compiled from hundreds of questionnaires completed by journalists and media experts around the world and reflecting press freedom violations that took place between Sept. 1 last year and Aug. 31 this year. The exact number of questionnaires completed was not immediately available.

Cause for concern over press index

Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 8

The latest Worldwide Press Freedom Index released on Tuesday by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) saw Taiwan’s ranking plummet to 59th place from last year’s 36th. While the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus was quick to dismiss the significance of the report — with some KMT lawmakers questioning whether it harbored a “certain ideology” (without elaborating) — Taiwan’s poor showing this year should serve as a wake-up call on government interference with the Fourth Estate.

KMT legislative caucus whip Lu Hsueh-chang (呂學樟) yesterday said that most Taiwanese do not think the government compromises media independence. What Liu apparently failed to realize was that the RSF report was the product of responses gathered from hundreds of journalists and media experts worldwide on issues such as censorship, harassment, media independence and legal frameworks.

In other words, the end product of the international media watchdog’s annual press freedom index is a direct result of the opinions of those who work in and are familiar with the news business and know the skeletons in the closet within the industry.

“The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and privately-owned media while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom,” the RSF press freedom report said in its assessment of Taiwan.

Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) yesterday called the review “unacceptable.” This rebuttal carries no credibility unless Su and the Government Information Office can come up with substantial evidence to counter the less-than-appealing impressions garnered by RSF.

Among these were the KMT caucus-initiated motion that amended the Public Television Act (公共電視法) in June this year to increase the number of Public Television Station (PTS) board members and supervisors.

The KMT caucus also suggested the budget for Taiwan Broadcasting System-associated TV stations such as PTS, Hakka TV and Taiwan Indigenous Television be used as a mechanism to vet programming.

These tactics were largely seen by critics as government attempts to reinforce control over the foundation’s operations. The practice of “placement marketing” by the government and stories of media outlets and reporters receiving calls from government officials expressing “certain views” are also common in media circles.

It was partly with the aim of safeguarding media independence that the National Communications Commission (NCC) was established in 2006. However, the way the NCC handles complaints — such as forwarding negative feedback about a PTS news talk show containing “too much Hoklo” and accusing the show of being too critical of China — suggest the NCC is itself a having hard time maintaining its status as an independent body.

Press freedom is one of Taiwan’s most precious assets. Warnings, big or small, must be taken seriously to prevent the nation’s press freedom from being eroded any further.

Time for PRC to remember its past
　

By Dominique Moisi
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 8

A nation’s relationship with its past is crucial to its present and its future, to its ability to “move on” with its life, and to learn from its past errors, not to repeat them.

There is the past that “isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it is not even past,” in William Faulkner’s famous phrase. Such a past obsessively blocks any possible evolution toward a necessary reconciliation with oneself and a former or current foe.

Such a past is painfully visible today, for example, in the Balkans, a world largely paralyzed by a painful fixation on the conflicts that tore the region apart in the 1990s. An absolute inability to consider the point of view of the other and to go beyond a sense of collective martyrdom still lingers, unequally to be fair, over the entire region.

What the Balkans needs nowadays are not historians or political scientists but psychoanalysts who can help them transcend their past for the sake of the present and the future. It is to be hoped that the promise of entrance into the EU will constitute the best “psychoanalytical cure.”

In contrast to this paranoid version of the past is a past that is buried under silence and propaganda; a past that is simply not dealt with and remains like a secret wound that can reopen at any moment. Of course, non-treatment of the past is not the exclusive privilege of non-democratic regimes. More than 30 years after the disappearance of the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco, Spain finds itself confronted by the shadows of a past it has deliberately chosen not to confront. That supposedly buried past was always there, poised to erupt with a vengeance once the economic miracle slowed or stopped.

China, which has just been celebrating with martial pomp the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic by Mao Zedong (毛澤東), constitutes one of the most interesting cases of a nation evincing “shortsightedness” toward its past. China has a lot to show for its efforts in its recent history. Just consider the massive access to education of its huge rural population in contrast with its “democratic rival” India. So China’s pride nowadays is legitimate.

In 60 years a weak and divided country, one torn apart by wars internal and external, is about to become the second-most powerful economy in the world. China’s insolent prosperity, even if it is far from being distributed equally, China’s relative political stability, even if the regime’s opening remains strictly limited, are undeniable and deserving of respect. But the success of a country that has so mobilized its energies as to transform past humiliations into massive national pride is not accompanied — and this is an understatement — by a responsible opening into its past.

From 1957 to 1976, from the beginning of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” which led to a mass famine that killed tens of millions of people, to the end of the “Cultural Revolution,” which left Chinese society divided and traumatized because of its wanton cruelty and the destruction of cultural goods, China endured two hideous decades. China must confront them if it wants to progress domestically and become a respected and respectable actor in the international system.

But how can China become capable of implementing the “rule of law” that it so badly needs — let us not even speak of democracy — if it continues to systematically lie to its people about the recent past? To refuse to deal with a painful past is to risk reproducing it.

Such a choice can encourage the most dangerous nationalist tendencies within a society, especially young people, that does not know what hides behind the silence and official lies. When I taught at Harvard University last year, my Chinese students almost completely ignored their recent history.

They reacted with a somewhat “defiant nationalism” to critical observations. They were going “to check” the “accuracy” of historical remarks that did not fit with the history they had been taught at school. How could I be so critical of Mao? It demonstrated my Western bias against a rising Asian giant.

Between the two extremes of the Balkans and China, the relationship between “memory” and “history” knows so many shades of gray. It took France nearly 50 years to openly confront its Vichy past and to recognize that the French state had been guilty of collaboration with the Nazis. The country’s colonial past still remains a painful issue that is far from being confronted in a dispassionate, objective manner. It is as if truth and justice are seen as potential obstacles to peace, stability and progress.

But there is a major difference between the search for historical truth, which is an absolute must for a society at large, and the search for the settling of scores and the punishment of those found and declared guilty. One must know the past, to avoid the risk of repeating it, but also in order to transcend it.

But between a history that paralyzes a nation’s ability to “move on” collectively and an absolute unwillingness to face the past, which can lead to criticism of the present, there is ample room to maneuver. Healthy nations use that room to bury the pain of the past, if not the past itself.

Dominique Moisi is visiting professor of government at Harvard University.

Ma set for fall as he reaches the pinnacle
　

By Tseng Chien-yuan 曾建元
Thursday, Oct 22, 2009, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) resumed the chairmanship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at its 18th National Congress on Saturday.

What is the difference between the old and new party-state systems? This is something that confuses everyone who is concerned about Taiwan’s democratic development. During the reigns of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), a form of “democratic centralism” was used in which the leaders were the supreme authorities who dispensed authoritarian rule according to an organizational principle they called “a revolutionary democratic party.”

During former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) terms in office, he cited localized social forces to legitimatize the system and its leader, pushing for top-down democratic reform by using “power centralism.” Ma’s new system, one that is still taking shape, is an interest group of the rich and powerful, characterized by “black gold” and those who lean toward communists. The KMT has taken advantage of the hatred the public has shown toward former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) incompetence and corruption to stage a comeback. This comeback has had much to do with luck.

The Chiangs resisted communism to safeguard Taiwan. Later, Lee promoted democracy to achieve the same goal. They made anti-communism and democracy our national values. However, Ma’s system has inherited former KMT chairman Lien Chan’s (連戰) enthusiasm for cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to suppress independence, with the vision of peaceful development between the two sides. This new system is not anti-communist nor does it propose the self-determination of Taiwan. This is very worrying because it will probably be looked back on as “currying favor with China while selling out Taiwan.”

Human rights and state sovereignty would be missing from a cross-strait peace founded under such conditions. Apart from allowing KMT and CCP heavyweights to travel across the Taiwan Strait freely, what benefits would this really bring to Taiwanese workers?

For a time, Chen served concurrently as the president and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman. Internally, he attempted to synchronize party and government, turning the DPP’s Central Standing Committee into a dialogue platform for those responsible for party, administrative and legislative affairs. Externally, he wished to exercise flexible party diplomacy as party chairman.

The results fell short of expectations because the administrative branch did not accept the opinions of the party or legislative branch, not to mention that there was little mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps and between Taiwan and China. As a result, their interaction was completely obstructed. The DPP’s failure here serves as a lesson.

The KMT should stop making administrative authority its central focus and should conduct a thorough review of Taiwan’s national interests to improve mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps. This would also help the party gain confidence from the public. Otherwise, the new system is unlikely to build greater political prestige for Ma, and his policies will be directly challenged by party factions, while he and the KMT’s party resources sink into the mire of factions and even “black gold.”

The KMT-CCP platform will also turn Ma into the CCP’s representative in Taiwan and he could very well fall from grace just as he reaches the pinnacle of power.

Tseng Chien-yuan is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration at Chung Hua University.