China executes nine convicted over Xinjiang unrest

AFP, BEIJING
Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009, Page 1

China said yesterday it had put to death nine people over deadly ethnic unrest in Xinjiang, the first executions since the violence erupted in July.

Authorities convicted 21 defendants last month — nine were sentenced to death, three were given the death penalty with a two-year reprieve, a sentence usually commuted to life in jail, and the rest were handed various prison terms.

“The first group of nine people who were sentenced to death recently have already been executed in succession, with the approval of the Supreme Court,” said Hou Hanmin, spokeswoman for the Xinjiang government.

It was not clear, however, when the executions took place.

Previous statements by the Xinjiang government said eight of the nine were Uighurs and one was Han Chinese.

The violence erupted on July 5, pitting Uighurs against Han Chinese. An official toll put the number of dead at 197, with more than 1,600 injured. Han vigilantes then went on a rampage against Uighurs two days later, but the exact number of casualties from that day has never been divulged.

The 21 defendants were convicted of crimes such as murder, intentional damage to property, arson, and robbery.

Han Junbo, the Han Chinese man who was sentenced to death, was convicted of killing a Uighur man, a previous Xinjiang government statement said.

One of the Uighurs given the death penalty was found guilty of beating two people to death with another defendant, as well as stealing people’s possessions.

Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress, condemned the executions, saying the Uighurs who were put to death had not been able to meet with their families.

“We regret that the United States and Europe have not adopted effective measures towards China regarding the death penalty issue,” he said by telephone from Sweden.

Premier ready to sue DPP’s Lee
　

TO COURT: The Cabinet spokesman said Lee Wen-chung should prove his claims about the premier having criminal links or Wu Den-yih would file a lawsuit today
　

By Flora Wang, Jenny W. hsu and Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009, Page 3

Executive Yuan Spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) yesterday said Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) would sue the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate for Nantou County commissioner, Lee Wen-chung (李文忠), if Lee failed to substantiate allegations against Wu by midnight last night.

Lee said that Wu, Chiang Chin-liang (江欽良) — a convicted felon on parole — and Nantou County Commissioner Lee Chao-ching (李朝卿) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) were on a trip together to Bali, Indonesia, last December to settle the distribution of profits from the local gravel trade as well as select a new Nantou County Council speaker and vice speaker.

Su said Lee should prove his claims or apologize to the premier, adding that Wu would file a lawsuit today if Lee failed to produce evidence.

Wu has been on the defensive since Next Magazine published a story last Wednesday suggesting that he had ties to Chiang. Chiang, now chairman of the Tsaoyetun Night Market Association in Tsaotun Township (草屯), was convicted of murder in two separate cases: the slaying of a Changhua gangster and a Nantou County council member in 1983 and 1985 respectively.

Last Thursday, Wu denied the allegations that he was involved in helping Chiang obtain permission to meet gangster Kuo Ping-hui (郭平輝) in prison in January. Kuo was the mastermind behind an infamous staged threat that was televised in 2007.

But Wu called a press conference the next day to concede that the meeting was arranged with his assistance after the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper) published a report citing Wu Cheng-po (吳正博), warden of the Taichung prison where Kuo is incarcerated, that the meeting was arranged by Wu in his capacity as lawmaker.

Wu’s alleged ties to Chiang and the gravel trade continued to draw attention yesterday as records of donations to Wu were made public.

The Control Yuan Gazette reported that Wu accepted a non-cash donation of NT$100,000 from Chiang and NT$200,000 in cash from the Sung Ye gravel company during his most recent legislative campaign in Nantou County.

In response, Wu yesterday said the non-cash donation referred to rental fees saved when Chiang let him hold a campaign rally free of charge next to the night market Chiang managed.

“The fact that I registered [this as a] donation proves two things,” Wu said. “First, I was a law-abiding candidate, as I kept records of all donations to my campaign down to the last details. Second, there is nothing ... to hide.”

Wu said the gravel company also made a donation of NT$300,000 to Lin Yun-sheng (林耘生), his DPP rival in the election.

Meanwhile, Lee Wen-chung yesterday said he was not afraid of a lawsuit, adding that a “secret witness” was prepared to testify against Wu in a closed-door hearing.

At a separate setting yesterday, DPP Legislator William Lai (賴清德) said Wu had a track record of lying and close links to crime syndicates that made him unfit for his position.

“Wu used to be a habitual liar and that’s why he was nicknamed ‘The Lying Mayor’ when he governed Kaohsiung City,” Lai told reporters. “When he became the premier, we urged him to change his ways, but clearly he hasn’t.”

Lai demanded that Wu vacate his office immediately.

DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said Wu was engaging in “political gambling” by telling the public that he would step down only if Lee Wen-chung could produce evidence.

“I am shocked by [Wu’s] attitude. In this situation, he is the one with the administrative power, yet he is using it to squash a civilian,” Tsai said.

Unequal treatment of reporters

Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009, Page 8

The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently relaxed regulations on Chinese reporters stationed in Taiwan. Chinese journalists will now be free to move around and interview people without informing the authorities beforehand. The government now encourages local as well as national Chinese media to station correspondents in Taiwan, and Chinese media workers will be able to save money by renting apartments rather than being confined to staying at certain hotels.

Ma and his ministers are always trying to please China, and these latest relaxed rules for Chinese journalists are another expression of their loyalty to what they see as their motherland. Chinese journalists have reacted to the gesture with an unexpected lack of appreciation, writing a lot of nonsense in the Chinese media to the effect that, although the new measures will allow them to save some money, they may expose them to attacks by extremists such as Taiwanese independence supporters or Tibetan independence activists residing in Taiwan.

Speaking off the record, a government official objected to these reports, saying that Taiwan is a country under the rule of law, and the suggestions made in the Chinese media were quite unwarranted in the light of the Taiwanese side’s goodwill.

Chinese reporters stationed in Taiwan have expressed these views not because they are really worried about possible attacks, but to discredit Taiwan’s democracy and give a false impression about the mainstream of public opinion in Taiwan. First, they want people in China to think Taiwan is a violent place where people’s lives and property are always under threat. Second, they want to portray Taiwanese independence advocates as a minority, and a violent one at that.

This kind of distortion of facts about Taiwan by Chinese reporters posted here is not an isolated case — it is part of a long-term strategy. Even since Taiwan first allowed Chinese media to post reporters in Taiwan, their reports have invariably taken a greater-China standpoint, painting a distorted picture of the country and completely disregarding Taiwan’s greatest achievements in realizing the core values of democracy, freedom and human rights. The suggestion that Chinese reporters might be attacked if they rented their own apartments and offices is clearly just another attempt to vilify Taiwan.

Why do we say that Chinese reporters posted here denigrate Taiwan’s democracy? The answer is plain and simple: Since these Chinese journalists are based in Taiwan, they must be perfectly aware that it is a free country with a pluralistic society in which each and every person is at liberty to express his or her political beliefs. The Constitution protects people’s personal security from repression by those in power or attacks by people holding different political opinions. The expression of differing views is well established as the norm in Taiwan. Just as politicians have their own beliefs and ideas, so do different media outlets have different political leanings. Appearing on radio and television chat shows, politicians and commentators cross swords over the airwaves. It really is a case of letting “a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend.”

Even though debate may be fierce and comments incisive, it is rare for anyone to be attacked physically just because of their opinions or ideology. Taiwanese people are traditionally kind and tolerant and do not normally resort to violence against those who have a different point of view. Living and working as they do in this land of freedom, Chinese journalists must be well aware of how strikingly this situation contrasts with China’s dictatorship. What justification can they possibly have, then, for the spurious suggestion that they fear attacks by supporters of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence?

Actually, our main purpose in drawing readers’ attention to this issue is not to highlight the distorted image of Taiwan given by Chinese reporters stationed here, but to question the wisdom of the Ma administration’s moves to open up cross-strait exchanges in news reporting. There is no need at all for such exchanges.

First, Chinese journalists reporting from Taiwan all serve the predetermined purposes of promoting the notion of “one China” and ultimately annexing Taiwan. That being the case, they cannot be expected to do much in the way of fair and truthful reporting. Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, and the mainstream of opinion is in favor of Taiwan’s own cultural and political identity.

However, Taiwan’s sovereignty is nowhere to be seen in the writings of Chinese reporters. They would rather portray the tiny minority who support unification as the mainstream. They would have their readers and viewers believe that everyone in Taiwan is “yearning for the motherland.” This kind of distorted reporting does nothing to promote understanding between the two sides. What is the point in having cross-strait exchanges in news reporting if this is the outcome?

Second, China is a dictatorship with no freedom of reporting to speak of. Just recently, Reporters without Borders (RSF) ranked China eighth from the bottom in its annual Press Freedom Index, above only a handful of notoriously repressive countries such as Laos, Cuba, Burma, Iran and North Korea. The RSF report accuses Chinese ­authorities of enforcing strict controls on news reporting by filtering the Internet and arresting journalists, bloggers, dissidents and human rights activists.

While the Ma government has gradually relaxed regulations about where Chinese reporters can live and work, China still uses various administrative means to severely restrict the activities of Taiwanese reporters, preventing them from gathering news freely and investigating the true face of Chinese society.

Since China does not reciprocate Taiwan’s treatment of its reporters, why should Taiwan one-sidedly relax its regulations? Besides, while Taiwan places no restrictions on the content of reports made by Chinese journalists, Taiwanese reporters in China have to be very careful, otherwise they may find themselves framed and thrown in jail, accused of infringing China’s national security.

All in all, the Ma government’s relaxation of restrictions on Chinese media will not help people in China to get a better understanding of Taiwan’s freedom and democracy. On the contrary, deliberately distorted reports will give ordinary Chinese an even more twisted impression of Taiwan. Besides, freedom of reporting is nonexistent under China’s dictatorship. Taiwanese reporters in China cannot gather news freely, and in attempting to tell the truth they are walking through a minefield in which their safety and liberty are always under threat.

Above all, China makes no secret of its intention to annex Taiwan, and Chinese media are a fifth column that serves precisely that purpose. In such circumstances, the media exchanges the Ma government wants to have with China provide the other side with a means of undermining Taiwan. Since the conditions for news reporting on each side of the Taiwan Strait are so unequal, what is the point of going on with such a policy?