馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係

Very interesting POV.

馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係

一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？

康建淽2008/06/11

康建淽暑假獲得美國華府智庫的獎學金，到智庫擔任訪問研究員的暑期工作，因此這個暑假就不回台灣了。

康建淽這次獲邀研究的主體是『馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係』，重點在分析從美國的觀點，分析馬英九政權是否會倒台，何時倒台，與倒台的速度，美國政府應該如何因應，確保美國在東亞的勢力與利益。

就像康建淽2007年11月所寫的『台灣共和國第一任總統: 馬英九總統』。美國透過讓馬英九當選，有效控制台灣國內政治的局勢，讓馬英九押著國內外省少數族群，與泛藍媒體，透過壓制住這一群過去影響台灣過去 8年穩定的因素，讓馬英九成為台灣繼續保持獨立的公僕與拉車狗。

諸位網友不見，馬英九當選與就職後，過去在陳水扁時代『許多媒體，紛紛透過假資料與特定立場的學者，看壞台灣，並藉此製造民進黨政府執政不佳的印象，營造出國民黨輪替的正當性，或是，台灣一定要與中國整合或統一的言論。馬英九在2008當上總統後，媒體從此不敢看壞台灣，甚至紛紛製造出台灣一定好的言論，鼓勵台灣人消費，與外資進入。』

這些用新聞自由與人民知的權利為名，卻去進行政治鬥爭陳水扁政權的媒體與名嘴，現在紛紛站在支持馬政權的一邊，新聞報導避重就輕，不敢太過批評，以免傷了自己的嘔像。可笑的，自己卻忘了過去所宣稱『媒體是第三權，要一直監督政府』的說法與大旗。

七月4日，開放中國觀光客來台灣國內觀光，卻反而讓一般沒有與中國人接觸過的台灣人，經過與中國人互動的第一手經驗，感受到中國人的水準與不同，因此更深化台灣人不是中國人，台灣不想與中國統一的政治發展。許多中國觀光客，更分享自己住在中國共產黨政權下的經驗，讓台灣人更了解中國經濟與政治發展的內幕。

好笑的，七月4日不僅是美國獨立紀念日，未來更因為馬英九的開放中國觀光客的政策，讓台灣更進一步與中國分離，邁向永久法理獨立的發展。可能成為台灣共和國的獨立紀念日。

台灣人一方面對中國觀光客，『來一個打一個』，口袋賺的飽飽，與中共事與願違的，台灣經濟越好，台灣意識持續升高，台灣人越不想與中國統一。

美國的長期戰略是，先透過外省人馬英九與國民黨政權安住台灣內部，讓台灣國民將台灣意識，逐漸深化到台灣人每一個人的心中，讓台灣獨立成為每一個台灣人，每天生活呼吸的一部份等。國際政治環境許可，美國才用最少的成本，讓台灣獨立，確保美國在東亞的利益可以保持。

套在馬英九政權頸上的國際與國內的繩索，讓馬英九與其代表的政黨，變成一群替台灣人民服務的拉車狗，只可以在台灣人民許可的保持實質獨立的情況下執政。民主發展的台灣，讓馬英九政權動輒得疚，不過過度往中國傾斜。

許多網友都已觀察到，馬英九政權在短命的蜜月期時間，所發生的物價上漲，『台灣郵政』改名爭議，『訪華』與『訪台』的政策急轉彎，高級官員的綠卡事件，可以看出馬英九政權，如果馬英九政權做出不符合台灣人民集體利益可以隨時倒台。

過去在國府蔣家政權時代，只可以當國民黨外省權貴奴隸的台灣人，現在終於享受到讓外省權貴吹喇叭的服務，透過台灣幾十年所發展的民主機制，馴服一群權貴，替台灣人做牛作馬。

美國隨時可以透過釋放出馬英九政權高官的綠卡與國籍資訊，以及馬英九政權高官在美國的『人質』[如馬維中等人] 與所持有財產的相關資訊，控制住馬英九政權，可以讓他在美國利益為主，當美國政府的代理人，繼續保持台灣繼續獨立，並在符合美國的利益下與中國接觸，讓美國透過台灣，牽制住中國。

諸位網友們不是看到，在美國洩漏出馬英九政權高官擁有綠卡的消息之後，稍稍試一下勒馬索的強度與力道後，馬英九政權高官雞飛狗跳的窘態，馬英九在總統府幾週不出來，好像在思考『燒炭』一般 【引自一位泛藍名嘴，曾經笑話陳水扁選戰失敗的名言】。

This is what baggage brings you.

台灣人民本來就可有自由遷襲的選擇國籍的自由，可悲的是，這些馬英九政權高官，口口聲聲捍衛中華民國，要和中國統一，用台灣不好，要用【中華】。但輪到他們自己可以自由選擇『統一』的地點，卻都只是美國與加拿大等民主國家統一，先透過持有這些國家的綠卡與楓葉卡，未來可以喪自己去自由選擇的去入藉這些國家，宣誓效忠這些國家。

相反的，台灣人想要自己建立起新國家，想要維持自己民主自由生活方式，不想要自己與子孫被一個共產不自由不民主的國家，強佔與統一，就要受中國武器威脅，以及『背叛中華民國』等大帽子污衊。

一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？

馬英九政權會不會倒台，何時倒台，倒台的方式是4年一次的政黨輪替，或是因台灣國內問題被人民推翻，美國政府現在看到一個綠卡事件，就可以整的馬英九政權雞飛狗跳，威信盡失。

美國政府可以知道馬英九政權的容易掌控。

本來擁有綠卡與楓葉卡，不一定代表對中華民國不忠誠，但是政府官員本來就和一般老百姓與企業ceo 不同。政府官員掌握國家機器與龐大預算分配，甚至國家機密。哪一個國家可以允許其政府高官擁有另外其他國家的居留權，去享有治理國家與管理人民的權利。台灣的國民，願意被一群『八國聯軍』式的外國買辦來管理。難道台灣的人才都死光了？台灣本地人才不夠資格來管理自己。難道現在台灣是美國與加拿大的租借地。

擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想保有居留權，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅，做出背叛中華民國與台灣人民的事情?

擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想在綠卡事件中脫身，說出一些可笑的綠卡『自動失效』，『辦過美國簽證就失效』說法的，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅要說出綠卡與楓葉卡失效的正當法律程序，做出出賣中華民國與台灣人民的事情？

全台灣2千3百萬人之中，難道找不到一群乾乾淨淨，正正當當的政府官員，來當我們的公僕？

馬英九政權的脆弱性，在台灣的執政可以不可以符合美國的國家利益，繼續作為美國在東亞的買辦，美國會考量自己的國家利益下，密切觀察。康建淽本次所進行的研究計劃，就是協助發展出不同的SCENARIOS [劇本] ，協助美國智庫作出正確的建議。詳細情況，康建淽在研究進行過程中，再和網友報告了。

〔 資料來源： 油雞不落-康建淽 | 引用網址 〕

Some Suggestions for Ma Ying-Jeou

By Bruce Jacobs 家博

'If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's good will, the future of Taiwan will be bleak.'

Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) landslide victory confirms Taiwan's democracy is thriving. Many citizens who voted for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2000 and 2004 blamed Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the perceived failures of the past eight years. Thus, they quite rationally decided to vote for Ma. In many ways, this voter dissatisfaction with the DPP government continues the trends shown in the legislative election two months ago.

Ma must realize that his massive victory does not come from his cross-strait policies such as the "cross-strait common market." In fact, the most successful part of DPP candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign was his dismantling of vice-presidential candidate Vincent Siew's (蕭萬長) "cross-strait common market" idea, a fact Ma realized as he repeatedly retreated on the common market policy. Tibet also showed the naivete of Ma's cross-strait policy.

Rather, Ma's victory was a defeat for the DPP's economic policies and for its perceived corruption. Ma must bear this in mind as he goes forward.

Ma faces some difficult decisions ahead of his inauguration date on May 20. His most difficult heritage is his reputation for making contradictory statements at different times. For example, when running for re-election as mayor of Taipei in 2002, he told me personally and then said in a major press conference that Taiwan's future should be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. Recently, he reiterated this stance. Yet, on Feb. 12, 2006, and at other times, he said the future of Taiwan should be decided by the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Ma has also emphasized the threats posed by China and has even declared that the withdrawal of China's missiles is a precondition for cross-strait talks. Yet, at other times, he has expressed the opinion that if Taiwan is friendly to China, Beijing will in turn demonstrate friendship for Taiwan and give Taiwan more international space.

Clearly, China's repeated repression in Tibet, including the recent crackdown, has made a mockery of its original 1951 Treaty of Amity with Tibet. This clearly has lessons for Taiwan.

The KMT that Ma leads is very divided. On one hand there are the old, China-centric conservatives, many of whom go back to the dictatorial period. On the other hand, there are the more Taiwan-centric reformers. Ma is a bridge between these groups and frequently leaves both unhappy. Thus, the old conservatives refused to accept Ma's suggestion that the KMT publicly accept defeat in 2004 and they criticized him when he sold the old KMT party headquarters and old party-run enterprises.

So far, he has also proved insufficiently reformist for the younger members of the KMT. Bringing People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) back into the KMT is not a reform move. Neither is giving prominence to former vice president and KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰). And putting such recent criminals as KMT Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) high on the party ticket for the legislature does not send a reform message either

I recommend to Ma that he ally with the reformers in the KMT. Thus, for example, he should not appoint KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤), a former minister of economic affairs, as premier. Chiang, who is already 75 years old, lacks a reformist spirit. As deputy speaker of the legislature, he had a military honor guard snap to attention every time he or his guests entered his chambers. Such behavior belongs in a dictatorship, not a democracy. In addition, Chiang lacks any notion of reform or of a global world.

Rather, Ma should appoint a younger Taiwan-centric, reformist administrator as premier. One such person would be Taoyuan County Commissioner Chu Li-lun (朱立倫), who has led a large county and implemented a reformist strategy. Chu speaks excellent English, has traveled widely and would present an excellent face for Taiwan to the world. In addition, domestically he would push reform in Taiwan's bureaucratic administrative system. Provided he is healthy, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) might be another possible premier.

In the KMT itself, Ma must also push reform. For example, he must implement separation of the party and government. Thus, the president and Cabinet ministers should not be members of the KMT's Central Standing Committee. Such reforms are essential to reforming the KMT and turning it into a genuine democratic party.

Ma should remember his statement in the second TV debate, when he said he regretted that the KMT in its eight years in opposition had failed to reform. This statement was never followed up in the campaign, but he should also make party reform a matter of priority.

If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's goodwill, the future of Taiwan will be bleak. Only with a genuinely reformist agenda can Ma fulfill his major campaign slogan of "going forward."

Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

Two Rivers, Two Mayors and A Very Clear Choice

By Matthew Lien

The recent election of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was attributed in part to his restoration of a river running through Seoul. When Lee was elected mayor of Seoul in 2001, one of his key campaign promises was to remove the freeway covering the Cheonggyecheon River and to restore the waterway as a symbol of the city's beauty.

This caused me to reflect on Taiwan's presidential election and the first time I met Kaohsiung environmental activists and academics involved in the clean-up of the Kaoping River.

In 1999, I was appointed "Ambassador to the Aboriginal Cultures of the Kaoping River" by the Kaohsiung County Government and was given a tour of the most beautiful and most polluted sections of the river. I was also shown what efforts were being made to improve it and Kaohsiung City's Love River.

Years later, the results are impressive and the credit must go partly to the commitment of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who was at the time mayor of Kaohsiung.

Both of these rivers are widely known success stories, illustrating the importance of environmentalism and community development.

By contrast, I was invited several years ago by the Taipei City Government when Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was mayor to tour the Tamsui River. The Department of Cultural Affairs director at the time, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), and I took a one-hour tour of the river. Infamous for its severe pollution, a stench rose from the water as we climbed into small boats.

Accompanied by reporters, we saw dead pigs float by in the water, which can fairly be described as toxic. This was clearly an atrocity against the environment and allowing it to continue unchecked was a grievous failure of government at all levels.

Lung asked for my recommendations, which I enthusiastically provided based on my river conservation work in Canada with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Yukon Conservation Society and Friends of Yukon Rivers.

I described in detail an annual river festival that should be held on the banks of the Tamsui River, featuring original music and works by local artists portraying their impressions of the river. A CD and a coffee-table book could be published annually to help fund the festival and educate more people about the issue.

I also suggested that academics and water specialists be involved in the festival, updating the public on the pollution and its causes and documenting any changes in water quality.

They would also suggest which government departments should take responsibility for enforcing laws that penalize offenders and correct the problem. They could issue "report cards" to those departments.

I felt this would bring media attention, increase government accountability and inspire government action.

Lung supported my proposals and we presented the plan to the media.

Years later, the Tamsui River remains one of the most polluted in the country. All the talk of improvements seem to have been nothing more than a media exercise. It looked great on TV, but it resulted in little or nothing being done by Ma's administration.

As Taiwan goes to the polls, I can't help but recall my personal experiences with the two candidates and the adage: "By their fruits will you know them."

As one who believes that government officials bear the responsibility for the entire community and environment in their jurisdiction, I trust in the rivers to endorse the candidate who is best to navigate the currents of change facing Taiwan.

Matthew Lien is an environmentalist and musician from Canada.

Beijing's Not Bringing Cookies

Lee Long-Hwa of New York

As Taiwan goes to the presidential polls, it is imperative the nation notes and understands the situation in Tibet. For those Taiwanese who dream of becoming an integral part of China, it is important to understand that the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans is only a small sample of what lies in store for Taiwan should it become part of China.

For those Taiwanese who believe that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) represents a new day for big money in Taiwan, where Taiwan can co-exist with China in peace and prosperity, it is important to understand that there is no "co-existence" in Beijing's vocabulary.

The only definition of "co-existence" for Beijing is "undying loyalty to the Communist Party, upon pain of death."

Ma talks about 30 years of peace with Beijing. But Beijing has murdered Tibet's culture and autonomy over a period of 50 years.

Are you skeptical? Fifty years of Beijing's relationship with the Dalai Lama should have proved this point to the world already.

If a nation cannot co-exist with the Dalai Lama, a leader who personifies peace, just who in the world can they co-exist with?

Nor will Beijing march into Taipei with guns drawn. Its annexation of Taiwan is being planned in far more subtle ways, with or without the KMT's full complicity.

Wearing grins on their faces and talking about social harmony, cross-strait peace and a "one-China market," politicians on both sides are misrepresenting the underlying predatory nature of Beijing to the Taiwanese public.

The plans call for peace, but as soon as the guard is down, as soon as someone decides there is no immediate threat, the dam will burst and the flood of China's overwhelming tide will overwhelm Taiwan.

It will first come from the sheer numbers of Chinese visitors and then immigrants, money, millions of workers, hollowing out invaluable industries, and -- when Taiwan is utterly cowed and dependent on Beijing's succor -- blackmail.

Once overwhelmed, all hope is lost.

Beijing will not treat Taiwan like Hong Kong (which is bad enough), but rather like Tibet, where right now, today, at this very moment, soldiers are conducting house-to-house searches for monks supporting the Dalai Lama, looking for pictures of him or any other evidence of loyalty.

How long before Chinese soldiers are running from house to house in Taipei searching for "splittists"? Where will Ma be then? Standing in front, protecting those houses? Or running along beside the soldiers, aiding and abetting?

You decide.

With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at least I know they would die fighting.

They've already sacrificed themselves for Taiwan's democracy before.

I haven't heard anything from Ma that would convince me he wouldn't be on the first plane to Hong Kong (or New York or Beijing)

For those going to the polls, Tibet should serve as a loud and blaring wake up call. For those who think things have changed and that Beijing is a kinder and gentler adversary, wake up.

The predatory neighbor is not coming to visit Taiwan bearing cookies. It is coming bearing dictatorship and tyranny. Vote for anything less than complete vigilance against it, and you are inviting the beast to a dinner where you are the main dish.

And if you doubt that, if you are skeptical that Beijing could do that, just read about Tibet right now.

It's real. It's happening. The actions of Beijing in Tibet are no different than its attitude toward Taiwan.

And it's coming, unless you vote to keep it out.

You decide.

Can Ma Control the KMT Old Guard?

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was in full damage control mode last week, profusely apologizing for the arrogant behavior of his party's legislators and demonstrating, once again, that he has a long way to go before he can control the party that he is effectively supposed to lead.

When Ma became KMT party chairman in 2005, he promised to lead an opposition that would be willing to work with the ruling party. But time and again, from the failure to pass a reasonable arms budget to the KMT's stonewalling of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) choice of prosecutor general -- a candidate Ma openly supported -- conservative elements in the party threw egg on Ma's face.

Last week's apology came on the heels of KMT legislators Alex Fai (費鴻泰), Lo Ming-tsai (羅明才), Chen Chieh (陳杰) and Luo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) barging into Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) Taipei campaign office on Wednesday, alleging that state-owned First Commercial Bank had waived the office's rent.

The legislators' behavior sparked verbal and physical clashes with Hsieh supporters, who accusedethem of trespassing. One might call this kind of behavior astounding if it weren't in keeping with what we have come to expect from politicians not held accountable for their actions.

Exceptional, however, were statements made by Ma at a press conference a few days later, which fell on the third anniversary of China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law -- which allows Beijing to use "non-peaceful" means against Taiwan if it sees fit.

"Taiwan enjoys sovereignty, and Taiwan's future should only be decided by Taiwanese people," Ma said.

He then went on to say that he adheres to a "three noes policy" of no unification, no independence and no use of force.

This was a significant departure from statements he made in 2006 to a Hong Kong newspaper, when he said that the "Taiwan problem should be jointly decided by the people on both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait."

Leaving aside the bizarre logic of a "sovereign country" needing to avoid statements on whether or not it is independent, Ma's remarks about Taiwan's sovereignty should be seen as a partial reaction to the behavior of Fai and his ilk.

His language has as much to do with attracting middle-of-the-road voters and distracting the electorate from the presumptuous behavior of KMT legislators as it does sending a symbolic message to the old-boy network that Ma wants to put his stamp on the party. This is why he broke ranks with party ideology.

Ma is not stupid. He knows that the anachronistic pro-China policies of the KMT must give way to localization. But it isn't hard to imagine that a Ma presidency would see him apologizing for and battling with the KMT's old guard still holding on to the reins of power behind the scenes.

Many voters perceive Ma as a politician with integrity and the best chance the KMT has at reform. He has promoted this image for three years without being able to back it up through concrete action.

So the question remains: Can he drag the KMT out of its authoritarian past and bring it more in line with Taiwan's democratic future? And more specifically, does Ma have the ability to take control of his party?

The behavior of KMT legislators and Ma's aura of weakness suggest that he does not.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 19, 2008.

Siew's Ideas Contradict KMT Policy

By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中, translated by Angela Hong

As the debate over the "cross-strait common market" heats up, how the average citizen understands the issue is becoming important. Faced with public doubt, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate, Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), have provided several basic responses.

First, the "cross-strait common market" is not their campaign platform. Second, the "cross-strait common market" focuses on economics, whereas the "one China market" is a political label. Last, they do not wish to open Taiwan to Chinese labor or agricultural products that are now banned.

But these arguments are dishonest and contradictory. The foreword, policy outline and action plan of the KMT's policy guidelines, passed during the 17th KMT National Congress in August 2005, all promote the "cross-strait common market." Would the KMT presidential candidate not implement the party's plans? If the guidelines passed by the highest authority of the KMT are empty words, how can we trust other promises of the party?

In Siew's book One Plus One is Two ? the Road Toward a Cross-Strait Common Market, he mentions the great political significance of such a market on page 17, debunking the explanation that the common market is limited to economic importance. On page 31, Siew claims that the "cross-strait common market" will become the foundational structure for the integration of cross-strait politics. He believes that Taiwan should participate in the peaceful rise of China.

On page 121, Siew says that economic partnership is the best starting point for peaceful cross-strait integration. Economic integration has various degrees. Why is the high-level goal of a common market the main policy objective?

Siew says on page 142 that only the emergence of a "cross-strait common market" can bring about total economic, social and political integration. To use the common market as the main strategy for cross-strait political integration is Siew's core concern. By claiming that the common market is purely economic, the pan-blue camp is contradicting itself.

On pages 144 and 152, Siew further emphasizes that the so-called "1992 consensus" must be accepted as the basis of negotiation for cross-strait economic integration. From this perspective, how is the Democratic Progressive Party's labeling of Siew's policy a "one China market" an insult?

The pan-blue camp's list of things that will not be open to China in a common market is also self-contradictory. In his book, Siew says on page 158 that the creation of a free-trade area and the progression toward a common market relies most importantly upon a series of policy and regulation adjustments, based on the free and liberal flow of goods, labor, funds, services, information and other production resources.

To achieve a common market, there needs to be intermediate stages -- such as establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) or a closer economic partnership agreement, as in the case between China and Hong Kong -- both of which involve the free flow of products and labor.

Siew is clearly aware of this, but he ignores the implications of the common market without providing any solutions to its possible problems. Is this the attitude of a responsible politician?

In the negotiations of the WTO or other FTAs, non-democratic and black-box procedures often draw heavy criticism from social rights groups. Ma and Siew have promised that future cross-strait negotiations will be transparent. However, though they have not yet been elected, and the negotiations have not yet begun, there are already a number of lies and contradictions. How can people believe their promises?

Narrow protectionist policies are of course not the final solution for average citizens. However, unlimited deregulation of trade and investment would also cause corresponding problems.

Faced with the "one China market" debate, we don't need lies or a war of words. We need honest politicians and active concern from the public to forge our own future with our own actions.

Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.

Ma Unclear on Chinese Diplomas

By Tung Chen-yuan 童振源, translated by Angela Hong

With only a few days to the presidential election, we're still seeing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) dodge and deny various important policies that he had previously proposed, including the "cross-strait common market" and recognition of Chinese diplomas.

As election day arrives, Ma is purposefully distorting his own proposals and does not dare to stand up for or defend his own policies -- to the point of accusing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) of discrediting him.

Take the issue of whether the government should recognize Chinese diplomas for example: This is a serious public policy concern, and Ma should give a clear explanation to the voters.

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Hsieh have both clearly said that they are unwilling to recognize Chinese diplomas. KMT and People First Party legislators have repeatedly demanded that the government do otherwise. They have done all they can to pressure the government and they often encourage Taiwanese students to seek education in China.

In April 2006, after the Chinese Communist Party-KMT economic forums, Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆), a KMT legislator and an important member of the Ma camp, immediately pushed for a petition in the legislature and successfully changed Article 22 of the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例), demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas obtained by Taiwanese students so that they can qualify for professional and government examinations and be allowed to work in the Taiwanese education system.

On April 26, 2006, Ma, as the chairman of the KMT, promised that the party would push for the recognition of Chinese diplomas and complimented Cheng Kung University president Wu Jing (吳京) for daring to recommend the recognition of Chinese diplomas while minister of education.

On April 28, Ma went so far as to say that if the future chair of the Mainland Affairs Council had a diploma from Beijing University, then the two sides could better communicate, and cited this as a supporting argument for his proposal of diploma recognition.

After becoming the KMT's presidential candidate, Ma, in a speech at National Chung Hsing University on June 18 last year, criticized the DPP government's refusal to recognize Chinese diplomas as an isolationist policy.

Regardless of whether one supports recognizing Chinese diplomas or not, as a presidential candidate, Ma should explain himself clearly to Taiwanese voters.

When Hsieh criticized the potential impact of Ma's proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma responded that Hsieh was twisting the truth.

On Feb. 29, after three years of openly proposing that Taiwan recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma amended the proposal for the first time, claiming that while Chinese diplomas would be recognized, people with Chinese diplomas would not be allowed to take examinations for professional qualifications. This obscures the focus of the policy debate and goes against Ma's original intent.

On March 8, Ma changed tack again and said that his proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas was aimed at facilitating cross-strait academic exchange, since otherwise it would be unreasonable to have to consider professors of Beijing University as uneducated if they came to Taiwan. Then Ma altered the focus further by emphasizing that he would not allow Chinese nationals to take qualification exams in Taiwan.

From demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas, to not allowing holders of Chinese diplomas to take professional examinations, to claiming that Chinese professors need to have diplomas to conduct academic exchanges in Taiwan, to not allowing Chinese nationals to take professional examinations in Taiwan -- Ma is constantly changing his position.

The pan-blue camp already controls almost three quarters of the legislature. If Ma becomes president, no one would be able to stop the government from recognizing Chinese diplomas.

Mr. Ma, please demonstrate your accountability and character by explaining and defending your policies: What is the purpose, and what would be the result of recognizing Chinese diplomas? Don't obscure and redirect the focus, and don't lie to voters just to become president.

Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.

Time to End the Media's Distortion of the Truth

By Lillian Wang 王泰俐, translated by Eddy Chang

The economy has been the main focus of the presidential campaign. In addition to the unfavorable domestic and global economic situation, this is the result of the "relative deprivation" created by some media outlets in recent years.

They have used the public's enthusiasm for comparison to generate a sense of envy if others have something that they do not; or a sense of frustration if people believe they deserve something that they do not have.

The manipulation of "relative deprivation" has successfully dominated the campaign, crowding out other issues. The influence of the media on this issue should not be underestimated.

By controlling the social atmosphere, the media is able to shape public opinion in such a way that it can achieve predictable results.

Even voters who aren't particularly interested in the economy -- preferring to focus on Taiwan's democratic development, sovereignty and future direction -- also suffer deeply from "relative deprivation." The issues they value have been overlooked by much of the media, as if they don't exist. This is also why the Intellectuals' Alliance has attempted to provide diverse options for thought to voters before the election.

Much of the public has a sense of "relative deprivation" because of the media's unbalanced reporting, which has been lacking in diversity since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000.

Take the major political events and social conflicts for example. Certain media channels report only parts of such stories to create a so-called "social reality" that meets their own objectives.

The public has been deprived of its right to know the truth. The biased coverage of the intrusion into DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers last Wednesday was an excellent example of this kind of manipulation.

Judging from the media's preset issues, the interpretation of both political and economic events, the partial reporting of certain news and political commentary shows, there appears to be a large gap between the supporters of the two camps in terms of access to media information, an important social resource.

Taiwan will elect a new president on Saturday. Some media outlets are portraying the political situation as the coming of a "new dawn."

However, given the prevailing media bias, we can hardly be so optimistic. If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected, the media's practice of "what we say counts" will only worsen. Media resource distribution may even become more uneven.

But if Hsieh is elected, couldn't such uneven distribution be improved in the face of a ruling minority and an opposition majority?

Now is the time to keep such "relative deprivation" by the media from being employed again in the next election, causing even more social conflict.

Lillian Wang is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.

Has Ma Ying-Jeou Seen the Light?

It seemed like a welcome shift last week when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the fate of Taiwan should be decided by Taiwanese alone. Ma reiterated that position in newspaper ads and signed a declaration condemning the "Anti-Secession" Law enacted by China in 2005 or any other policies that would "hurt the Taiwanese people's feelings."

Even Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) has applauded Ma's apparent turnaround, the same Ma who, in 2006, had argued that the future of Taiwan should be decided by both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Whether this rhetorical shift is heartfelt -- a coming out of sorts, a la former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the 1990s -- or mere politicking has yet to be clarified, but the fact remains that Ma is saying these things publicly and within earshot of Beijing. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of democratic politics that, as election day looms, parties drift toward the center.

And in Taiwan, the center is the "status quo." However uncomfortable it is, the "status quo" is, ironically, quite comfortable. It is the invisible enemy we know rather than the unknown of a sudden shift. It's also a vote-winner, as maintaining that comfortable level of uncertainty seems to be what Taiwanese of all stripes want most.

Welcome as Ma's "determination to defend Taiwan's sovereignty" might be -- and let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he means what he said -- his vow to create friendly cross-strait relations might be more difficult to achieve than he thinks. For upon hearing his comments, Beijing could be forgiven for accusing Ma of himself "heightening cross-strait tensions," in similar fashion to what Ma in the same breath accused the DPP of doing over the past eight years.

Should Ma decide to go down this path, he would soon find -- as every other president before him has found -- that peace across the Taiwan Strait, or its absence, is not in the hands of Taiwanese and their leaders, but in those of the regime in Beijing, which seems to think that time is on its side and that the annexation of Taiwan is inevitable.

In recent years, Beijing had placed its hopes in the KMT, which it saw as a surrogate, a backdoor entry to Taiwan. If Ma shuts that door, it will be 1996 all over again, with the additional layer of 12 years of budding Taiwanese consciousness. Should that happen, all that talk about a common market, of small, medium and big links and friendlier ties will mean very little.

If Ma becomes president, he will soon find out why his predecessors Lee and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) were so reviled in Beijing.

And soon enough, following his rude awakening, life would go back to normal, back to the "status quo." The economy would be no better, no worse, and the main question Ma would need to answer would be the one Lee and Chen had to juggle: How to defend Taiwan against a giant whose pride has yet again been hurt, and who is realizing that the longer the "status quo" prevails, the more time is on Taiwan's side.

Ultimately, Beijing's eyesight is blurry. Lee, Chen, Ma -- for all it cares, Taiwanese on Saturday will be voting for "Ma Teng-bian" or "Hsieh Ying-hui." It doesn't care who is in power in Taiwan. What Beijing covets is real estate, all 35,980km2 of it.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 18, 2008.

Referendum Act Must Be Overhauled to Be Valid

By Lin Kien-tsu 林健次, translated by Anna Stiggelbout

The public is the master of the country. When the public elects representatives, this does not change the fact that the public is the master, and the representatives are their servants. If servants turn around and limit the rights of the public to have a choice in resolving public matters, then the servants lose their legitimacy, and the public has the right to tell these servants to step down.

The Referendum Act (公投法) stipulates that for a referendum to be valid, there must be a turnout of more than half of all eligible voters. This threshold is even higher than that of the presidential and legislative elections, and basically limits the right of the public to make policy decisions. In making this law, the legislature violated the fundamental spirit of the representative system and thus lost its legitimacy.

The legislature is now made up of lawmakers who have been elected under the single member district, two vote system. To be elected, they only needed to win more votes than their opponents. For the legislators-at-large, the number of votes cast for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) combined amounted to less than half of the population. If a legislature made up of legislators elected by these amounts of votes doesn't see a problem with the Referendum Act turning the servants into masters, then it has lost its legitimacy.

The KMT has won an almost three-quarter majority in the legislature in an election with conditions far less strict than those in the Referendum Act. Many people, including some KMT supporters, are concerned that absolute power will lead to absolute corruption. These concerns are another indication of the lack of legitimacy of the legislature.

Many people worry that if Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) becomes president, this will bring the KMT even more power and corruption. Ma emphasizes that he respects the will of the public. KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) also says referendums are sacred, and that the KMT would never abuse its power, even if it was the sole ruling party. If this is true, the easiest way to convince the public of the sincerity of Ma and the KMT, and solve the legislature's legitimacy crisis, would be to lower the referendum threshold to the same level as that for the legislative elections.

The KMT is against holding two referendums in tandem with the presidential election; they say this is using the referendum to "hijack" the poll. But in the Jan. 12 legislative elections, the number of votes cast for the DPP and KMT combined was equivalent to less than half of the population. This shows that even if the referendums were held in accordance with the same standards as the elections, and the DPP and KMT worked together, the referendums would still not necessarily obtain the minimum number of votes, let alone if they were held separately.

If the KMT really has misgivings about elections being "hijacked," it should insist on holding the referendums separately, instead of finding excuses to suppress public opinion and referendums. The legislature should amend the Referendum Act. Only in this way can the KMT lend any legitimacy to its position of holding the referendums separately from the presidential election.

Ma is the one in control of the KMT. If he could lead the KMT- controlled legislature to amend the Referendum Act before the elections and show his ability to lead the KMT's legislators, he would eradicate any suspicion among the public that his election would lead to an abuse of power by the KMT.

This article supports the Nuke-4 Referendum Initiative Association, and its hunger strike in front of the legislature, and expresses my respect for the group.

Lin Kien-tsu is a member of Taiwan Heart and the Taiwan Association of University Professors.

Ma Is On the Wrong Side of History

By Gerrit van der Wees

As Taiwan prepares for the presidential election, the people face a choice for their future. This goes beyond a choice for the next four years: It is more than a continuation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government under the new leadership of Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), or a return to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under new leadership, that of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

The choice between the two men also harbors longer-term consequences for the future of the country: continuation of the trend towards increasing emphasis on Taiwan's own identity and treatment of Taiwan as a nation-state in its own right, or closer ties with Beijing, eventually drifting towards absorption by China in one way or another.

Hsieh is an advocate of the former line: Building on the legacy of the fight for democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, and the consolidation of democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁), he will carefully maneuver to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and expand its international position, while attempting to keep China at bay.

Ma is an advocate of eventual unification, but realizes that he cannot move too swiftly since this would anger the Taiwanese majority and make the US and Japan -- already apprehensive about China's military buildup -- increasingly nervous, so he will emphasize the "status quo" while gradually pushing the envelope toward closer ties with China.

How will they perform if they are elected? How will they stand up to pressure from China -- or from the US for that matter? Are they committed to democracy?

To get a glimpse into their character, it is useful to examine how they acted and reacted in an earlier era: when Taiwan was suffering under martial law in the 1970s and 1980s, and when they rose to prominence, each in his own right.

Both Hsieh and Ma were educated to be lawyers. But there the similarity ends.

Hsieh is a native Taiwanese, who became well-known in Taiwan in 1980, when -- together with a number of other lawyers including Chen -- he voluntarily took up the defense of eight prominent leaders of the tangwai (outside-the-party) democracy movement (including Vice President Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu [陳菊]), who had been arrested and imprisoned by the KMT regime on spurious political charges.

Hsieh was thus willing to stick his neck out and stand up for justice when it counted -- and when few others dared to do so. In the 1980s he became a member of the Taipei City Council, and later was elected to the Legislative Yuan. He was a founding member of the DPP in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, he was the DPP's vice presidential candidate in Taiwan's first-ever democratic presidential elections (together with Peng Ming-min), but lost to Lee.

Ma, on the other hand, is a Mainlander, who was born in Hong Kong and whose parents came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). His father was a high-ranking KMT official, and young Ma grew up in the political elite of the Chinese Nationalists. In the 1970s he went to Harvard for his graduate studies, but several of his Taiwanese fellow students complained that Ma was a "student spy" who collected data for the secret police in Taiwan.

After his return to Taiwan In 1981, he quickly rose to prominence within the KMT. He started as an aide and personal translator for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), and in 1984 became deputy-secretary general of the KMT. In 1993 he was appointed minister of justice by Lee and served in that position until 1996.

Let us examine what his position was during the crucial moments in Taiwan's transition to democracy: In 1985-1986, when Taiwan was still under martial law, he was an ardent defender of martial law, arguing that it enhanced "stability" on the island. He also defended the long prison sentences given to proponents of democracy and human rights.

In lengthy letters to foreign governments and political parties which expressed concern about the lack of democracy in Taiwan, Ma waxed eloquently in defense of the indefensible.

Finally, after many hearings and resolutions in the US Congress by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Claiborne Pell and representatives Jim Leach and Steven Solarz, and after increasing pressure from the bottom up in Taiwan, Chiang Ching-kuo relented and lifted martial law in 1987. Ma had been on the wrong side of history.

Almost the same thing happened in 1991 and 1992, when the democratic movement started to push for abolishment of the "eternal" legislators who had been elected in China in 1947, and who were in their 80s and 90s still representing "China" in the legislature and National Assembly. Again, Ma came out against such changes and wanted to maintain a semblance of "China" representation in the legislature.

Fortunately, Lee had vision and pushed through the legislative reforms. Again, Ma was on the wrong side of history.

Fascinatingly, three years later, the same pattern occurred: Lee started to push for direct presidential elections -- to replace the anachronistic system in which the KMT-controlled National Assembly had rubberstamped the KMT choice for president.

Ma was one of the KMT opponents of this move toward full-fledged democracy. Again, his instincts had been to preserve an outdated status quo, and oppose democratic change.

Ma was a follower, who went along with developments when they became inevitable, while Hsieh stood up when it counted, and defended his principles.

The choice for the people of Taiwan is thus between someone who has opposed democratic change, and wants to edge closer to a repressive, undemocratic China, and someone who has been at the forefront of democratic change, and wants to propel Taiwan forwards in the international family of nations.

It will be a decisive moment in Taiwan's history.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.

Ma Misleading on Unity

Hanna Shen of Taipei

During Sunday's televised presidential debate, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) used the cooperation between EU members as a model for successful economic cooperation between China and Taiwan, or what has been called a "one China market policy."

The comparison is misleading. EU cooperation has been built over years on very strict principles, none of which apply to Taiwan and China.

The EU is composed of 27 independent countries. In other words, each member of the EU recognizes the other members as sovereign nations. This is the foundation for cooperation between European countries and a fundamental condition that does not apply to the relationship between China and Taiwan, as Beijing considers Taiwan a rebel province.

To join the EU a nation must meet the Copenhagen criteria laid down at the June 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, Denmark, which states that a nation must be a stable democracy, respect human rights and the rule of law, protect minorities and have a functioning market economy.

In other words, most of European countries want to form a unity with nations that are politically and economically free, humanitarian and believe that no one is above the law.

Again, none of the above-mentioned applies to China.

Is it then in the interest of Taiwan to join a "one China market" and economically unify with a country that believes in the rule of power, violates human rights and oppresses minorities -- a country that is still far from a free market economy.

Using the EU as an example shows that cooperation and a common market can be built only among countries that have the institutions to preserve democratic governance and human rights.

Ma's China Policy Lacks A Sense of Realpolitik

By Liu Kuan-teh 劉冠德

Sunday's presidential debate rarely touched upon foreign policy. The main reason lies in the fact that China's diplomatic suppression and international isolation of Taipei is not contingent upon any "blue or green" policy.

During the debate, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continued to criticize what he called the Democratic Progressive Party's(DPP) "fire-setting diplomacy" and blamed it for Taiwan's loss of diplomatic allies under President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Ma also blamed the DPP's bids to use the name "Taiwan" to apply for memberships in the WHO and the UN for creating distrust between Taiwan and many allies, including the US.

Since China is behind Taiwan's diplomatic difficulties, Ma promised to start negotiating with China over international space.

For Ma to characterize the DPP government with what he called a "confrontational approach" to Beijing and to overlook the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the real threat to Taiwan's international recognition and security was not surprising.

What concerns most voters is Ma's theory of using the so-called "1992 consensus" as the starting point to resume talks with Beijing. There are inherent contradictions to Ma's approach.

Ma seems to assume that seeking an improvement in cross-strait relations will automatically make China give Taiwan more international space and better treatment. Therefore he argues that both Taiwan and China should stop talking about "mutual recognition" and focus on "no mutual denial."

Ma's idea is wishful thinking and fails to address the question of the different definitions of "one China" made by the KMT and Beijing.

Even though there is no such thing as the "1992 consensus," the KMT advocates the "Republic of China [ROC]" as "one China," while the Chinese Communist Party insists the "People's Republic of China" represents "one China" and that "Taiwan is a part of the PRC."

Beijing does not accept the "Republic of China" as "one China" and has been excluding the ROC's participation in almost every international arena under the KMT's rule.

The then-KMT government enacted the so-called National Unification Guidelines and established the National Unification Council in 1991. Both governments engaged in political dialogue in 1992 and 1993.

The political atmosphere between Taipei and Beijing should have been moderate. However, between 1992 and 1998, Taiwan severed diplomatic relations with South Korea, Saint Lucia, South Africa and the Central Africa Republic. The diplomatic warfare continued even though cross-strait relations seemed relaxed.

How can Ma insist that he is for maintaining Taiwan's sovereignty while engaging Beijing with "no mutual denial?"

The assumption that Beijing would give Taiwan more international respect and space if Taiwan improves cross-strait relations is not realistic.

The most inconvenient truth is: If Ma is elected, Beijing will still not allow Taiwan to have observer status during the World Health Assembly in May.

The newly-elected president of Taiwan will be rejected a transit stop in Washington en route to Taiwan's diplomatic allies in Central America.

Even with a new electoral mandate, Beijing will not accept Ma's attendance at the APEC leadership summit in October.

Unless of course Ma plans to wait until his counterparts accept the so-called "1992 consensus" and then starts to perform his duty as a democratically-elected president of Taiwan. In that case, why would the voters waste their ballots and chose such a coward?

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.

Making "Referendum" A Dirty Word

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's (吳伯雄) announcement yesterday that his party would boycott the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum on UN entry using the name "Taiwan" and back the KMT's own on "returning to the UN" would appear to be the final nail in the coffin of the DPP's plebiscite.

Taking into account that previous KMT boycotts have ensured the failure of all four referendums staged since the Referendum Law was promulgated in November 2003, it signals that the DPP version now has very little chance of passing.

Passage of the KMT's referendum, however, also remains uncertain. Despite Wu's support of the party's plebiscite, several party legislators have already gone public with their intention to boycott both referendums.

The KMT is obviously split along its China-Taiwan divide on the issue and the party's spat can only add to the public's sense of confusion, which has resulted in the term "referendum" almost becoming a dirty word among Taiwanese.

The KMT must take the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon because from day one they have treated the issue of referendums -- with the initiation of "smokescreen" rival plebiscites and irrational arguments about extra ballots "confusing" voters -- with disdain.

The KMT had no qualms about dumping the sham "corruption" referendum it proposed during January's legislative elections, but there was no practical way that it could have done the same this time around, as a boycott of its UN referendum would have put presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in an extremely difficult position.

Ma's "flexible diplomacy" platform is more or less identical to the KMT's referendum question and he had publicly backed the plebiscite on more than one occasion, while Siew was the referendum's initiator.

But the KMT does not deserve all the blame, as the DPP, having waited too long for referendums to become a reality, is equally guilty of damaging what it terms "the sanctity" of the plebiscite.

As polls have repeatedly shown throughout the years, the majority of people in Taiwan are happy with the current state of affairs in cross-strait relations and they do not want to vote on issues that are likely to anger China.

The DPP, however, with its provocative choices for referendum topics, ignored this fact, as well as the concerns of the nation's main security guarantor -- the US -- in the hope of deepening Taiwan consciousness while rallying partisan support on election day.

The DPP would have done better to hold polls on less controversial issues to help the concept of the plebiscite become ingrained in the minds of the electorate, as this would eventually lead to a situation where no political party -- no matter how big its legislative majority -- would be able to make decisions concerning issues of national importance without first putting it to the people.

As it stands now, a huge chunk of the population have been turned off by the idea of referendums, despite the fact that the issue at stake on this occasion is of extreme importance to the nation's future.

Let's hope that a week from Saturday these people can overcome their apathy and come out in support of the referendums, as at least this would send a message, however muddled, to the world that despite all Taiwan's problems, its people are at least united on one issue.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 13, 2008.

How to Give Up A Green Card

Alfred Tsai of Taipei

The statements from both sides on whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is a permanent US resident have been confusing, so I went to the library to look up the issue in a legal encyclopedia. I found an informative article in American Law Reports (193 A.L.R. Fed. 673). Below are two relevant paragraphs: "If an alien has been abroad for a lengthy period of time, however, his commitment to permanently residing in the US is called into question."

"Abandonment of permanent resident status is generally found when there has been a lengthy absence from the US. Whether an alien has abandoned his status is a matter of subjective intention proven by objective facts, the ultimate issue being whether there is a continuing intent to return. Whether there was an intention to maintain permanent-resident status is not the issue, but rather whether there was a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the US."

A "temporary visit abroad" is generally defined as a situation in which either the permanent resident's visit is for a "period relatively short, fixed by some early event" or the permanent resident's visit will terminate upon the occurrence of an event having a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.

A "temporary visit," however, cannot be defined in terms of elapsed time alone.

The alien's intention, when it can be determined, is a controlling factor. Some of the factors a court can use in determining whether an alien harbored a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return are: his family ties, property holdings and business affiliations within the US; the duration of residence in the US; family, property and business ties in the foreign country and whether the alien's conduct while abroad showed that he intended to remain in the foreign country.

The law seems to favor Ma, but he seems quite evasive and his explanation is not of the quality one would expect from a Harvard law graduate. What does he have to hide?

Would the Leader Please Stand Up?

One of the greatest challenges of democracy is giving voice to those sections of society that are most disadvantaged. A successful democratic mechanism must strive to combat marginalization and provide every citizen and social group with the tools to protect their rights and interests.

For this reason, scrutinizing society's treatment of its most marginalized members is an excellent method of gauging progress in democratization.

In this context, the eviction of low-income Aboriginal groups from choice property is hardly a compliment to the system. The Sijhou community of Sindian (新店), Taipei County, is just one example. Sijhou residents are being forced from their homes and there is little they can do about it. Although their homes lie on a designated flood zone, the land will soon be rezoned as safe for development thanks to the construction of a retention wall. But by the time the land is designated as safe, Sijhou's residents will have lost their fight.

Likewise, the government's treatment of another marginalized group of society, sex workers, reveals the chauvinism still ingrained in the system. Under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), it is illegal to sell sex services, but not illegal to pay for them.

Prostitutes themselves say the criminalization of sex work has left them in the hands of organized crime and robbed them of legal recourse against physical abuse and of the option of turning down customers who refuse to wear a condom. The measure increased their hardship without empowering them with the tools to pursue a different livelihood.

That is the message that hundreds of sex workers and supporters took to the streets on Saturday in Taipei in a call to the presidential candidates.

Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) responded by signing an agreement to decriminalize prostitution within two years of being elected, an act the protesters welcomed and hoped was not an election ploy.

His Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), responded by declining to take a stance without first gauging public opinion. As president, Ma said, he would let public consensus steer the matter.

This was also Ma's response to a question on legalizing gay marriage in last month's debate, when he dodged taking a position for or against gay unions by saying public consensus must decide.

Ma seems to have missed the second challenge of democracy. A government mechanism that seeks to promote a society based on the ideals of equality and human rights has a responsibility to push for the interests of all sections of society -- even when this contradicts public opinion. This is the case both here and abroad, in fledgling and mature democracies.

If Ma believes in promoting the values of human rights and democracy, he must be willing to take a stand on issues that involve combating marginalization and intolerance. In Sweden, selling sex services is not punishable, but purchasing them is. This is based on the view that threatening sex workers with prison does little more than further marginalize a struggling section of society.

The next president should be prepared to push for measures to put an end to trafficking, gangster control of brothels, physical abuse of prostitutes, violation of their labor rights and the underlying issues of poverty, drug abuse and social inequality that have repeatedly been linked to prostitution.

A presidential candidate who believes that promoting social progress entails nothing more than gauging public opinion is not fit to take on the burdens of leadership.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 12, 2008.

How Would Democracy in China Play Out?

By Wang Dan 王丹, translated by Ted Yang

China might be under CCP control today, but that does not mean that the party necessarily represents the future of the country.

The results of the presidential election will have a significant impact on the development of cross-state relations. But regardless of whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) or his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) wins the election, both candidates should pay attention to the effect on Chinese democratization and cross-strait relations.

The next 10 years will be a critical period in China's development. A couple factors are especially important.

First, as nationalism continues to ferment, the authorities will engage in the careful manipulation of public opinion.

Second, the strength of China, and especially its military, will continue to grow.

If it keeps growing at the current speed, the risk that China will attack Taiwan will increase.

However, a factor that cannot be determined is the nature of the change of the Chinese state over the next 10 years.

Even if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) insists on highly centralized rule, modern governments will make such rule more difficult, weakening state control of society.

Thus it is important to note to what degree civil society in China will influence the Chinese government in the next 10 years.

The question of whether or not China will democratize is key for cross-strait relations.

It therefore is logical for Chinese democratization to be at the center of Taiwan's policy on China.

This focus provides a long term view of the situation and is in the best interests of the nation.

First, pushing for Chinese democracy helps improve Taiwan's international image.

Taiwan is inferior to China economically, militarily and diplomatically.

Taiwan is only superior to China in its form of government. By upholding democracy, Taiwan can manifest its unique value and gain support and sympathy from the international community -- a strategic advantage over China.

Second, the US would also support a push for Chinese democracy. Since US President George W. Bush took office, and especially during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's term, the US has put a heavy emphasis on promoting democracy all over the world. If Taiwan actively promotes the democratization of China, there will only be praise from the US.

Finally, a push for democracy in China could also gain the support of the Chinese people.

China might be under CCP control today, but that does not mean that the party necessarily represents the future of the country.

Visionary politicians should focus on the budding civil society in China. If Taiwan can offer support for China's democratization, it might win over public opinion there.

No matter where Taiwan is headed, it is vital that it wins the goodwill of the Chinese people.

Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement.

Just Where Does Ma Draw the Line?

By Yao Jen-to 姚人多, translated by Ted Yang

Recently some pan-green academics and social activists organized a forum to challenge Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) with a wide array of questions on national identity, transitional justice, how Hsieh would distinguish himself from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the tax system. Hsieh was required to come clean on all these questions.

Would Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) participate in the same kind of forum? Would pan-blue intellectuals challenge Ma by following the same strict standards? Judging from the KMT's conservative and feudal history and its current campaign strategies, the possibility is probably very low. However, we feel this is a danger to Taiwan's democratic elections. For a long time, voters have voted for a candidate without knowing much about him or her. Should we allow this phenomenon to continue?

As a presidential candidate at this crucial juncture in Taiwan's history, Ma should accept a challenge in the same way as Hsieh did and clearly answer the following questions.

First, clear the air on the green card issue. A green card is a document that grants lawful permanent residency in the US, a prerequisite to immigrating to that country. That he applied for and received a green card indicates that Ma attempted to immigrate to the US in the 1970s when Taiwan was in a difficult situation.

This may not be a big issue for the general public, but as a possible national leader, we need to know what Ma was thinking at the time. Why did he consider leaving Taiwan? Is Taiwan no good?

Second, after losing power, all authoritarian parties have had to undergo a thorough reform process before regaining power. Ma should tell us how the KMT has changed during its eight years in opposition and what he did during his term as party chairman.

Why were the "black gold exclusion clauses" changed to allow him to run for the presidency? Why has he supported local factions with bad records during so many elections? If he was incapable of reforming the KMT, how could people trust him in managing the transformation of the entire nation?

Third, Ma lacks any outstanding achievement since he entered politics. This is ample evidence that he lacks administrative and executive capabilities. This lack of ability is worrying and causes people to lose faith in him.

The KMT is a 100-year-old party with extremely complex internal interests and conflicts, so how could Ma be sure that he would be running the country? Does he know what has happened to the party's ill-gotten assets or the ins and outs of the party's sale of its media companies -- the China Television Co, the Broadcasting Corp of China and the Central Motion Picture Corp? Can he be sure that he is not just a puppet of some more powerful force?

Fourth, over the past eight years the KMT has accused the DPP of cooperating with business conglomerates, but the KMT's relations with these conglomerates doesn't seem more virtuous.

For example, when Taipei Bank and Fubon Financial Holding Co merged when Ma was Taipei mayor, he illegally dismissed the Taipei Bank labor union chairman who was opposed to the deal. This clearly tells us that Ma will choose powerful business conglomerates over disadvantaged workers.

Worse yet, the draft amendment to the Labor Union Law (工會法) was sent to the legislature for a review during the last legislative session, it was blocked by the KMT. Could Ma explain why? When conflicts of interest arise between workers and business conglomerates, which side would Ma take?

Fifth, Ma has said he is Taiwanese to the death. Despite this, he has repeatedly promoted unification. Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere? Is the word "Taiwanese" a regional or a national identification to him?

Could it be that his current claim to be a Taiwanese is aimed at eventually achieving his goal of becoming Chinese?

Some may argue that the forum to challenge Hsieh was simply an election ploy, but I am not going to dignify that with a refutation. I only hope Ma could also employ such "election ploys" and resolve these question marks hanging over him.

Yao Jen-to is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.

Missed Opportunities for Ma, Voters

That the Chinese-language China Times recently printed a story containing rumors and unsubstantiated claims presented as fact should come as no surprise to people familiar with Taiwan's media.

But the latest example, on Feb. 22, when it quoted "unnamed aides" of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) accusing a foreign media organization of the kind of unethical behavior more commonly associated with the local press -- in this case colluding with the Government Information Office to give Ma a hard time ahead of the presidential election -- is noteworthy for two reasons.

First, it resulted in Euro News correspondent Sergio Cantone canceling his trip, losing Taiwan the chance for some valuable news exposure in 27 European countries. Second, it helped Ma avoid something that has been conspicuously absent in the buildup to the election -- an independent examination of his policies.

The fact that the interview would only have been broadcast in Europe and that few people here would have paid any attention to it did not seem to bother the Ma camp as it sought to protect their man from genuine scrutiny. But it needn't have worried, because there is already evidence that Ma doesn't hold up well when the questioning gets tough.

Who can forget Ma's famous lapse during his appearance on the BBC's Hardtalk program in February 2006? When driven into a corner by host Stephen Sackur about his belief in "one China" and unification, Ma resorted to patronizing language, accusing his inquisitor of not being "familiar with Chinese and Taiwanese affairs."

Or, on a visit to the Brookings Institution in March 2006, when the then KMT chairman was asked what he intended to do about bridging the political divide in Taiwan and bringing about political reconciliation, Ma -- presumably taken off guard -- proceeded to deliver an unrelated discourse on Taiwan's relations with APEC, much to the bemusement of the 150 or so high-profile guests in attendance.

But Ma is equally fallible when speaking at home, as his wishy-washy, incomplete responses to the promptings of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rival Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) on a number of personal issues over the last few weeks have demonstrated.

This weakness may have also been behind Ma's decision to dodge Hsieh's numerous invitations to hold a real debate, which, contrary to Central Election Commission-organized talking shops, would have given the candidates the opportunity to really question each other and explore one another's presidential platforms.

It is easy to appear competent when one is given an easy ride. But being president of a country -- especially one in such a precarious position as Taiwan -- is not an easy job. It requires a decisive person, capable of making tough decisions.

Ma, who had a privileged upbringing, has never endured real hardship or had to fight for anything in his life, save perhaps the chairmanship of the KMT.

So how do voters know he has got what it takes to defend the nation's sovereignty from the very real internal and external threats it faces if he is elected president? The simple answer is that on the present evidence they don't, and after March 22 it will be too late.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 7, 2008.

Green Cards and Sovereignty

Huang Jei-Hsuan of California

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) surreptitious hedge on the fate of Taiwan's sovereignty has come home to roost.

The uproar surrounding his loyalties stems from the KMT's haphazard handling of Taiwan's sovereignty. This long-standing mindset is itself a manifestation of the party's ultimate goal of uniting Taiwan with China.

The fact that Ma and the KMT are running his presidential campaign by focusing on integrating Taiwan's economy into China's while muddling all underlying sovereignty issues further underscores the urgency of vetting Ma in that particular light.

During his mercurial rise Ma has at times attempted to convince the Taiwanese people that he is a Chinese Taiwanese. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) once even went so far as to proclaim Ma a "new" Taiwanese. Ma's US green card brouhaha has complicated those claims.

Should it be found that Ma kept his green card in the closet for years, and that the primary reason he tried to become an American in the first place was an instinctive yearning to belong to a nation when the one he was attached to up to that juncture was fast sinking into a "non-nation," the fundamental legitimacy of Ma's candidacy would be called into question. It would indicate the lack an undivided allegiance to Taiwan.

Significantly, Ma applied for his green card in 1974, three years after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) abandoned the Republic Of China's (ROC) seat at the UN and at the height of public anxiety over the imminent derecognition of Chiang's ROC by the US. Equally noteworthy is the fact that Chiang concurrently turned down an opportunity to remain in the UN by refusing to define Taiwan's sovereignty, marking the beginning of another chapter of the KMT's treachery toward Taiwan.

In other words, Ma was, if not still is, a person with a nation while nearly all Taiwanese weren't, at least not with an internationally recognized one, a reality which Chiang ascertained in 1971. This, combined with the fact that Ma has always vehemently defended the notion that the ROC is a state, speaks volume on Ma's disingenuousness.

Ma's constant aversion to an independent Taiwan compounds that outrage. So does his continuing objection to a referendum for a UN bid using the name "Taiwan" that would expand the nation's international space in the long run.

These sentiments reflect the contradiction of Ma's pursuing an office that symbolizes Taiwan's sovereignty, the very subject Ma and the KMT are trying to compromise at every turn.

The moral of Ma's situation should serve as a reminder to the Taiwanese people of the relevancy of issues pertaining to democratization and sovereignty in this month's poll.