No police brutality this time, Jiang says
　

CROSS-STRAIT TALKS: The minister of the interior said Taiwan would handle security for next week’s Taichung meeting, even if China sent guards to protect its journalists
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Dec 18, 2009, Page 1

Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) vowed yesterday to maintain safety during next week’s cross-strait talks in Taichung, saying police brutality should not happen this time around.

Talking to reporters at the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee yesterday morning, Jiang said the Taichung City Government and Taichung City Police Bureau would take care of security for the meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).

The central government will do its best to support them, Jiang said.

Normally about 200 police would be deployed, Jiang said. The number would be boosted to 1,000 for Chen’s trips outside the city, he said, adding that it would increase in accordance with the scale of protests if the situation escalates.

“We will do our best to prevent any bloody conflict,” he said. “Such regretful incidents as police attacks on civilians or reporters should not happen again.”

National Police Agency (NPA) Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) said he did not know whether Beijing would send a security detail to protect Chinese media covering the meeting. No matter who they send, security operations would be handled by Taiwanese authorities, he said.

Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Deputy Minister Liu Te-shun (劉德勳) said a Chinese security detail could come here as “professionals,” but they could not perform security duties.

Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) reiterated the administration’s resolve to protect freedom of speech, saying Taiwan was a democracy where individual freedom to express opinions should be respected and protected as long as it is done in a peaceful, reasonable and legal fashion.

No matter what happened, Lai said the meeting and other arrangements would go ahead as planned and she believed the Ministry of the Interior and security agencies would use their experience and professionalism in a proper manner.

Lai said three sets of talks have been held, including two in China, and the nine agreements and one consensus signed thus far have produced “positive results.”

Lai made the remarks during a long break in the legislative committee meeting after it ground to a halt at around 10am because the ruling and opposition parties were arguing over whether Chiang should attend the meeting.

The meeting did not resume until 6pm when the chairwoman, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩), declared the meeting over.

Chiu voiced regret over Chiang’s no-show, accusing him of spiting the legislature by ignoring the committee’s invitation to deliver a report.

“I don’t know what he is afraid of,” she said. “He said he is a private individual, but he has the airs of a bureaucratic official so big that not even his superior Mrs Lai [Shin-yuan] can make him come to the committee.”

Had Chiang dared to adopt such a belligerent approach at the negotiation table, the public would have praised his courage, she said.

“But judging from his previous performance, he has proved himself to be someone who is afraid to risk his neck and an opportunist who only pays attention to personal interests and toadying up to China,” she said. “I feel sorry for him.”

Chiu said she didn’t know why Chiang did not attend the meeting.

Chiang later told reporters he did not participate in the negotiations of cross-strait talks and secondly, he simply followed precedents.

Although Chiang did not say why he did not attend the committee meeting, it turned out that he was doing interviews with the Chinese-language United Evening News and ERA News in the morning and briefing the media about the upcoming cross-strait meeting in the afternoon.

MOJ proposal sparks concern among lawyers
　

By Celia Llopis-Jepsen
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Dec 18, 2009, Page 1

Lawyers and academics are attacking an amendment to the Criminal Code proposed by the Ministry of Justice that they say could send journalists, defense attorneys and members of human rights groups to prison for up to one year for publicizing information about ongoing court cases that is not currently prohibited.

The draft amendment would also make it illegal for lawyers and defendants to “disobey the orders” of judges and prosecutors, among other changes.

If passed, lawyers and others would be barred from “inappropriately” publicizing the details of evidence used in court — whether from the trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the Hsichih Trio case or other trials. Violators would face up a prison term or a fine of NT$300,000.

However, the draft amendment, a copy of which was obtained by the Taipei Times, does not define the word “inappropriately.”

The amendment concerns articles 165, 168 and 172 of the Criminal Code. Last week, the ministry invited lawyers and academics to review and discuss the amendment. Several lawyers and academics have since attacked the proposal in op-eds in the Chinese-language press, including the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper), the Apple Daily and the China Times.

‘The amendment is in part a reaction to public pressure over controversial cases,” lawyer Greg Yo (尤伯祥) told the Taipei Times.

Yo and Hsinchu Bar Association director-general Lo Bing-cheng (羅秉成) both suggested the amendment was related to Chen’s trial. Early this year, Chen’s lawyers went public with recordings of questioning sessions with witnesses to back their claims that prosecutors’ records were flawed.

Yo, a defense lawyer in the Hsichih Trio case and two other long-running, controversial death penalty cases, said the amendment would make lawyers think twice before contacting media when they believe their clients’ rights are being violated.

Lawyers often hold press conferences to call attention to problems including concerns that a confession was extracted by torture, that a defendant was convicted based on confessions and not evidence or that prosecutors’ records of witness statements are inaccurate. (Records from questioning sessions with witnesses are not word-for-word transcripts but summarized versions.)

The amendment would bar “inappropriate” use of case details out of court by anyone who “has” this information or “knows” this information, the ministry’s draft says.

In an op-ed piece, Lo said “the scariest thing about this amendment” is that it not only includes lawyers, but also reporters and activists who sit in on cases and write about them later.

“Clearly, this clause would quickly suppress public scrutiny of the judiciary,” he wrote.

In an interview, Yo called the act “dangerous” and a way to “threaten” lawyers and reporters not to step out of line.

In the Hsichih Trio case, Yo said that if this legislation had existed earlier, the three defendants, in absence of adequate media coverage and the public outcry this has prompted, “would likely be dead.”

The proposal also bans “inappropriate” words or actions in court and “disobeying the orders” of a judge or prosecutor. It does not define these terms.

Yo said the changes are meant to intimidate lawyers. Taiwan’s courts switched to an adversarial system — in which the defense counsel can ask witnesses questions — less than 10 years ago.

“But the judges and prosecutors — especially the prosecutors — have never been happy with that change,” Yo said, adding that this is a way to rein in lawyers.

Disobeying a judge or prosecutor would carry a maximum punishment of six months in prison or a fine of NT$9,000. This could include orders that violate a defendant’s right to remain silent and not incriminate himself (enshrined in the Criminal Procedural Code), Yo said.

He gave an example at a district court this year in which his client declined to answer a judge’s questions.

The judge became angry and instructed Yo to have his client answer. Yo refused and an argument ensued. If the amendment is passed, Yo said defendants could be intimidated into obeying in this situation, while lawyers who argue with judges could be accused of “inappropriate” words.

The proposal also bans lawyers and defendants from “harassing” witnesses under penalty of up to three years in prison or a fine of NT$100,000.

It does not define “harass.”

If the amendment is passed, Yo said he “would not dare” talk to some witnesses associated with the prosecution even though “every serious lawyer must do so” to understand their testimony and prepare as thorough a defense as possible.

The ministry has defended the proposal on its Web site, saying that it must combat actions that “interfere with judicial independence” and are “worse day by day.”

These actions include destroying or tampering with evidence, harassing witnesses and calling press conferences to make public details of evidence, it said. Current law does not punish these acts, it said, causing the public to think that the law “indulges madness.”

The ministry said it is defending the judiciary from interference in line with international legal practice.

Lo and Yo reject that argument, saying it is instead protecting prosecutors and judges and strengthening their position.

Most people clueless about ECFA: poll
　

CROSS-STRAIT TALKS: Lawmakers questioned the effectiveness of hearings to explain the ECFA, saying people in the audience were so bored they fell asleep
　

By Jenny W. Hsu and Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTERS
Friday, Dec 18, 2009, Page 3
　

Most people have no idea what issues will be covered in cross-strait talks scheduled to take place in Taichung next week, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said yesterday.

The DPP accused the government of disregarding the principle of transparency in its dealings with China and said it was not surprising that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) approval rating has plunged to 20 percent.

A recent poll conducted by the party said 87.6 percent of the 956 respondents did not know what would be discussed at the meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Beijing’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林).

This will be the fourth round of cross-strait negotiations since the Ma administration came to power last May. The two sides are scheduled to discuss and sign four agreements on fishing industry cooperation, quality checks for agricultural products, cross-strait cooperation in inspection and certification and avoiding double taxation. Issues concerning the government’s proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with Beijing will also be discussed.

The DPP poll showed that less than 30 percent of respondents believe signing the trade pact would benefit Taiwan.

Sixty-five percent of respondents said the government should not interfere with people’s right to protest during the Chiang-Chen meeting, DPP poll center director Chen Chun-lin (陳俊麟) said.

DPP spokeswoman Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), meanwhile, accused Ma of being insincere for not issuing a formal invitation to DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to hold an open debate about the ECFA.

In a television interview last week, Ma said he would be happy to enter into a debate or any other form of discussion with Tsai on the ECFA.

Hsiao said Ma was making empty promises, because so far the Presidential Office had not formally invited Tsai to a debate.

The DPP spokeswoman also accused Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) of being arrogant, saying he had rejected college students’ invitation to a debate on the issue.

“Wu’s unwillingness to communicate with the people shows his pompous and arrogant mentality. Moreover, it highlights that the ECFA is nothing but an under-the-table deal,” she said.

She said that any cross-strait agreement, especially an ECFA, would have a significant impact on Taiwan, and therefore the government had to ensure that the negotiation process is open and transparent.

Legislators from both the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) yesterday urged the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) to devise better ways to explain the ECFA to the public and to make the content of the agreement easier to understand.

CLA Minister Jennifer Wang (王如玄) and other officials answered lawmakers’ questions about the council’s public hearings on the controversial pact at the legislature’s Social Welfare and Environmental Hygiene Committee meeting.

The council has recently held several public hearings to explain the content of the ECFA to labor groups and local unions, as well as how it would affect the labor market and various local industries.

KMT Legislator Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) cited recent surveys and said that despite the government’s efforts to promote the agreement, most people were still unclear about what the ECFA was about.

“Some labor representatives who attended the [ECFA] hearings told me that they heard, but did not understand,” he said.

DPP Legislator Wang Sing-nan (王幸男) said the government’s glossing over of details had left the public confused.

Lawmakers from both parties questioned the effectiveness of the hearings, saying that photos taken at the hearings showed many people were so bored listening to the officials that they fell asleep.

KMT Legislator Ho Tsai-feng (侯彩鳳) said council officials should devise better methods to present the idea in a clear and easy to understand way, so that “even those who are illiterate would be able to understand.”
　

Court adds two months to Chen detention term
　

SHUT IN: Chen Shui-bian will probably spend Christmas as well as the Lunar New Year in detention after the High Court said there was still a risk he might flee the country
　

By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Dec 18, 2009, Page 3

The Taiwan High Court yesterday extended former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) detention by another two months from Dec. 24.

High Court judges wrote in their ruling that after hearing arguments from prosecutors and the defendant, they believed that the reasons for Chen’s detention, including a flight risk and fear that he would collude with witnesses, remained valid.

In response to the argument by Chen’s attorneys that his lengthy detention harmed his right to a defense in court because it limited the time he has to meet with his lawyers, judges said Chen has been allowed unlimited access to his lawyers ever since the trial began at the Taipei District Court.

Therefore, the judges said, the detention does not affect Chen’s right to self-defense.

The High Court ruled that Chen needed to be detained to ensure a smooth litigation process because he stands accused of serious crimes and there are still dozens of witnesses and defendants who have yet to testify in court.

For Chen, the extended detention ruling means he will probably spend Christmas and the Lunar New Year in detention.

The former president has been held at the Taipei Detention Center since Dec. 30 last year.

This is the second time that the High Court has extended Chen’s detention. The first time was on Sept. 24, when judges ruled that Chen should remain in detention until Dec. 24 as the crimes he had been found guilty of were serious and, as a former president, he had more opportunity to flee the country than an ordinary citizen.

Judges also expressed concern about the large amount of money and other assets the former first family has overseas.

Chen then filed an appeal against the detention ruling, which was approved by the Supreme Court on Oct. 8.

The Supreme Court ruled that High Court judges should reconsider whether their reasons for Chen’s detention were sufficient and hold a second detention hearing.

The High Court then ruled that Chen should be kept behind bars. Chen filed an appeal, but the Supreme Court said on Nov. 5 that the reasons listed by the High Court were adequate.

Control Yuan: All bark and no bite

Friday, Dec 18, 2009, Page 8

Anybody who believed the findings of the Control Yuan’s investigation into who was responsible for the infamous decision initially to refuse foreign material aid in the aftermath of Typhoon Morakot will probably also be waiting up on Thursday night hoping to glimpse Santa Claus and his reindeer.

Wednesday’s report — which reads like a student’s excuse for not doing homework — censured the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) for issuing the refusal while putting the blame for the decision to refuse offers of foreign disaster rescue expertise at the feet of Director-General of the National Fire Administration Huang Chi-min (黃季敏), deputy commander of the Central Emergency Operation Center when the typhoon struck.

While Huang may indeed — as has been reported — have suggested that no foreign rescue aid was required, it is stretching the boundaries of belief to suggest that the MOFA then issued a memo to the nation’s embassies and representative offices without getting the go-ahead from a more senior government official.

While former deputy foreign minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言) became the sacrificial lamb over the memo, the real decision maker has managed to remain hidden. This is scandalous as the delay in the arrival of foreign rescue aid without doubt contributed to deaths that could have otherwise been avoided.

The Control Yuan’s investigation and subsequent corrective measures can be seen as the government’s attempt to close the file on the Morakot disaster. They suggest that no government official will actually be held accountable for what was a gross dereliction of duty by government officials on so many different levels.

The government watchdog has once again failed to perform to its remit.

If the Control Yuan was serious about its work and if its members actually felt any remorse for the hundreds of deaths caused by Morakot it should be finding out why — if its conclusions are to believed — such low-level staffers were allowed to make such a crucial decision, impeaching those responsible and making sure that it never happens again. While doing so, it could also investigate why, if Hsia was so negligent in his duties, he was then given a cushy job as the nation’s representative to Indonesia and whether this was a pay off for him taking the fall over the memo.

But one shouldn’t expect too much from the Control Yuan. After all, this was the same body that initially refused to impeach repugnant former Government Information Office official Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), only doing so after a public outcry. This is also the same Control Yuan that found a lowly engineer responsible for the Maokong Gondola fiasco.

While the idea of the Control Yuan has noble ambitions, Taiwan’s fiercely polarized political climate means that those ideals have been corrupted. This is why the Control Yuan sat idle for more than three years after former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) nominees were stonewalled by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated legislature and why three DPP-affiliated members nominated by Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) were rejected last year.

This is also why the current body and its majority of pan-blue sympathizers cannot effectively deal with accusations of government impropriety, no matter how serious they may be.

Until this problem is remedied, we can look forward to more of the same from the government’s toothless watchdog.

Will ECFA lead to FTAs with other nations?
　

By Chuang Yih-chyi 莊奕琦
Friday, Dec 18, 2009, Page 8

‘Marginalizing Taiwan is not in the best economic interests of the Asia-Pacific region.’

China and Taiwan are on the verge of signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), and this has the government and opposition at loggerheads. With elections looming, the debate is reaching a boiling point. The main issue surrounding the signing of an ECFA with China, as far as Taiwan is concerned, is this: Will closer economic relations with China help make Taiwan’s economy more international and free? Or will it tie the Taiwanese economy too closely to that of China? The crux of the matter is whether or not Taiwan will have the opportunity to sign free trade agreements (FTAs) with other East Asian countries.

Taiwan’s best strategy here would be to first sign the ECFA with China and then go on to sign the FTAs, making economic integration with East Asia possible and avoiding economic marginalization. This will also have the added benefit of allowing Taiwan to position itself in the global economy. At present, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is happy to sign the ECFA with China first in the hope that China will allow Taiwan to sign those FTAs.

For China, it appears the best policy would be to sign the ECFA, but prevent Taiwan from signing FTAs with other East Asian countries. This will enable them to achieve their ultimate objective of first securing economic, and then political, integration. If, as the opposition camp believes, the ECFA leads to Taiwan’s economic overdependence on China and hampers integration with the global economy, their concerns will turn out to have been well-founded.

However, seen from the perspective of game theory, signing the ECFA with Taiwan and then preventing Taiwan from signing FTAs with other East Asian countries would not actually be the best strategy for China to adopt.

This is because marginalizing Taiwan is not in the best economic interests of the Asia-Pacific region, and neither is it good for regional political security or stability. Furthermore, it would threaten US interests in the region, and the US would be unlikely to sit back and watch Taiwan be marginalized in this way. Its hand would be forced, and it would find itself obliged to sign its own FTA agreement with Taiwan.

This would set off a domino effect that would see Japan and other East Asian nations lining up to sign similar agreements with Taiwan, and China’s strategy of integrating Taiwan economically would fail. This being the case, China would be best advised to sign the ECFA with Taiwan and then allow it to sign other FTAs. We could call this a cross-strait dominant strategy, leading to a Nash equilibrium, in which both sides would emerge as winners.

China, then, should make it appear that it is quite happy to see Taiwan sign these FTAs with other East Asian countries just as it is signing the ECFA. This gesture would be well received by the Taiwanese public, who would see it as evidence of far-sightedness and magnanimity on the part of the Chinese leaders. Ironically enough, it just so happens that this is what Ma would have wanted in the first place.

Chuang Yih-chyi is a professor of economics at National Chengchi University.