Wild Strawberries at Taichung－What I See and What I Hear 列印
大地快捷 - 楊緒東專欄
作者 楊緒東 英譯：禪定
2008/11/18, Tuesday
Wild Strawberries at Taichung－What I See and What I Hear
(台中野草莓－我見我聞)
The student demonstrators’ “Wild Strawberries Movement” is a pro-democracy movement that perpetuates the “Wild Lily Student Movement” that also possesses globally accepted values with wide ramifications. This time around, the fact that the students were able to conduct peaceful demonstrations to demand democracy, freedom, human rights, and legal justices; is an achievement of democracy and education of democratic principles from 20 years of combined administrations of former presidents Lee Tung-Hui and Chen Shui-Bian.
Without debating whether you are for Taiwanese Independence or unification, or pro-Blue or Green; the basic values of Taiwan’s democracy, freedom, human rights, and legal justices can not, and will not, be entirely wiped out simply because of “Chen Yunlin’s visit to Taiwan.”
In the days of my generation, we participated in the Formosa Incident (also known as the Kaohsiung Incident), and have the memory the White Terror fully ingrained. In the time of the “Wild Lily Student Movement,” there was also the problematic issue of military’s attempt to seize political power as well as the party elites’ full control of the government and politics. As for today, the self-motivated student movement of 2008 originates from the self-awareness of a new generation – the new new strawberries generation.
Their sense that their lives are being disturbed, and their survivals are being threatened, are not influenced by the so-called differences in the political point of view.
Therefore, for those 23 million people who live at Taiwan, or the Taiwanese people who currently reside in foreign countries, and Chinese people who still possess conscience, all must respond to this human rights movement that will influence the Chinese people all over the world.
Not to mention that the Chinese people who live in China need the inculcation of the Wild Strawberries even more so!
關閉視窗
2008年11月28日 星期五
Wild Strawberries at Taichung－What I See and What I Hear
給台灣人的一句話
給台灣人的一句話
引用德國神學家馬丁‧尼默勒﹙Martin Niemöller﹚的詩：
當蘇治芬被關時，我沉默了；反正我也不是蘇治芬。
當陳明文被關時，我沉默了；反正我也不是陳明文。
當陳水扁被關時，我沒抗議；反正我也不是陳水扁。
當蔡英文被抓時，我沉默了；反正我也不是蔡英文。
當我被抓時，已經再也沒有人可以抗議的。
2008年11月26日 星期三
Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九
Prev Up Next
HOT MAMA
Sugar Nana, leader of the bikini biking team, and her boyfriend Vincent ride through Pingtung County on their two-week bike tour around Taiwan yesterday.
PHOTO: YEH YUNG-CHIEN, TAIPEI TIMES
Hunger strikes can raise ethics issues for doctors
By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Nov 24, 2008, Page 3
The wave of recent hunger strikes by detained former and current government officials, including former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬) and Chiayi County Commission Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) has not only attracted widespread media attention, but also raised ethical problems for doctors dealing with the hunger strikers.
On Nov. 16, Chen Shui-bian was rushed to the Far Eastern Memorial Hospital after complaining of soreness and discomfort in his chest. It was the fifth day of his hunger strike. He was transferred to Taipei County Hospital in Banciao (板橋) the next day for security reasons.
Yang Chang-bin (楊長彬), the hospital deputy director, said at the time that Chen Shui-bian had high levels of ketone in his blood and was experiencing bloating.
Hunger strikers experience serious risks to their health after three to five days, when the glucose that the body relies on for metabolic processes runs out and the body turns instead to processing fats for energy, said Ho I-chen (何一成), deputy director of the ReShining Clinic.
Fasting or hunger striking may cause elevated levels of ketone, which the brain relies on during lipid synthesis and for energy, Ho said.
When ketone levels are too high, it can lead to ketoacidosis, a potentially lethal condition, he said.
By supplementing the body with glucose, such as through intravenous infusion, the body’s metabolism returns to normal and ketone levels drop very quickly, he said.
When a serious risk is posed to a hunger striker’s health, methods of stabilizing blood pressure and blood sugar levels include feeding nutrients through a nasogastric tube and intravenous infusion of glucose and saline, he said.
A nasogastric tube is a clear plastic tube that is inserted through the nose, down the back of the throat, through the esophagus and into the stomach.
The tube can be used to remove air and digestive juices from the stomach and has also been used as a feeding tube for patients in a coma, Ho said.
There have been many recorded instances in countries around the world of prisoners and detainees being force-fed while in prison, but the practice has been deemed unethical by the World Medical Association (WMA).
Article 21 of the WMA’s Declaration on Hunger Strikers, updated in October 2006, states: “Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable. Even if intended to benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.”
“[Glucose intravenous infusion], if performed under the consent of the patient, is not a form of forcible feeding,” said Wu Chun-ying (吳俊穎), attending physician of Taichung Veterans General Hospital’s Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology and a former member of the Bureau of Health Promotion’s Ethics Committee.
However, “intravenous infusion is only a temporary measure and is not a long-term substitute for food intake,” Wu said.
“Forcible feeding is defined as forcing food into the patient’s mouth against the patient’s will,” he said.
If the physician performs forcible feeding without the patient’s consent, he has violated the Standard Operating Procedure of health care, he said.
If the patient is not in critical condition and is still conscious and capable of making decisions regarding his or her own health, then the physician should communicate with the patient about his or her condition and discuss the available treatments and the consequences of choosing to receive or not receive certain treatments, Wu said.
However, in the case of an emergency where the patient could die if immediate measures are not taken, the physician must evaluate which method is the most appropriate to protect the life of the patient, he said.
In the case of hunger strikes, insertion of a nasogastric tube is preferred over force-feeding through the mouth, which is unsafe as it can trigger gagging reflexes and result in suffocation, he said.
The physician must perform such measures in order to preserve the patient’s life, even if it is against the patient’s will, but “only in times of emergency,” he said.
“The practice of force-feeding is not clearly detailed in the current medical laws in Taiwan,” said Lin Yi-lung (林義龍), chairman of the Association of Medical Law in Taichung. “Since it is not clearly punishable by law, the issue becomes one of ethics.”
Medical personnel in Taiwan are not bound by WMA declarations, which are not legally binding, he said.
“When a criminal or a person suspected of criminal activity has been detained or imprisoned and refuses to eat, the detention center cannot allow the hunger strike to go on if the person’s life is in critical condition,” Lin said.
“A [prisoner or detainee] who goes on hunger strike is enacting his right of resistance against the government. But if in doing so the person puts his life in danger, then the detention center has the right and duty to save the person’s life, even if forcible measures must be taken,” Lin said.
“In this case, they are not violating the law,” Lin said.
The detention center that sends the detainee to the hospital authorizes the hospital to provide health care to the patient in order to save his or her life, in which case the detention center acts on behalf of the patient to give consent for receiving treatment, he said.
In this case, neither the detention center nor medical personnel have violated any law concerning forced medical treatment, he said.
Chen Shui-bian’s lawyer Cheng Wen-long (鄭文龍) and Far Eastern Memorial Hospital spokesperson Sophie Hsieh (謝淑惠) both confirmed that the former president had consented to intravenous infusion when he was taken to the hospital on Nov. 16.
Strawberries stage ‘memorial service’ for human rights
INVITATIONS: Student protesters sent notices of the death of the nation’s human rights to President Ma Ying-jeou and other politicians across party lines
By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Nov 24, 2008, Page 3
Members of the Wild Strawberries Student Movement lie on the ground yesterday at the Liberty Square in front of National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall in Taipei to depict the wounded and dead as part of their mock memorial service for human rights.
PHOTO: CNA
The Wild Strawberry Student Movement held a mock “memorial service” yesterday for human rights at the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.
Wearing white head coverings and face masks, a few dozen protesters gathered at Liberty Square, carrying placards that read “Freedom of speech” and “Free from violence” and offering their “condolences” to rights they said have been trampled by the government.
The memorial service “symbolizes our sadness toward [the government’s] violations of human rights during [Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman] Chen Yunlin’s [陳雲林] stay in Taiwan,” said Lo Shih-hsiang (羅士翔), a spokesman for the movement.
The students began their silent sit-in on Nov. 6 to protest what they called excessive police force against demonstrators who opposed Chen’s visit between Nov. 3 and Nov 7.
After police removed the students from outside the Executive Yuan, they moved their demonstration to the square on Nov. 7.
The group has continued its demonstrations at the square every day, calling for immediate amendments to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) to scrap regulations requiring police approval for demonstrations.
The students had sent out “notices of death” of the nation’s human rights to politicians across party lines, including President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), and to National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明). Only Tsai attended the mock funeral.
When approached by reporters, Tsai said she wanted to encourage the students, but that she did not want their demonstration to be labeled as an activity organized by the pan-green camp.
Speaking on the assembly law, Tsai said the former DPP administration “failed to pay enough attention or push for amending or abolishing the Assembly and Parade Law. We feel very sorry.”
The students also expressed opposition yesterday to a requirement by the Ministry of Justice that schools nationwide recruit personnel to implement government ethics policies.
The ministry sent formal notices to all government branches asking schools, government agencies and state-run enterprises to recruit the personnel.
The move drew widespread criticism across party lines, with many legislators calling the measure reminiscent of the Martial Law era, when all schools had human resource units in charge of spying on public servants and reporting back to the ministry.
The DPP caucus said the ministry’s requirement may violate the 1992 Act Governing the Establishment of the Government Employee Ethics Units and Officers (政風機構人員設置條例), which says the legislature, local councils, military agencies and public schools do not need to establish such units.
“The students of the Wild Strawberry Student Movement are worried that schools ... will be threatened by the White Terror again,” the students said in a press release.
China rebuts ‘slanderous’ report on torture
AP, BEIJING
Monday, Nov 24, 2008, Page 5
Chinese police kick a protester after rioters burned and smashed local government buildings and destroyed vehicles in Longnan, Gansu Province, on Wednesday. Police arrested 30 people during two days of protests that erupted after homes were demolished to make way for a new government building. The Chinese Foreign Ministry yesterday rebutted a UN report on China’s “widespread use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in police custody.”
PHOTO: AFP
The Chinese Foreign Ministry rejected a UN panel’s report alleging that police in China used torture, calling the accusations “untrue and slanderous” and saying some panel members were prejudiced against Beijing.
In a 15-page report released on Friday in Geneva, the UN Committee against Torture said it was “deeply concerned about the continued allegations, corroborated by numerous Chinese legal sources, of the routine and widespread use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang (秦剛) said some members of the committee were “prejudiced” against China, had ignored evidence presented by the Chinese government on the issue of torture and were citing unverified or fabricated information.
“They put untrue and slanderous comments into the committee’s final conclusion, which lacks justice and professional objectiveness, against which [sic] China firmly opposes,” Qin said in a statement on the ministry’s Web site.
Qin did not elaborate on his claims.
The UN report alleged the use of torture in police custody in present and past incidents.
It called for a “full and impartial” investigation into those who were detained in the June 1989 military assault on student-led protests in Tiananmen Square and urged the Chinese government to compensate and apologize to their families.
The US State Department said last year that between 10 and 200 Tiananmen activists were estimated to still be in prison.
Hundreds of people are believed to have been killed in the crackdown.
The panel urged Beijing to abolish all forms of forced labor, which are imposed for minor crimes and often without trial. China should also stop the use of “secret prisons” and the harassment of lawyers and human rights campaigners who highlight abuses, and should investigate the March crackdown on anti-government forces in Tibet, during which exile groups say at least 140 people were killed and more than 1,000 detained, the panel said.
While acknowledging that China has made an effort to outlaw torture in some instances, the panel said Beijing still had to do more to meet its obligations under the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture.
Qin said China has fulfilled the obligations set out in the UN convention and that it continued to make efforts to address the issue.
Ma has to answer to the public
By Chen Mao-hsiung 陳茂雄
Monday, Nov 24, 2008, Page 8
The government has decided to hand out consumer vouchers to every citizen, including the wealthy. It is the first policy of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) to receive more praise than criticism.
If the scheme had taken the form of a tax rebate, the policy would have only served the rich. If the wealthy were excluded from the scheme, those able to consume would not participate and most vouchers would be exchanged for cash at a lower rate. This would not stimulate consumer spending and would be considered part of a social welfare program at best.
Given that household sizes vary, it would have been unfair if the distribution process had been based on households. Distributing the vouchers to individuals was the correct decision. Although the proposed budget of NT$82.9 billion (US$2.5 billion) will not necessarily boost consumption, it could reduce public resentment.
The most serious problem facing the country is its withering consumer market. Since soaring unemployment is attributed mainly to businesses closures, the government should give first priority to stimulating consumer spending. It is still questionable whether the vouchers will be able to rescue the economy. After all, some people might convert their vouchers into cash and save the money.
The real purpose of the vouchers is to reduce social resentment. Everybody knows that the government is trying to save the economy, although the plan, despite the multi-billion dollar budget, will serve more as an advertisement than a real stimulus.
The Ma government’s biggest weakness is that it does not know how to calm public complaints. This is the first time it has found a way to effectively reduce public dissatisfaction, but unfortunately there are many more complaints for the administration to work on.
Most Taiwanese are finding it hard to make ends meet, but they never consider the reasons behind that fact and only want someone to take responsibility. When a disaster happens, natural or man-made, the public always expects someone to take responsibility.
Ma believes that his administration is not in the wrong, and therefore should not be held accountable for the economic meltdown, and this has added more fuel to public indignation.
When the Pachang Creek (八掌溪) tragedy happened in 2000, then-vice premier Yu Shyi-kun stepped down to take political responsibility. Former minister of education Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) did the same when an auditorium roof collapsed at National Feng-yuan Senior High School in 1983. When a political appointee takes office, he or she should be prepared to step down, unlike civil service bureaucrats. If Ma continues to treat political officials as civil officials, it will be hard to reduce public resentment.
Pan-blue politicians and supporters do not like former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Still, he managed to deal with political officials in ways Ma cannot do. Some pan-green individuals have complained that Chen was too ruthless because whenever something happened, he would sacrifice his ministers or aides.
Political appointees don’t always step down because they made a mistake but rather to take responsibility to help reduce public anger. Where Chen’s concern was the reaction of voters and using his administration as a tool to win supporters, Ma’s only concern is his administration and the hope that it will be as efficient as possible.
Grassroots officials should take care of their staff in order to bring out the best in the team. Ma has forgotten that he is responsible for the entire nation, not just his administration. Three Cabinet officials have been impeached by the Control Yuan, but the premier said they were only reprimanded. There are only two kinds of punishment for political officials — discharge and reprimand. So for a political appointee to be reprimanded is serious, no matter what the premier said. Ma’s protection of his administration will only make the public think that all he really cares about is his team.
Ma asked public officials not to accept wreaths and to eat lunch boxes rather than lunching at restaurants. Many people also asked that he not contain consumer spending. The government’s decision to issue consumer vouchers means that it has understood the economics of consumption. Let’s just hope it will start understanding other issues as well.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Taiwan doesnt’ want puppet leader
Monday, Nov 24, 2008, Page 8
Four cross-strait agreements were signed at the meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) earlier this month. Last Monday, Chiang and Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) finally gave the legislature a belated report on the pacts. This rash attempt to dodge public supervisionwas strongly criticized in the legislature.
The fact is that both the form and content of the Chiang-Chen meetings were conducted within the framework of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) communication platform. And they are pressing on: The next meeting within this framework will be held in Shanghai next month as the two parties prepare to establish a cross-strait economic framework. It is clear that they want to continue to manipulate public perception of the Chiang-Chen talks. If President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continues to behave like a puppet, he will end up like the last Chinese emperor Puyi (溥儀), living in exile in a puppet state.
The attempt to solve the cross-strait issue through peace talks between the KMT and the CCP has been part of China’s united front strategy ever since then-chairman of the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress Ye Jianying (葉劍英) proposed his nine principles for peaceful unification with Taiwan in 1981. This wishful thinking is based on the idea that the Chinese civil war is not over and that Taiwan’s sovereignty and democratization must be undone.
This view has remained constant through Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) six points and Jiang Zemin’s (江澤民) eight points to the communiques issued by Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Hu and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜).
Faced with China’s attempts to ignore the fact that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) refused to have any contacts, negotiations or compromises with China, his so-called “three noes.” Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) insisted on talks between two equal states in his six points, which led to the birth of the SEF and ARATS.
However, after the KMT’s return to power, Ma resumed talks following a decade-long hiatus. But what is left of the old framework is only an empty shell, and the promise that second track party to party talks or private exchanges would not override official talks and replace the central government’s role has been proven to be just empty talk.
The first Chiang-Chen meeting in Beijing in June and their second meeting in Taipei this month were both orchestrated by the KMT-CCP communication platform. Before the four agreements signed this month have been reviewed by the legislature, the government has already decided to hold the Shanghai meeting, and it plans to invite more than 100 people from Taiwan’s financial, industrial and commercial sectors along with Chinese industrialists to provide policy guidance.
We can no longer talk about merely allowing private enterprise to pressure the government or letting the party lead the government — pressing on like this before the results of the first meeting have been dealt with is evidence that business is all-important and that what ever the party says goes, reducing Ma to a rubber stamp.
The issues Lien will discuss as the leader of the delegation to the Shanghai meeting — allowing financial institutions from each side to establish cross-strait entities, cross-strait cooperation in financial supervision and allowing Chinese investors to invest in Taiwan — are all issues that still haven’t been properly evaluated by Ma or his government.
On one hand, the KMT is trying to make the government do the impossible, while on the other hand, it is cheering on the CCP and thoroughly destroying the conditions for negotiations. How will the SEF and the ARATS be able to negotiate in the future? Even more serious, on what grounds do these two despotic parties neglect consulting with the public and ignoring the official channels between the two governments, instead making their own unilateral decision on issues that involve the interests and well being of the general public?
This situation is repeated time and again which raises the question of whether Ma only is capable of suppressing the public with the police force and letting the Cabinet override the legislature while he capitulates before the KMT-CCP communication platform. It is not very strange that someone has said that Ma is “truly” stupid when it comes to China and only “acts” stupid when it comes to Taiwan.
In June, the CCP Politburo held an extended meeting in Beidaihe, which included representatives from all agencies involved with Taiwan: the United Front Work Department, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the CCP Central Committee’s General Office and the Taiwan Affairs Office. The meeting concluded that economic, cultural and social exchanges with Taiwan should be expanded until 2012 to increase dependence, and that after Ma’s re-election in 2012, China will immediately propose political demands in order to resolve the Taiwan issue before 2016.
The meeting also specified three targets for intensified united front work: Those with political power, those with cultural knowledge and the wealthy. Looking at recent developments, one cannot help but wonder if several powerful and rich Taiwanese already are humming the Chinese tune.
In democracies, relations between states follow clear rules. If party exchanges become the fulcrum around which China’s control and manipulation of Taiwan turns, then what is the difference between the KMT and any other fifth column?
Ma claims that military and foreign affairs are the president’s responsibility, but if he continues to be unable to stop the KMT-CCP communication platform from growing more powerful, he may not necessarily become a “last emperor,” but will be more like a child emperor under Hu’s supervision. Even if he may be happy seeing himself that way, the Taiwanese public will follow their own will. And they do not intend to become slaves in a vanquished country.
Prev Up Next
2008年11月23日 星期日
kiss china's ass
only Chinese MA can kiss China's ass
www.ChinaPost.com.tw
China's missile deployment monitored, MND head says
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
CNA
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Minister of National Defense Chen Chao min said yesterday that whatever new types of missiles or weaponry China is deploying along its coastlines opposite Taiwan, they are all a military threat to the island.
"The Ministry of National Defense is gaining a better understanding of the latest report on China's deployment of cutting-edge YJ-62A guided missiles along its southeast coasts, and we will take necessary measures to deal with this," Chen said at the Legislative Yuan.
The United Daily News yesterday quoted "reliable military intelligence sources" as indicating that China's deployment of YJ-62A guided missiles along its southeast coastlines will be completed soon, with the entire Taiwan area and its maritime territory within firing range.
The YJ 62A, a Chinese subsonic anti-ship missile that debuted at the end of 2006, can also be used as a land attack cruise missile and has a maximum range in excess of 400 km, according to the daily.
Copyright © 2008 The China Post.
Back to Story
2008年11月22日 星期六
歸途
我心目中的日本—書評（3） 列印
新聞報導 - 楊緒東專欄
作者 台灣大地文教基金會董事長 楊緒東
2008/11/21, Friday
這次搭配的圖片是楊緒東醫師的心靈畫作「歸途」
主要在表明這種魚，必須歷經千辛萬苦，回家鄉生產後代，方能力盡而亡
也呼應盧千惠女士所言「這塊土地在國民黨的統治下，己經被污染。收取賄賂、自私自利，這些成了台灣人文化的一部份。這樣的文化我不會也不想習慣！要將政治帶往正確的方向，首先就必須要去除這些惡習。而這也就是我們回來的目的。」
*粗體字為楊緒東醫師撰寫之書評
海外的台灣獨立運動有著「真情」的感動，現在的台灣建國運動，太多山頭還須團結，才能平順建國。
柳文卿先生是和我們一起推動台灣獨立運動的好朋友。那時候他才剛修完東京教育大學（現在的筑波大學）的碩士課程，和我們一樣被沒收了護照，而且因為已經不是學生身分，也拿不到留學簽證，必須每個月到入國管理局去辦理簽證延期手續。
3月26日，柳文卿先生像往常一樣，前住位在品川的東京入國管理局，但是卻遲遲沒有回來，他的朋友很擔心，就打電話和世楷聯絡。世楷前往入國管理局，對方卻什麼也不肯說。情急之下，只好像無頭蒼蠅一樣到處找、到處問，最後終於從千葉縣選出來的水野清議員那兒得到消息，告訴我們柳先生被關，並且透露他明天早上九點就會被強制遣送回台灣。
獨立聯盟的朋友們當天晚上就趕忙集結在辦公室，商量計劃著怎麼在柳先生被遣返之前把他救出來。最後決定兵分兩路，一組人往羽田機場出發，另一組人則是到品川和橫濱的入國管理局去。
外子負責開車前往品川的入國管理局；按照計劃，他要埋伏等護送車出現，然後用車去衝撞護送車，讓柳先生上不了飛機。只要遣送回台灣的日子延期一天，大野正男律師就可以在禮拜一的一大早，到東京地方裁判所遞出強制遣返執行停止命令。大野正男律師後來當上最高法院的法官，當時的他不但從未計較過律師費用，有多少拿多少，還對著束手無策的我們，兩手壓在桌上，鞠著躬說：「很抱歉，日本政府做了這樣的事。」
世楷在入國管理局門外等了又等，就是不見押送柳先生的車子出現。原來他們己經在前一晚偷偷地將他送到機場的拘留室了。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“和外子、同志相遇”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.91-92。
我們後來才知道，事實上在此之前，日本政府早就和台灣政府談好交換條件。當時位在長崎的難民收容所裡關著100多名的台灣毒販，日本政府有意將他們引回台灣，但是台灣方面就順勢要求，在引渡回台灣的人犯當中，一定得包括在日本從事反政府運動的人員，台灣才願意接受這些毒販。不得已，日本政府只好答應。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“和外子、同志相遇”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，p. 92。
台灣政府處理完柳文卿先生之後，下一個目標就是外子了。隔年，也就是1969年，世楷再去辦理簽證更新手續時遭到拒絕。當時正好是世楷來到日本第10年，繼早稻田大學碩士學位之後，取得了東京大學博士學位，剛成為津田塾大學助教授的時候。原本還慶幸著從此可以走出不安定的學生生活，誰知道又遭遇到這樣的難關。
1969年10月13日，我們接到來自法務部的通知，要世楷「在兩個禮拜之內離開日本」。
周遭有許多人為我們擔心，紛紛跑到法務部請託，希望能准許讓世楷留下來。還有人在報紙上投書寫著：「明知道有危險還把他送回去，這是無視人權的做法！」認識的議員們也到處想辦法，津田塾大學的教授會也出面向法務部陳情，但所得到的回答都是「NO！」
這時候的我，心裡已有覺悟，也做下了決定，如果世楷真的被強制遣返，不管將會受到什麼處置，我都要一起回台灣去。
世楷說，他將會一直講課，直到規定離開的那天為止，所以仍然到學校去。另外，撰寫民法學者我妻榮先生監修的《日本政治裁判史錄》稿子的工作也繼續著。就在法務部所規定的「兩個禮拜」期限前兩、三天，世楷帶已經完成的稿子到我妻先生家中交給他，並且就剩下的部份恐怕無法完成的事向他道歉。
我妻先生問清楚原因後相當吃驚，同時告訴世楷：「明天到法務部八樓來！」
隔天一到法務部，世楷這才知道，原來我妻先生是法務部的特別顧問。我妻先生把常務次長叫來，讓世楷說明事情原委，聽完後便提出要求：「我願意當許先生的保證人，你們再一次重新審理他的居留資格。」
就這樣，在強制遣返日迫在眉睫前，我們意外得救了。
當時我妻先生雖然什麼也沒說，不過幾年後，在《日本政治裁判史錄》出版紀念會上，他告訴我們：
「那件事還真是千鈞一髮，因為台灣政府和日本政府先已有共識，要把你遣返。幸好，在大學時和岸信介君是同班，彼此有交情，打電話跟他說這樣做太不人道了，他也這麼覺得，才答應設法把你留下來。」
而也因為世楷這件個案的關係，除了之前已被遣返的柳文卿以外，其他原本也要遭到遣返的同伴，統統免除被強制送返的命運，順利地逃過一劫。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“和外子、同志相遇”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.93-95。
記得唸中學時，我在教會跟著從美國來的宣教師讀《聖經》。有次談論到當時正值狂傲年紀的我們，曾經對究竟有無「奇蹟」這件事提出懷疑。就在那時，宣教師告訴我們：「所謂的奇蹟，它是集結了眾多人的愛，再加上上帝的愛，所產生不可思議的事。」他那溫和的態度和語調，讓我至今仍然記憶猶新。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“和外子、同志相遇”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，p.95。
更早期的台灣人認同中國，想幫助中國成為民主大國，現在的阿九家屬皆是美國人，而依附中國，坐享兩國的扶持就不顧台灣人民的建國行動，而急於回復到專制中國的懷抱。
話說祖父離開養母家之後，就和哥哥一起工作。有一天他在街角看到一位紅著臉、身材很高的洋人站在那兒吹喇叭。那個人在做什麼呢？好奇之餘，便在那裡停下腳來。「上帝正在找尋走失了的孩子」，突然，那個洋人用不太標準的台語開始說著上帝的故事。這位洋人也就是凱恩貝．慕迪牧師。他說的「放蕩浪子」的故事令祖父很感興趣，同時也覺得這個人說的上帝，應該是可以相信的。就這樣，從此以後祖父便每個星期天都到教會做禮拜。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“2位祖父與雙親 各自不同的日本緣份”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，p.101。
那是我還在唸高中時候的事情，有一天，發現外祖父客廳牆上，掛著一幅上頭署名梁啟超所寫的「行氣如虹」四個大字，就問外祖父：「為什麼會有他的東西呢？」外祖父於是便把他和梁啟超見過面的事情告訴我。
原來外祖父在年輕的時候，是台灣人政治先師林獻堂先生的祕書。說到林獻堂的貢獻，他曾設立「台灣同化會」，為求台灣人也能享有和在台日本人相同的權利；又不遺餘力地推動台灣議會設置運動；要求對台灣總督所發布條例及編烈的預算擁有審議權等。外祖父是在陪同林獻堂先生到日本時，在京都和清朝改革派，當時亡命日本的梁啟超先生會面。
原本以為自己會講中文，應該也可以和梁啟超先生溝通的。沒想到，梁啟超先生的中文裡有著濃濃的廣東口音，外祖父怎麼聽也聽不懂。
「我想我的中文裡也有嚴重的台語腔，梁先生也是聽不懂。最後我們只好用筆談。」
後來，林獻堂先生曾經請梁啟超先生來台灣，商計台灣的出路，但是得到的回答是：「現在的中國己經沒有力氣去管台灣的事了，台灣人只能靠自己的力量考量未來的前途，我們什麼忙也幫不上。」
從前在學校裡曾經學過「梁啟超是清朝末年的改革派」，如今聽外祖父說著實際和他會面的情形，讓我十分感興趣。而平常一向不曾和孫子們和顏悅色地講話的外祖父，意外地能跟孫子談起自己年輕時的重要回憶，那時的外祖父看得出來相當高興。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“2位祖父與雙親 各自不同的日本緣份”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.103-104。
有guts的民主家族，會做正確的選擇，知識份子讀了許多書，要比一般人能自覺自悟，而讀哈佛的阿九呢？
許世楷的祖父和我的外祖父，當年都從事過抗日運動。至於世楷父親許乃邦，先是在京都大學法學部就讀，畢業後又進入東京大學經濟學部；司法考試及格後，在東京擔任律師工作，之後又回到台中當律師。就我們父母的那個時代來看，公公可說是個真正的知識份子。
戰後，公公在台中地方法院擔任推事，那時候的中國人都習慣用賄賂的手法，認為不賄賂，官司就不可能打贏。
有一年，公公家裡送來了一盒中秋月餅，當時是由佣人收下。等公公回家後打開一看，盒子裡裝的根本就不是月餅，而是錢；公公相當生氣，立刻叫來法院警察，把送餅的人抓起來。結果對方還一直辯稱他是「遵照中國式的做法」，哪有什麼錯？！
由於公公是受日本司法教育、個性堅毅正直的人，怎麼也不能認同處處賄賂的中國式作為，所以在「228事件」後，就辭去法官的職務。上了年紀之後，有一段時間曾到美國，還有來日本和我們住在一起。
還記得公公住在日本的那一段時間，每次和公公一起外出，走到車站附近，他一定會掏出錢來說：「這拿去買車票。」
「不用了！爸爸，世楷現在在大學工作，有收入。我來買！」
「不！長輩本來就應該付錢的。」
從這些小事就可以知道，公公真的是個一板一眼的人。
如今「代表處」的官邸，還掛有公公送給我們的掛軸。上面寫著：
欣愉節守志彌堅
這是在1972年外子生日時，從台灣寄來的禮物，表示對外子參與獨立運動的支持與聲援。當時上頭的署名為「高見」。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“2位祖父與雙親 各自不同的日本緣份”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.108-109。
在當時世楷參加獨立運動的情況下，如果公公在掛軸上用本名，恐怕會招來一些不必的麻煩。署名「高見」，不但比較安全，世楷也一看就知道，可說是兩全齊美。
至於世楷的母親洪金雀，是位醫生，畢業自東京女子醫專。在那個時代，女性同時又是醫生，那真是少之又少。她一直工作到近70歲才退休。個性非常開朗的婆婆，在69歲因膝蓋疼痛到醫院就醫時，醫生告訴她診斷結果為「老人性關節炎」。她十分不解，還反問醫生：「為什麼是『老人性』呢？」
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“2位祖父與雙親 各自不同的日本緣份”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，p.110。
阿九現在最怕台灣人搞建國，由於中華民國在台灣的法理地位不為國際所承認，就強迫台灣人要與中國統一，其態勢越來越明顯，台灣人要自救，只有革命一途，流血的犧牲會是必然的結果。
事件的經過首先要回溯到事件發生前16年，也就是1972年，外子著手寫下了「台灣共和國憲法草案」。當初之所以會寫下草案，主要是想把主張獨立，以及未來計劃要把台灣建設成一個怎樣的國家等訴諸文字，認為以憲法草案的形式呈現會更加適合。
完成後，由台灣獨立運動的日本本部成員一起檢討，加以修改，1975年在美國的台灣獨立聯盟世界總本部的會議中提案，之後由世楷負責進行重寫作業。
1988年年底，一天，接到台灣的雜誌社社長鄭南榕先生打來的電話。
「我們想在我們發行的《自由時代》週刋上，發表台灣共和國憲法草案。」
「你說的是哪一份草案？」
「前一陣子我們己經從張燦鍙先生那兒拿到草案的影印本了。」
外子認為這個草案是十幾年前的舊東西，現在拿出來似乎不太妥當，而且現在正在進行重寫作業，再過不久就可以完成，外子請鄭南榕先生再等一下。「不！我們等不及了！想要現在馬上就發表！」鄭南榕先生回答。
於是外子只好將己經完成的一半以上部份先傳真給鄭先生，剩下的就在那天夜裡徹夜趕工，隔天一早送過去。
草案刊出後，《自由時代》爆發性地大賣，但也因為這樣，鄭南榕先生在隔年一月遭到檢察署以叛亂罪進行告發。警察命令他出面應訊，他不從。「我就算死也不去，為什麼要逮捕我？台灣應該要有言論自由的！」然後就把自己關在雜誌社裡。
在我的日記裡，這麼記載著當時的事情。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“回到美麗島的懷抱”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.114-115。
高等檢察官陳耀能對南榕發出出庭命令書，但南榕不予理會，理由是他覺得自己並沒有理由被傳喚。而他也婉拒了身邊朋友要他暫時逃出台灣的建議，打算和國民黨一黨獨裁的司法做徹底的對抗。
「生在這個時代，要愛台灣同時就要忍受痛苦。對於一個愛台灣愛到入骨的人來說，只有選擇孤獨的道路。2,000萬人光是嘆息，並不能軟化獨裁者的心，但是，一個滿載2萬人憤怒的示威抗議，卻可以促使獨裁者自制。」南榕在二月號的雜誌上這麼寫著。
之後，警察想要逮捕鄭南榕先生，他說：「我不會活著讓你們抓的！」他在報社準備了一個裝滿的汽油桶，自鎖在編輯室繼續做出版的工作。
他的夫人葉菊蘭女士和高俊明牧師，還有許多人都出面說服他，要他別這麼做。
外子也不斷用電話、傳真和他連繫，甚至告訴他：「如果有出國的打算，一些偷渡所需要的東西，我們都會幫你準備好。」可是鄭南榕先生的意志相當堅定，一點也不動搖。
我則是透過各種管道尋求集體連署簽名，設法展開救濟活動。包括日本的PEN Club組織，我也向他們請求協助。
但是就在4月7日，當著強行衝入企圖逮捕的警察面前，鄭南榕先生點火自焚了。李登輝先生因為才剛就任總統不久，還沒有力量阻止這件事，最終無法救回鄭南榕先生的性命。
雖然這事件的結局令人痛心，但它確實促使了台灣的言論自由向前邁了一大步。站在反政府立場的報紙，用大大的篇幅刊出這則新聞和憲法草案，讓它廣為台灣人所知曉。為爭取言論自由，賭上自己性命的鄭南榕先生，功勞真的很大。
在那以後，李登輝先生在總統任內，對政治犯予以減刑或釋放，並在1992年5月修正刑法100條（內亂罪）。從此以後，言論自由得到保障，黑名單也實際得到解除。
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“回到美麗島的懷抱”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.117-118。
黑名單的時代又要來臨，我發現各地的情治人員，四處到台灣國的地點收集情報，聽說是「上級」有「交代」，阿九執政又有一批台灣人要被清算鬥爭？
1992年10月15日，我終於回到睽違34年，對外子來說就是33年的台灣。那天在機場，有好幾千人來迎接我們，沒想到陣容居然這麼龐大。我們一邊接受媒體採訪，一邊走出機場；到了機場外，才發現天空正下著小雨。即使如此，還是聚集了許多人，他們都是從台灣各地趕來的群眾。
總算回到故鄉了。我的眼睛因為小雨而濕潤了起來，唇邊也不禁喃喃唸起羅塞提的詩。
請佑那溫暖我心的國土
那片充滿慈愛、讓人心快的土地
未加修飾真心的臉龐
聽來心怡的美麗語言
請接受我的心吧
那最真誠溫柔
我思念的國家啊！請接受我的眼淚吧！
外子臨時在車上演講了起來，由於事前並沒有提出演講申請，警官馬上喊：「停止演講！」不准外子再講下去。擔任總指揮的李應元先生向警察說：「再給他五分鐘，他離別了故鄉30多年心中有千萬想說的話。」
當天的記者招待會上，有記者對外子提出詢問：「有人回到國內後因為水土不服，後來又回到國外居所。請問你們適應台灣的生活嗎？」
「我們在生活、語言習慣都不同的異鄉過了30多年，在無親無戚的海外結婚、生子。在別人的社會都能立足，占有一席之地了，回到自己的故鄉，我想沒有不習慣的道理。
只是，這塊土地在國民黨的統治下，己經被污染。收取賄賂、自私自利，這些成了台灣人文化的一部份。這樣的文化我不會也不想習慣！要將政治帶往正確的方向，首先就必須要去除這些惡習。而這也就是我們回來的目的。」
盧千惠著／鄭清清譯，2007，“回到美麗島的懷抱”《我心目中的日本》，玉山社，pp.120-122。
延伸閱讀：
我心目中的日本—書評（2）
我心目中的日本—書評（1）
中共港澳工委祕密發展地下黨員
國民黨怕什麼？
Protesters heckle Ma ahead of meeting
APEC Web site removes data
Hsutung's BLOG
楊緒東專欄
最後更新 ( 2008/11/21, Friday )
關閉視窗
2008年11月20日 星期四
是誰在亂?
2630~阿扁的罪狀
Posted: 20 Nov 2008 01:26 AM CST
製片: sobeit
到底是誰在亂?
Posted: 19 Nov 2008 08:30 PM CST
最近出現那麼多群眾運動, 有人說經濟已經爛成這樣子, 不要再鬧了
我們倒是可以來看看, 到底是誰在鬧
現在公權力到底在誰的手裡?
現在是誰在主政?
到底誰有能力亂搞?
20080903馬英九：希望在2016年達到633目標
20070719蕭萬長下豪語 國民黨執政股市萬點起漲
20080917劉兆玄:台灣景氣第4季可望因擴大內需好轉
20080719台股跌不停 曾說兩萬點 經長：玩笑話
20081028台經長：馬上好 只是競選口號
20080623邱正雄：外資看多台股 現是中長期買點
20080905台股慘跌 財長要投資人自己負責 有人賠到自殺 李述德：個人問題
20080521馬部會拒收花 花店叫苦連天
20080601新生活運動，浪費就是「缺德族」
20080609綠卡風暴延燒 劉兆玄回應稱要有國際觀
20080606被指仍持綠卡 薛香川沒有正面回應 只強調愛台灣
20080628觀光局迎陸客 簡體官網無國旗 國號、國旗沒了！
20080618若見陳雲林 馬：就互稱先生
20080904馬：兩岸非國與國 屬特別關係
20081103總統馬英九日前指稱，兩岸關係不是以「國籍」劃分，是以「戶籍」劃分
20080603吳伯雄「感覺」對岸不可能射飛彈
20081116国民党秘书长：两情若相悦 统一又何妨？
20081012中國漁工上岸工作// 勞團轟馬 變相開放陸勞
20080531拍馬屁？拚觀光？苗縣要蓋「馬奮館」
20081106陳雲林訪台不願見中華民國國旗 抗議升級
20081106上揚員工：警察逼我們關音樂
20081112中縣府查請假 綠批白色恐怖
20080919馬英九在辛樂克颱風來襲期間，還是天天去游泳
台灣人的國仇家恨
台灣人的國仇家恨 列印
作者 台灣青年逆轉本部
2008/11/20, Thursday
Image
Image
台灣青年逆轉本部，於11/18在自由時報刊登了半版廣告馬英九，你是台灣人的國仇家恨!!
內容如下:
我們終於清楚看到，人民選出來的總統，會如此對待人民，毫不手軟的暴力對待；用司法暴力的對待；用警察暴力的對待；用媒體暴力的對待，堂而皇之地用國家之名暴力對待人民！
雲林檢調單位於十一月四日凌晨六點，未經約談調查程序，便大舉搜索雲林縣政府縣長室及縣長官邸，並立即拘提蘇治芬縣長；歷經十多小時的疲勞訊問，五日凌晨點，雲林地方法院裁示交保候傳，蘇治芬為示清白放棄交保，高舉被銬上的雙手步入警車，絕食超過200小時，直到無保釋放。
陳雲林來台期間，台灣公民體驗了「戒嚴傳統，全新感受」中國國民黨政府縱容（命令）警察在台北城公然以暴力侵害人權。在圓山飯店週邊，看人拿攝影機、相機就搶奪抬離，在國賓飯店週邊封鎖交通，看人穿具有抗議理念的恤就拉去撞牆、強行拖離；看人舉旗子（不論是國旗或雪山獅子旗）就沒收折斷！在行政院前，薛香川試圖用威權語言打發學生不成，出動警察強力架離靜坐學生；新竹科學園區上班的公民得被檢查證件、在高速公路行駛的車輛得被警察在交流道檢查後車廂！連上揚唱片放音樂，分局長李漢卿竟公然違法帶隊侵入民宅，強迫停放音樂，硬拉下鐵門，到現在態度依然囂張，高呼自己還會再做一次！
這個政府用拒馬隔開人民、用警棍痛毆人民、用司法迫害政敵、用優勢警力架走學生，讓台灣陷入更深層的對立與不信任，挑起台灣人民的恨。你可以把責任推給敵對陣營，可以把你所畏懼的政敵銬入鐵牢禁錮，可以把手無寸鐵無力反抗的
人民毆打傷害。你最好準備更多監獄，準備更多手銬，成千上萬個手銬，因為，我們已經準備好了，所有渴望自由的台灣人民都準備好了，準備抗暴，請將我們的雙手戴上手銬！請把我們押入牢籠，因為，我們已準備好，隨時用肉身迎向警棍，準備好被國家暴力的對待，因為，這個政府，現在就是如此對待人民！
你們儘管宣稱我們是暴民，儘管用藍綠切割我們，儘管用國家暴力剝奪我們的言論、集會遊行自由；儘管不顧司法程序正義，將政敵一一關入大牢，你們儘管用「挺兩天就過去了」對待廣場上的學生，儘管用華麗的言詞、無辜的表情包裝威權、邪惡的本質，我們只是再次認清你們的真面目！
不用任何政黨指揮或指導我們，我們已經清楚看見國家暴力的展現，已經親身體驗中國國民黨的戒嚴傳統，已經明確感受馬英九全面的暴政統治、司法迫害、警察暴力，人民彼此的對立，人民對統治者的恨，現在被你完全挑起！
馬英九，你是台灣人的國仇家恨!!
最後更新 ( 2008/11/20, Thursday )
關閉視窗
2008年11月14日 星期五
去台灣辦事處，倒馬吧-----in USA
 | hsutung yang |
(沒有主旨)
| Daiwan | 2008年11月14日 下午 9:07 | |
| 收件者: Undisclosed-Recipient | ||
| ||
2008年11月12日 星期三
Parade Law
Up Next
DPP proposes parade law amendment
STUDENT PROTESTS: The DPP hopes to abolish the legal requirement demanding that rally organizers seek government approval before staging demonstrations
By Rich Chang, Flora Wang And Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTERS
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 1
A man with chains wound around his body holds a placard that reads, “The Parade and Assembly Law is unconstitutional” and “Human rights have disappeared” as he shows support for student demonstrators at Liberty Square in Taipei yesterday.
PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus yesterday proposed an amendment to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) that would eliminate the requirement for protest organizers to apply for permission from law-enforcement authorities.
The amendment would only require organizers to report planned rallies to police.
“If the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] caucus does not block the amendment at tomorrow’s [today] meeting of the Procedure Committee and agrees to send it to the legislative floor for Friday’s plenary session, the DPP caucus would ask that the amendment be allowed to skip preliminary review so that it could pass its third reading by Friday. This would mean the students at Liberty Square could go home,” DPP caucus whip William Lai (賴清德) told a press conference yesterday.
Lai was referring to about 400 students led by National Taiwan University sociology professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁) who began a silent sit-in last Thursday in front of the Executive Yuan in Taipei.
The students are demanding that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) apologize for what they term the “excessive force” police used against demonstrators opposing the visit of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) last week.
They are also demanding that National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) resign and that the government scrap the Parade and Assembly Law.
The students were forcibly evicted by police on Friday night because they had not filed an application in accordance with the Assembly and Parade Law. They later reconvened the sit-in at Liberty Square at the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.
Two more groups of students in Taichung and National Cheng Kung University in Tainan launched sit-ins on Sunday echoing their counterparts in Taipei.
Another two student groups began sit-ins yesterday at Hsinchu’s National Tsing Hua University and Kaohsiung in support of the demonstration in Taipei.
The sit-ins have been dubbed the “Wild Strawberry Student Movement.”
Lai said the amendment would allow event organizers to report planned rallies to police, rather than having to seek approval from law-enforcement authorities.
The amendment would also abolish an article banning rallies that advocate communism or “division of national territory,” as well as an article stating that rallies cannot be held around the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, the presidential residence, airports, important military facilities and embassies or offices of foreign countries, Lai said.
The amendment also seeks to abolish the rights of law-enforcement authorities to disperse rallies, Lai said.
According to the amendment, if two individuals or groups wished to hold rallies at the same time and place, law-enforcement authorities would have to conduct negotiations, and if the parties insisted on sticking to their plans, the rallies would be held simultaneously, but separated by barbed wire fences.
DPP Legislator Chen Chi-yu (陳啟昱) said Ma had previously pledged that the Parade and Assembly Law would be amended to a “report” system, and that the streets would be “returned to the public.”
Ma should realize his campaign pledge while his party controls the legislature, Chen Chi-yu said.
The Assembly and Parade Law, which took effect under the KMT administration in 1988, has come under fire from several rights groups over the years as an instrument used by the government to control the public and curb freedom of expression.
The premier said yesterday that the government’s stance on amending the law was in line with that of the student protesters.
When asked for comment, Liu said he would urge the KMT caucus to hold public hearings on how to amend the law, adding that he hoped the demonstrators would also send representatives to attend the hearings.
Liu said the KMT had initiated proposals to amend the law to a report-based system.
Nevertheless, he urged the students to end their demonstration and return to school.
Meanwhile, Minister of Education Cheng Jei-cheng (鄭瑞城) called on the demonstrators to express their viewpoints “legally.”
Hsu Jen-shou (許仁碩), spokesman for the students at Liberty Square, said the government should communicate directly with the students and that they would hold meetings to jointly decide whether they would accept the government’s suggestion and end the sit-ins.
Chanting “the Assembly and Parade Law is unconstitutional and we are being deprived of our human rights” simultaneously at noon, the students in Taipei, Hsinchu, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung continued their campaign amid rain, cold weather and sporadic protests from people opposing the sit-ins.
One woman brought a megaphone with her to Liberty Square and accused the students of “twisting the meaning of freedom.”
“Kids, you should condemn corruption instead,” she said. “Shouldn’t those who launched the rally and instigated the demonstrations apologize?”
Meanwhile, the KMT caucus said it was worth discussing whether the time was right to amend the law.
KMT caucus secretary-general Chang Sho-wen (張碩文) told a press conference that although he sympathized with the student protesters, they should be demonstrating against the DPP.
The DPP had blocked the KMT’s proposals to amend the law 10 times during the sixth legislative session, Chang said.
KMT Legislator Tsao Erh-chang (曹爾忠), a former police officer, said he hoped that reasonable regulations for rallies could be established.
“The objective of amending the law is to help maintain peace in society,” Tsao said.
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) declined to comment when asked whether any caucus had boycotted amendments to the law in the previous legislature, saying only that lawmakers could initiate their own proposals if they saw the need to amend the law.
Wang said it was important that the public should reach a consensus on the matter, because some people were concerned that protests could get out of hand if all people had to do was notify the police if they were planning a protest.
The Presidential Office said that although Ma was in favor of amending the law, it was important the public reach a consensus on the issue.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said the administration supported revising the law, because it had been one of Ma’s election promises.
A Presidential Office official who asked to remain anonymous said that the law had already been amended to bring it in line with the Constitution.
“It is wrong to say that the law is unconstitutional,” he said. “The police may turn down some applications, but that hardly ever happens.
The official said the problem was not whether protesters should obtain a permit or notify the police in advance, but whether organizers could prevent violence. The official said the government had not dispersed the illegal gatherings because they were peaceful and rational.
However, the government would like the students to obtain permits and participate in public hearings so they could also listen to others’ opinions, the official said.
Interior, NPA chiefs grilled over police acts
COMPLAINTS: Both DPP and KMT lawmakers were unhappy with last week’s protests, with the DPP calling security measures excessive and repressive
By Loa Iok-sin
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 3
People join the student demonstration at Liberty Square in front of the National Democracy Hall Memorial in Taipei yesterday. A sit-in strike area was set up to encourage the public to participate in the protest calling for an amendment to the Parade and Assembly Law and demanding the government apologize for heavy-handed policing during a visit to Taipei last week by Chinese envoys.
PHOTO: GEORGE TSORNG, TAIPEI TIMES
Under fire from both the opposition and the governing parties over security measures during Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit, Minister of the Interior Liao Liou-yi (廖了以) and National Police Agency (NPA) Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) insisted at the legislature yesterday that the police had done nothing wrong.
Liao told the Internal Administration Committee that thousands of police officers had been mobilized to secure Chen’s safety and to keep anti-China protesters in check from last Monday to last Friday.
An NPA official said 5,000 officers had been called up from across the country.
Lawmakers from across party lines, however, criticized the security operation, codenamed “Operation Concord.”
“The overly heavy security measures made it seem like we had returned to 30 years ago when the country was under martial law,” Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Chieh-ju (陳節如) said.
“Why did police officers grab the national flag from people’s hands when they tried to show Chen [Yunlin] that we’re a sovereign country?” he asked.
“Are we not allowed to display our own flag on our own territory?” Chen Chieh-hu asked.
Liao and Wang denied police had deliberately confiscated Republic of China (ROC) flags.
“It had nothing to do with the flag — it had more to do with whether the people were standing in a restricted area or what they were trying to do,” Wang said.
Opposition lawmakers were not convinced.
DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) showed a video clip in which police officers grabbed a ROC flag from a group of protesters standing on a freeway overpass as Chen Yunlin’s convoy approached and apparently bent the flagpole in half. Chiu asked Wang to explain what happened.
“The officer was worried that the protesters might have planned to throw the flagpole at Chen’s convoy when it passed. The flagpole, which was made of plastic, was already broken when the protesters clashed with the officer,” Wang said. “So he did nothing wrong.”
Chiu cited several other incidents where she said the police had acted illegally, including stopping or pushing people wearing T-shirts with the word “Taiwanese” on them, halting the distribution of small ROC flags, and stopping people who were waving Tibetan and ROC flags while walking past a building where the ARATS chief was staying.
“The Police Duties Enforcement Law [警察職權行使法] stipulates that when executing an order, police officers should take the measure that causes the least damage to people’s legal rights,” Chiu said. “And the officers are supposed to clearly state the legal basis of their action.”
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Wu (吳志揚) also questioned police actions.
“I think the main objective of your mission was to keep Chen and the delegation safe,” Wu said. “You should not have compromised on his personal safety, but you should not have taken overly restrictive measures on non-security related issues.”
“We just wanted to try to reduce tension — we tried very hard,” Liao said.
But when asked by DPP lawmakers to apologize to the public for the police actions, Liao refused.
However, “there was always room for improvement,” he said.
Wang also rejected a call by KMT Legislator Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to investigate reports that a police district director’s wife took part in the protests.
She told Wang that if a police official “can’t even guide his own wife, there’s no way he can do so for members of the general public.”
Wang said that although he had not heard about the incident, there was no need for an investigation because a police director’s spouse was fully within his or her rights to take part in a demonstration.
The greatest threat is yet to come
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) was the model of professionalism during his visit to Taiwan last week. With his smiles, toasts, gifts and handshakes, he presented to Taiwan — and for those who were watching elsewhere — the facade that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) technocrats have long cultivated.
As many China watchers have observed, CCP cadres are increasingly charismatic and professional, driven less by doctrine and more by political calculation. Part of this strategy has been to reassure the region and the world about China’s intentions as it grows in power and influence — and to their credit, Beijing’s diplomats have been extremely successful in this regard.
Aware that its charm offensive is bearing fruit, Beijing has now turned it on Taiwan, first dispatching ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) and then Chen, both of whom presented a very “human” side of the CPP, tears and all. The only difference this time around, however, is that despite its rational approach to politics, the CCP remains religiously true to doctrine on the issue of Taiwan, which remains of fundamental interest to Beijing and is paramount to the legitimacy of the CCP.
Understanding this zeal is crucial, as it allows us to see past the illusion of warm relations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP. For all the wining and dining, agreements and accolades, Beijing sees the KMT as nothing more than a means to an end: an instrument that can be used as long as it makes the ultimate objective of unification possible. Otherwise, the KMT is dispensable should it get in China’s way.
Beijing’s ability to hide its true intentions and to beguile the KMT should not be underestimated. Like a snake charmer, the CCP appears to have had the KMT government in its thrall since day one. Outmatched by the CCP, the bungling administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) may, to be fair, have failed to comprehend how divisive and disruptive Chen’s visit would be. But Beijing didn’t. It knew full well what would happen and, relying on Niccolo Machiavelli’s old military trick, used the KMT to drive a wedge within the Taiwanese polity.
The plan worked to perfection, with Taiwanese turning against Taiwanese in recrimination. A greater pan-green versus pan-blue divide has emerged, with other factions seeking to distance themselves from the main parties, while the gap between the government and the governed, the police and the policed, has widened. Unable to present a united front, Taiwan has been weakened.
The second leg of China’s plan played out not in Asia, but in the US, with the election of Senator Barack Obama. While the president-elect has yet to prove his mettle, already there is widespread concern that he will not be as good a friend to Taiwan as other presidents have been. Whether or not this is true, it is likely that Beijing will reach that conclusion and do everything it can — through charm, again — to ensure that Obama stays on its side.
Unless the Obama administration clearly states that the US remains committed to defending Taiwan, Beijing could reach the conclusion that the time is ripe for a takeover, especially with Taiwan disunited, disorganized and dispirited.
Who’s really to blame?
After Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) returned home, there was deep disappointment. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, which oppressed the public during his visit, is blaming the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the protests, and the DPP is blaming the protesters and the KMT. What is this nation coming to?
The DPP should not be pushing the blame on the protesters. As people who had to fight for their rights in their own country, they should be supporting them.
The DPP should shoulder full responsibility for the protests, and proudly so. It is very disappointing to see the DPP join the blame game and let down the hardworking protesters — those who trust the DPP to save the sovereignty of this country. How many people will join the demonstration against the pandas if the DPP is pushing its own supporters away?
Is Taiwan too busy trying to save face to protect its own people? Will Taiwanese sacrifice their human rights, their democracy and their own country just for a better economy?
Under police orders, Taiwanese didn’t even have the right to hold up their own nation’s flag, and some had their flags confiscated. People were beaten to the ground with sticks for simply standing in the way of the police.
All the people wanted was to express their own opinion in a land of freedom of expression. Is this a crime?
In Chinese eyes it is. Beijing thinks we need to kowtow and follow its orders as a precondition to talks on improving cross-strait relations. No politics involved this time? How about the signing of the panda agreement?
Even the foreign press is disappointed with the abuse of human rights in Taiwan, but who is supporting the protesters? The DPP? No. The Sunrise store owner? No. She blames it on the police and the protesters. So who supports the protesters except for the protesters themselves? Should we be trying to save face by blaming them or trying to save our country by joining them?
For once, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was right on one point: “You can’t just mobilize a crowd to attend a rally and then say the protesters were not your people when violent incidents occur. Is that being responsible? I don’t think it’s appropriate.”
Taiwanese should proudly join the protesters.
Take a look at protests around the world. Taiwanese protests are harmless compared with the protests even in Europe. Six hundred thousand people protested peacefully, and what did they get in return? Seven thousand police officers and the government’s refusal to offer more rally permits. The KMT government listened, but apparently not in a supportive manner. So it is only natural for the average citizen to respond in the manner the protesters did.
Why did DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) order the protesters to leave at 5:30pm when they were simply protecting their own rights?
Alex Raymond
Kaohsiung
Ma has lost his mandate
When Ma was elected president with 58 percent of the vote he was given a powerful mandate by the Taiwanese public. He promised to “move Taiwan forward.” He had the opportunity to heal divisions in Taiwanese society.
Instead, it seems he is taking the country in the opposite direction. His actions are creating further divisions. He is setting back the cause of reconciliation.
The president has ultimate responsibility for the country’s national security. In the past week he has acted in a manner that shows a reckless disregard for that responsibility.
The actions of police in seizing Republic of China flags while allowing the display of the flag of communist China sent a powerful message to Taiwanese. The country’s sovereignty was under threat as the government sought to kowtow to China. Taking to the streets to peacefully protest was the only avenue people had to express their concerns.
Setting up barbed-wire barricades created a situation in which police and protesters were unnecessarily put at risk. That Ma went ahead with his meeting with Chen shows a distinct lack of judgment.
It is essential that Ma publicly apologize for the incidents that took place last week.
He must also ensure that there is a proper investigation into alleged human rights abuses.
If Ma cannot confirm his commitment to uphold human rights and safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty, then he has lost his mandate.
He is no longer the people’s president.
David Reid
Sindian, Taipei County
Economy not worth the sacrifice
By Cho Hui-wan 卓慧菀
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) just signed four agreements with Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in Taipei, allowing cross-strait direct sea links, daily chartered flights, direct postal service and strengthened food safety.
This is a critical juncture of cross-strait relations, which at times have been so tense that this was considered one of the flash spots in world politics. Although peaceful developments are welcome, neither the government nor the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have contemplated the future of Taiwan comprehensively.
What should Taiwan pursue in the long run? What kind of policies will achieve this? Both the pan-blue and pan-green camp’s China policies are biased.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) asks those who accuse him of betrayal: How have I betrayed Taiwan? He says that direct sea links, expanded charter flights and even a peace agreement are all goals the previous DPP government pursued. Ma also stresses the importance of cross-strait peace and trade to Taiwan’s economic development.
Taiwanese want and expect cross-strait peace and prosperity. What worries some is whether the country’s sovereignty is being compromised in the process of pursuing peace and prosperity. The public desires peace, sovereignty and prosperity — and nothing less. If there is no peace, both sovereignty and prosperity are threatened. Overemphasizing sovereignty, on the other hand, causes tension with China, making prosperity unattainable and possibly eroding Taiwan’s sovereignty. However, sacrificing sovereignty in the pursuit of peace and prosperity is a policy that the public will not permit.
Ma often says that he is doing exactly what the public wants: safeguarding sovereignty while pursuing peace and prosperity. I am sure that is his intention. However, the problem is not his intention but the possible consequences of his policies and conduct.
Ma says that Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan are threats, but that China’s huge market is a prime opportunity so a smart leader should minimize the threat and maximize the opportunity. Smart, indeed. But are the missiles the only threat that China poses? Is sovereignty being safeguarded as long as Ma ensures no war across the Strait? No.
Beijing tasted the flavor of US intervention during the 1996 missile crisis, so it has been actively modernizing and upgrading its military forces to prevent the US from effective intervention. However, military action is not the only means Beijing plans to use to achieve “national unification.” China’s rapid growth has accumulated enormous economic strength and greatly expanded its might in international politics and economics. President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) confidence in China’s strength has afforded him more flexibility in his Taiwan policy. There have been signs that Beijing will seek its “sacred duty of reunifying the motherland” with soft power such as trade.
Taiwanese understood this while Ma talked about cross-strait relations being “area-to-area” relations in an interview with a Mexican newspaper and while Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) Cabinet delayed its demand for a Chinese apology and reparations for the melamine scandal. Better late than never, but the Cabinet’s hesitation and delay caused doubt that the government will stand up for Taiwan’s interests.
“One country, two areas” is stipulated in a constitutional amendment from 1991. However, when Ma called Taiwan an “area,” he was not teaching a course on the Constitution and was not explaining to Taiwanese the constitutional definition of cross-strait relations. Instead, he was talking to foreign media and to the international community at large. The elaboration was read as political — not legal — and international — not domestic.
“Put aside disputes and create a win-win situation” is the best policy for the two sides of the Strait. To put aside disputes over Taiwanese sovereignty, Beijing cannot demand that Taiwan accept “one China” as a prerequisite for the resumption of ARATS-SEF talks, nor for Taipei to continue its pursuit of de jure independence. When Ma talks to the foreign media or delegations, he should say that he will approach cross-strait relations according to the Constitution while pursuing cross-strait peace.
In foreign relations what is said is important; what is not said is equally important. Both strategies should be used to safeguard one’s position and interests. Because the Constitution also stipulates “one China,” Ma’s mentioning the Constitution would have satisfied the requirement of putting aside disputes. He did not need to mention the two-area definition, which jeopardized Taiwan’s stance that the Republic of China (in Taiwan) is a sovereign state.
The pan-green camp’s demand that no contaminated goods be imported from China is a wish shared by the public. But Taiwan cannot just refuse trade with China in its effort to prevent poisoned goods from entering the country. Establishing a mechanism to screen and exclude importation of tainted goods should be a high-priority goal.
Taiwan lost many economic opportunities over the last few years because cross-strait air and sea transportation was not direct. Market opportunities are abundant in China, so expanded links will bring great economic benefits. But the possibility that China may use Taiwan’s dependence on its market as political leverage is real. Taiwan should strive to link itself with the entire world when linking with China, so that global business interests are connected to Taiwan’s interest and serve to protect it.
Taiwan also needs to strengthen its democracy and freedom and use these soft powers to counter the enormous economic power of China.
As the DPP tries to safeguard sovereignty, it should also propose feasible paths toward peace and prosperity. The government pursues peace and prosperity, but it should be more delicate in what to say and what not to say. Taiwanese want peace and prosperity, but desire sovereignty even more.
Cho Hui-wan is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of International Politics at National Chung Hsing University.
Protesters scare KMT more than China does
By Cao Changqing 曹長青
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008, Page 8
When Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) visited Taiwan last week, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) deployed a police force much heavier than required, sending out security normally used for visits by heads of state.
Before Chen arrived, the government promoted his visit with loud displays including gongs and drums and made numerous security preparations because ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) had fallen during a run-in with independence activists during his visit in Taiwan last month.
At that time, protesters did not make any personal attacks on Zhang, who either tripped or was knocked down while jostling amid a crowd of protesters. As soon as he fell, he was helped up. Nobody punched or kicked him.
Yet for Chen’s visit, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government mobilized 7,000 policemen and the Grand Hotel was closed off by police from the eighth floor up. Such heavy measures were so over the top they couldn’t have been imagined by a comedy writer.
The lengths to which the KMT went to protect a minor government official from China is indicative of its cowardice. Ever since it was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the Chinese civil war, the KMT has been afraid of the CCP. This makes one wonder whether the KMT-led government would beg for mercy — too afraid to even surrender — if China were to invade Taiwan.
The government has treated protesters as terrorists, with police muffling protests, using razor wire and treating ordinary people like bandits or ruffians. This is exactly the kind of attitude that an autocratic government would assume in dealing with protesters. The KMT is beyond help. Whenever there is the slightest commotion, it mobilizes as many troops as it can, as if faced with a formidable enemy. Why is it so nervous?
In treating the public as its enemy, the KMT forgot that the “honored guest” it was showing such great respect for has more than 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan. China is the real source of violence, but the KMT fails to distinguish friend from foe. In its eyes the Taiwanese public is more dangerous than the CCP. When Taiwanese seek to protect their own land, the KMT gets defensive. When the CCP wants to “recover” Taiwan, the KMT thinks it is time to sit down and discuss things.
Not only does the KMT treat its enemies as friends, it is also intentionally moving closer to its enemies. While the KMT dispatched Chen Yi (陳儀) with troops to take over Taiwan in 1945, Chen Yunlin came without troops because the KMT has now become the CCP’s main force in taking over Taiwan.
On the surface, Chen Yunlin came to Taiwan to sign economic agreements, but in reality his visit was a preparation for Ma’s proposal to sign a peace accord with China during his presidency. This peace accord will undoubtedly be an agreement to surrender, as no matter what, it will be forced to conform to the “one China” principle proposed by Beijing that states: “The Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.”
In order to meet this condition and to show his goodwill to the envoy from China, as well as to pave the way for the signing of a peace accord, Ma regards Taiwan as an “area.”
A proverb says that it is easy to defend against foreign enemies, but much harder to guard against thieves within one’s household.
If Ma should not be accused of being a traitor, what other label is appropriate for someone who keeps a close relationship with a foreign enemy that has employed military, economic, trade and political tactics to take over Taiwan?
Cao Changqing is a political commentator. Translated by Ted Yang
Up Next
