The Cross Strait Times

Indictment, finally

December 15th, 2008

It was about time.  The Prosecutors of the Special Counsel finally issued an indictment for former President Chen Shui-bian (and 13 others), giving the government some kind of sound reasoning for imprisoning the ex-president — nevermind that we don’t actually have habeas corpus here.  Why the delay?  President Chen has already public admitted to wrongdoing, so it’s not like there was a lack of evidence to get the indictment before now!  Curiously, as soon as the indictment was issued, President Chen was released without bail.  So, let me get this right:

We arrest a man and imprison him without an indictment,

Weeks later the court issues an indictment,

We release the accused without bail.

Isn’t this backwards from how most democratic governments do things?

The climactic protest

December 11th, 2008

Thankfully, the Wild Strawberries demonstration on Monday went off without a hitch. No violent clashes, nothing thrown, no arrests. The fact that everything stayed peaceful and went as planned shows that:

A) protesters can stay nonviolent
B) government is learning about acceptable ways to handle protesters

It’s sad to hear that some of the supporters still think that “the students’ action would not be as effective as throwing gasoline bombs, like we did in the old days.” [1] Clearly, this does not reflect on the Wild Strawberries movement, but also shows that civil society still has a long way to go. Furthermore, it is interesting and refreshing to hear that the protest stayed nonpartisan. An elderly couple complained about not being able to display their pro-independence banners at the rally, but I must say this. It doesn’t matter whether you are pro-independence, pro-unification, or pro-status quo — freedom of speech is important for everyone. This universal right is in everybody’s best interests.

Besides, it’s not like the past DPP administration is blameless on limiting free speech. Remember when they banned DPP members from appearing on TVBS and then threatened to shut down the news station after the station broke a story on DPP corruption? [2]

[1] Taipei Times: Wild Strawberries protest proves skeptics wrong
[2] Taipei Times: GIO readies the blowtorch for TVBS

Taipei Times: Ma in a corner over the Dalai Lama

December 4th, 2008

Background reading:  Dalai Lama not welcome to visit: Ma (Taipei Times)

Comment:  This is unfortunate.  Isn’t the ROC supposed to be the ‘what could be,’ the alternative China?  But then we also need to have better economic relations with the Mainland.  How can we strike a balance between upholding our civil liberties and our economic needs?  Wouldn’t it be fantastic if the Dalai Lama and Tibetan supporters could come to Taiwan and see that, if the Mainland adopts Taiwan’s political practices, that everyone can live together peacefully?

At least, if His Holiness does come to Taiwan, at least Beijing could turn it into a propaganda angle and say, “Hey, look, the Dalai Lama finally came back to the motherland!”

Article begins below:

Ma in a corner over the Dalai Lama
By J. Michael Cole 寇謐將
Thursday, Dec 04, 2008, Page 8

The announcement by Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama on Friday that he hopes to visit Taiwan — where he has a large base of supporters — sometime next year will present an immense challenge to the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration, which in recent months has endeavored to improve ties with Beijing.

Despite the Dalai Lama’s assertion that, given the improved relations in the Taiwan Strait, “maybe this is a good time” to visit Taiwan, the symbolism of the presence in Taiwan of such a paramount icon of autonomy would be such that Beijing would bring tremendous pressure to bear on Taipei not to permit it.

Beijing’s response would certainly be much harsher than the retaliations it has meted out on other countries when their leaders met the spiritual leader, which usually consisted of canceled talks on human rights or demarches by Foreign Ministry officials.

If Taipei showed signs it was about to approve a visit by the Dalai Lama — and approval would be required — Beijing would likely resort to blackmail and warn that cross-strait talks could be jeopardized, if not mothballed altogether. It could also resort to various forms of economic warfare, which would highlight the misguided, if not suicidal, strategy of the Ma administration to further couple the nation’s economy with that of China.

In light of this, the expected reaction by Taipei would be to deny entry to the Dalai Lama, on the grounds that a visit at this time would be detrimental to ongoing diplomatic efforts, perhaps even to national security. In fact, addressing the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club at the Sherwood Hotel in Taipei yesterday, Ma said that while Taiwan “generally welcomes” religious leaders, the timing for a visit by the Dalai Lama was “inappropriate.”

Sadly for Ma, however, the problem does not end here, as he is caught between a rock and a hard place. He finds himself in a situation where regardless of his decision on the visit, he is bound to generate great discontent: While allowing a visit would send a strong signal of leadership and political independence, it would undeniably “anger” Beijing. Conversely, denying a visit would infuriate the Dalai Lama’s representatives as well as his many supporters and admirers in Taiwan, including the entire pro-independence camp, for whom the Dalai Lama also serves as a symbol.

Denying the Dalai Lama a visa could be as divisive as the visit early last month of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), except that this time around, rather than protesting the visit of a reviled Chinese envoy, Ma’s detractors would vent anger at the state’s denial of a visit by one of their own, a symbol of liberty and human rights, and put pressure on the government to overturn its decision.

In either instance, Ma and his government would be seen to be siding with China against the wishes of Taiwanese.

By quickly launching its peace initiative with Beijing while failing to take into account the fact that there are lines Chinese leaders will never allow to be crossed — Taiwanese and Tibetan independence being two of the more salient examples — the Ma administration put itself in a straightjacket and severely limited its options diplomatically, so much so that the visit of one man, however potent a symbol for Tibetan autonomy he may be, holds the promise of either scuttling cross-strait talks or generating civil strife.

It didn’t have to be this way. A more cautious, gradual approach to “peace” with China would have provided Taipei with more room to maneuver. After all, the Dalai Lama visited Taiwan in 1997 and 2001 and met former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) without incident. The crucial difference between then and now is that the Ma administration has allowed itself to become hostage to cross-strait “goodwill” by making good relations with Beijing a cornerstone of its campaign promises.

Fully aware of this, Beijing knows that by the mere threat of withholding that goodwill, it can dictate Taipei’s decisions. Hence the contrast between Ma’s remark in March that he would welcome the Dalai Lama and what he said yesterday.

Ironically, the administration has also put itself at the mercy of the Dalai Lama and his many supporters, who now have the power to create serious trouble for Ma by simply making an official — and well publicized — request for a visit.

Ma has often talked about creating “win-win” situations. Inauspicuously for him, he’s about to get a taste of the “lose-lose” by having to choose his poison.

Just another rant about the judiciary

December 3rd, 2008

Considering that former President Chen publicly admitted to wrongdoing and therefore resigned from the DPP, why is he being held without an indictment?  The indictment should have been issued months ago, easily!  Could you even imagine if Ma had been arrested during his mayoral slush fund investigation — and before an indictment?

Chen’s arrest has shown Taiwan’s embarrasing lack of habeas corpus.  Even if the majority of people on the street agree that the ex-president is guilty of doing something wrong and approve of him being locked up, it should be done through the proper channels.  Since the proper channels weren’t followed, the legitimacy of this arrest is being called into question.  Great job at discrediting yourself, judiciary.

Wild Strawberries to Presidential Office: Try again

December 1st, 2008

For those yet unaware, in the aftermath of the violent protests against the visit of ARATS chairman Chen Yunlin, students have staged sit-ins across the island — known as the Wild Strawberries Movement — to protest the way the police handled the protests and the constitutionality of the Parade and Assembly Law that regulates protests on the island.  The students’ demands are as follows:

  1. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) must publicly apologize to the people.
  2. National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) should step down immediately.
  3. An immediate reviewing and revising of the Parade and Assembly Law.

So the presidential office agreed to revise the Parade and Assembly Law that was one of the reasons behind the violent protests that occurred when ARATS chairman Chen Yunlin came to visit Taiwan.  Unfortunately, these revisions seem minimal.  Further revisions are needed, especially since both political camps have used the claim of revising said law as campaign platforms.

I greatly applaud the students efforts at promoting greater democratic transparency and accountability, and I especially applaud the movement’s nonpartisanship, an aspect of Taiwan’s politics that is sorely lacking.  While I do think that Wang and Tsai should be investigated for excessive force and judged accordingly, who should be held responsible for the excessive force of the protestors?  It is cowardly for anyone to throw rocks and molotov cocktails and then hide in the anonymity of a crowd that just wants the government to hear them.  It is also unbalanced justice to only hold the police reponsible for excessive force and not the protestors who also contributed to the violence.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Recent Posts

Links

Recommended Books




Sky3c sponsored by Seven Jeans Sale