20110424 Should the government not support democracy?

Should the government not support democracy?

By Wang Dan 王丹

My simple testimony during a Taiwan High Court session this month set off a wave of media speculation. It was a confidential session and the judge repeatedly guaranteed that the proceedings would not be made public. Even so, there were vivid descriptions of the testimony in the media just a few hours later. Is this another Republic of China (ROC) judicial wonder? Even worse, there were huge discrepancies between the reports and what actually transpired in court.

Many of the stories had misleading and sensational headlines such as: “Wang Dan admits to receiving funds from [former president Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁].”

What I want to discuss is whether the state affairs fund was government money or Chen’s private money.

If the fund was Chen’s private money, there would not be any talk of corruption. However, since Taiwan’s judicial system has found Chen guilty of corruption, it clearly thinks the fund belonged to the ROC, not Chen. Therefore, if Chen simply gave from a public fund to a Chinese democracy activist, without attaching any political conditions, how could the recipient be accused of taking Chen’s money?

The fund was not Chen’s money: It belonged to the government. As president and legal representative of the ROC government, Chen offered financial support to the Chinese democratic movement on behalf of the ROC. This is the truth. However, certain media outlets portrayed it as a Chinese democratic activist taking Chen’s personal money. Government support and personal sponsorship are two different issues.

Frankly speaking, overseas members of the Chinese democratic movement welcome political donations from any legitimate source that does not attach any political conditions. We particularly hope for and welcome the Taiwanese government’s recognition of the positive impact China’s democratization would have on Taiwan and that Taipei offers concrete support instead of empty promises.

If the money were Chen’s private money, I probably wouldn’t have even considered accepting it, but I would welcome it and show my appreciation if it came from a representative of the ROC. These are two different things. However, the media have confused the issue.

Isn’t this an outrageous confusion of right and wrong? Are these media outlets devoid of professional ethics and even the most basic professionalism? I knew some Taiwanese media outlets were vicious, but had never expected that they would be so despicable.

I would not have been surprised if I had read these reports in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) media outlets. As a matter of fact, the Chinese government’s mouthpieces have already published equally distorted reports.

The CCP has for a long time attacked overseas members of the Chinese democratic movement and linked us to Taiwanese independence in order to weaken our impact in China, as Chinese nationalism continues to surge. However, it is beyond my wildest imagination that some Taiwanese media outlets would behave in the same way.

My final question is this: Shouldn’t the Taiwanese government support the Chinese democracy movement in China and abroad?

This, I believe, is the question that should be discussed since the state affairs fund is involved. Linking the ROC’s support of overseas Chinese democracy activists to the issue of Taiwanese independence confuses the issue and is extremely vicious.

Wang Dan was a student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident and is a visiting assistant professor at National Tsing Hua University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG