20040310
=======
China needs some common sense on March 10, 2004 ……
China needs some common sense
By Ku Er-teh
Many people were worried that the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally would worsen ethnic confrontation. However, the rally's mood is better described as having been joyful rather than hateful. But the rally can hardly be seen as one ethnic group's provocation of other groups. If there was any kind of threat, it was directed at the pan-blue camp by demonstrating the pan-green camp's ability to mobilize its supporters.
One group dedicated to the advancement of ethnic equality recognized the self-control demonstrated by both camps in the rally. Its spokesperson even called upon the two camps to co-host a rally next year. Unfortunately, neither camp has responded.
The rally was good for the pan-green's election campaign. Some people have questioned the pan-green's motive in organizing the rally. Their concerns are legitimate, and will make political parties act more prudently. A society needs people like them, who challenge political figures and political groups on behalf of society. After all, power is like a flood, and mismanagement of it will harm people.
But other than from a political perspective, how can we interpret the rally? Was it a result of mobilization? Was it a demonstration of hatred against China? Or a show of admiration for President Chen Shui-bian and former president Lee Teng-hui?
In view of the variety of participants and mood of the event, it does not seem to be support for a certain political party that pushed millions to take to the streets; neither was it hatred against China or other ethnic groups.
Although the event was aimed at China, the confidence and desire for self-determination shown in the rally were not manifestations of blind hostility toward China. Many people who took to the streets that day have family or friends working in China or own businesses connected to the Chinese economy. Even the stocks owned by some of the participants may depend quite heavily on the performance of the Chinese economy. However, their common sense told them that Taiwan's future is inseparable from China's development. Their wish to be treated with justice and dignity is a sensible appeal.
The rally participants are not fanatics for Taiwan's independence. They do not wish to ratchet up tensions and create conflicts in cross-strait relations, but rather they hope to serve as a force for maintaining peace.
Not only are the pan-blue and pan-green camps aware of this, but Beijing knows it as well. Zhang Nianchi, chief advisor to the chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, recently pointed out that China has long neglected the influence of localization, democratization and diversification of Taiwanese society after the lifting of martial law. He said that Beijing has only focused on the homogeneity of the "one country" aspect of the "one country, two systems" policy, and has overlooked the differences allowed for under "two systems."
Zhang obviously noticed that the "one-China policy" has lost support in Taiwan. But he also pointed out that "as long as the `one-China' principle is safeguarded in the international community, Taiwan will never get its independence." He believed that as China is developing peacefully, the Taiwan issue needs to be handled similarly.
Zhang's point is reasonable and objective, despite its overtones of pan-Chinese national-ism. This is the primary difference between his desire for peace and the desires of the rally participants, who are primarily concerned about the nation's future. Yet what can be found from both of them is a foundation of reason and an aspiration for peace, economic development and cooperation.
Such sentiments can serve as the foundation upon which both sides communicate. There will definitely be conflict during the process, but the process does not entail a zero-sum game of winner and loser.
Although many Taiwanese can understand China's desire for peaceful economic development, unfortunately not many Chinese can objectively consider Taiwan's aspirations for peaceful autonomy. If more Chinese politicians could be like Zhang and think in such a sensible way, then more Chinese will be able to sympathize and understand Taiwan's pursuit for a peaceful autonomy.
Only then can the two societies build cross-strait peace and safeguard each other hand-in-hand.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
-----------------------------------------
On March 10, 2004 ……
DPP gives the thumbs-up to Taichung rally
MARCHING ORDERS: The party plans to
counter a rally by the blue camp on Saturday with an event of its own the
following day to gather support for Chen
By Ko Shu-ling, STAFF REPORTER
Refusing to be outshined by its election rivals, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is planning a campaign rally in Taichung on Sunday to express the public's wish for peace and democracy and opposition to missiles and war, organizers said yesterday.
"While the pan-blue camp plans to hold a nationwide march on Saturday to oppose President Chen Shui-bian for their own political gain, we're launching this `thumbs-up' rally to counter its initiative, which lacks appropriateness and legitimacy," DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan, also the organizer of the rally, said yesterday.
Lee said the DPP hopes to see a turnout of about 500,000, although the original target was 200,000.
"We're thinking of having participants give a thumbs-up sign at 3:20pm at the rally to signify their support for Chen during the March 20 presidential election and for the first national referendum," Lee said.
Slogans for the event include "Taiwan's first, the world is watching," "No missiles, no `black gold,' no vote-buying," and "yes peace, yes democracy, love Taiwan."
Rehearsal
To warm up for the Sunday event, Lee said, a rehearsal will be held at 3:20pm on Saturday.
Another campaign rally will take place in Kaohsiung on Saturday. Organizers hope to see a turnout of 500,000 for the Saturday event.
Chen, who attended yesterday's press conference to announce the Sunday rally, called on the public to take part in the event to show their support for the referendum.
"This is the nation's first national referendum and the world is keeping an eye on this historic event," Chen said. "I believe it will prevail because we love this land and this country and we'll forever safeguard its safety and prosperity."
For the referendum to be considered valid, at least 8 million eligible voters must cast ballots. The Referendum Law stipulates that a turnout of at least half the number of eligible voters is required to make a national referendum valid.
Meanwhile, Chen, who also doubles as the DPP's chairman, lambasted the pan-blue alliance's campaign to oppose the election-day referendum.
Chen said the pan-blue camp calls on the public to boycott the referendum while also suggesting that the referendum would cause a riot and intimidating the public by saying people would be fined for wrongfully casting their ballots for the presidential election in the referendum ballot boxes.
`Ersatz democracy'
"It only proves that they believe in nothing but ersatz democracy and that they set a very bad example on our way to democracy," he said.
If the opposition camp considers the referendum "illegal," Chen said, it should have requested a constitutional interpretation from the Council of Grand Justices like he did in 1990 during his stint as a lawmaker.
To push for the comprehensive election of lawmakers, whose term mandated by the Constitution was three years but was extended to 40 years during Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, Chen requested that grand justices rule on the legitimacy of lawmakers' long-term occupancy of their seats. The first comprehensive legislative election took place in 1992.
Chen yesterday also expressed his hope to see law enforcement officers devote themselves to preventing vote-buying and election violence.
He also called on the opposition parties to stop intimidating the public by suggesting election riots are a possibility.
"As we're already a mature democratic country, we should trust the wisdom of the electorate. No matter the result of the election, I believe supporters of the two camps will face it rationally and maturely."
-----------------------------------------
On March 10, 2004 ……
Vote to ensure voting in the future
By Nat Bellocchi
In all the tumult of Taiwan's election campaign, a strong reason for voting is happening in Hong Kong. The 1.6 million new voters in Taiwan especially should ponder deeply about what their vote will mean in developing a relationship with a China that covets Taiwan and its people.
In older democracies, when voters in a presidential election are faced with a choice that is not attractive to them, they often simply don't vote. The US is a prime example. Lately it seems every election for president in the US is that way, and the result is that perhaps half the voters just let the other half decide. Taiwan is not an old democracy -- it is a new one that still has very fundamental decisions to make on the kind of country each voter, and their children, will live in.
The "one country, two systems" practiced in the Hong Kong, while now opposed by both parties in Taiwan, is still meant to be the solution Beijing seeks for a future Taiwan that would be a part of China. Whenever the time comes for negotiations, and it is possible it will be when the new voters of today are still voting, some variant of the model will likely be the offer from China. The leadership chosen now, therefore, will be vital in developing the laws and traditions that assure the people of Taiwan, unlike those in Hong Kong, have the power to choose what they want.
What has been happening in Hong Kong is the first step in understanding the problems a Taiwanese voter might have to face. The British and the territory's business elite had for years prevented a power transfer to the people in making any meaningful political choices. Negotiating the turnover, therefore, was between the political leadership on both sides, with no involvement of the people.
The leaders from London and those Hong Kongers who had done well in business wanted to keep it that way. Until the last few years of its existence as a UK colony, the idea of developing a self-ruling democracy there was opposed. The rationale was that when it came time for the turnover to Beijing, real democracy would not be acceptable to the new owners, and could only bring instability. The last governor, who came after negotiations were completed, began a program of bottom up democracy, but it was much too late.
The negotiations for the turnover between the UK and Beijing were difficult and long, but the broad outcome was pre-ordained under the "one country, two systems" model. The UK negotiators had done well, given that they had few chips to play, but the people of Hong Kong, whose livelihood was at stake, had no choice in the matter.
China, in taking Hong Kong, was committed "not to curtail Hong Kong's freedom nor change its systems for at least 50 years. Also, China accepted "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" with a "high degree of autonomy." There were occasional infractions of the rules on elements of the Basic Law, but not enough to seriously arouse the international community or strengthen the weak opposition in the territory itself.
Then, early last year, Hong Kong's chief executive introduced national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law that generated massive resistance. The largest demonstration since the territory returned to Beijing's control, with some 500,000 people taking part, and a later defeat of China-friendly parties in an election, clearly generated concern in Beijing. Following a trip by Hong Kong officials to Beijing to discuss democratic reform in January, China began changing the rules for the territory.
Since last month, there has been a string of reminders from Beijing that forward movement on democratic reform would be very slow, if at all. Only "patriots," (which will be defined by Beijing), can be elected. Those who took part in last July's demonstration will not be qualified to be elected or appointed in the government. It was the first time Beijing has intervened directly in such matters. Before that, warnings and personnel matters went through the chief executive.
In changing the rules, China is reneging on its commitments to Hong Kong in the "one country, two systems" model. The new rules are even stronger than those originally established by the late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. It seems to be a "creeping" authoritarianism. But why, and why now?
There may be many other reasons, mostly regarding Hong Kong itself, but one may be Taiwan. While Beijing places obstacles on news about such matters as elections in Taiwan, a great many people in China know about them nonetheless. The open, boisterous public debates taking place in Taiwan must have some effect on the people who lack such rights in China. Tightening the rules in Hong Kong at this time may be the kind of message Beijing wants to send to its own constituencies.
"One country, two systems" was developed originally for Taiwan. It was put into play first with Hong Kong only because the turnover of the colony to China was based on expiration of the British lease on the New Territories. Given its growing problems, Hong Kong may be demonstrating that the model doesn't fit all sizes. In fact, it may not fit any size.
When Deng hatched the model, there was much discussion about the likelihood of success. Taiwan almost immediately rejected the idea but most observers thought this was largely negotiating rhetoric -- automatic, without much thought being given to it. In any event, within a decade, Taiwan was into political reform (ie, democratization). By then it was clear that the "one country, two systems" was meant to be a two economic systems, but not a two political systems.
Today there is an even stronger case. In Taiwan the laws have not kept pace with the rapid political revolution that has occurred there. So if one asks why vote, the answer is clear. To participate in and have the laws updated to assure the people of Taiwan's right to choose, as the people of Hong Kong under the "one country, two systems" have not been able to do.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
-----------------------------------------
On March 10, 2004 ……
-----------------------------------------