Taiwan's "Erosion of Justice" saga continues

A course in dissembling

Beginning in November 2008, when former President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was first jailed after a long trial by media, a series of open letters on the erosion of justice in Taiwan under the administration of current President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) began. Fourteen months later, the deceptive replies to these letters still come, and each time, they fail to honestly and logically address the issues within. Below, I will discuss the latest of these replies.

January 8, 2009
Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) churned out "A GIO response to Richard Kagan" (Professor Emeritus of History at Hamline University and one of the signatories of the November 9, 2009 "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars" who separately wrote a criticism of Su's nonsensical reply to an earlier open letter). Kagan's letter appeared in the Taipei Times exactly two weeks prior but was not covered here on this blog.

However, I must tackle this "response" which is riddled with problems and avoids addressing the facts in Kagan's letter head-on. I will put Su's response in blockquoted black text, and my comments will appear in full width. To distinguish the single quote from Kagan's letter which appears here, it will appear in green blockquoted text.

After a brief introduction, these are Su's second and third paragraphs:

Professor Kagan expresses doubts about why a democratic country such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) would seek to develop closer relations with mainland China, which is not a democracy. As an historian, he surely must know that all members of the international community should and must develop relations with each other, regardless of differences in political systems or even bilateral disagreements over specific issues. The US engages in trade and security cooperation with non-democratic countries throughout the world, yet few question how this might affect US democracy.

Similarly, the Republic of China needs to develop relations with all members of the international community to ensure the best interests of the people of Taiwan. It is an internationally accepted fact that mainland China is growing in economic and strategic importance. When the international community wishes to solve major international problems, it increasingly finds that it must engage with Beijing to help find a solution. The US is working more closely than ever with the mainland to deal with managing the global financial crisis, handling the North Korean situation and countering global terrorism. As an integral member of the international community, Taiwan needs to engage with mainland China for many of the same reasons, regardless of any cross-strait differences.

Su is comparing apples and oranges by writing as if other people don't realize that China wants to annex Taiwan while the vast majority of Taiwanese people don't want to be part of that authoritarian foreign regime and that those in Beijing hold great leverage over those in Taipei. The phrase "cross-strait differences" doesn't give you any idea that these differences entail the governments of two nations claiming to rule the entirety of each others territory -- dangerous claims which have hung over the lives of people in both countries (but mostly those in Taiwan) for over six decades.

Note how Su says "a democratic country such as the Republic of China (Taiwan)" above, yet in nearly every other case he treats Taiwan as a mere region. How can anyone take him at his word?

Here's Su's next paragraph:

However, this is absolutely not in any way at the expense of Taiwan's hard-won democracy. This administration has consistently stressed since taking office that all its policies and interaction with Beijing shall be based on the principle of "putting Taiwan first for the benefit of the people." If improving ties had led to the appalling result Dr Kagan posits of Beijing controlling the dialogue and always getting what it wants, why was no double taxation avoidance agreement signed during the Chiang-Chen [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)] cross-strait talks in December, despite being on the agenda? The answer is simple: Disputed details in the wording of the agreement did not accord with the aforementioned principle, so we were not going to sign it, and did not.

He ignores what -- despite promises from Beijing -- has happened to Hong Kong in the past 12 and a half years and talks about the "double taxation" issue as if China won't still benefit by collecting those taxes from Taiwanese businesses. Beijing loses nothing on that point, but Su has weakened the foundation of his own argument.

Su also completely omits the fact that the talks regarding an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) -- which Chinese officials say "will certainly bring about complete unification of the motherland [sic] -- have been anything but transparent and have not been subject to legislative oversight. Su skirts around this just below with the phrase "involving domestic laws." Read carefully:

The fact that these talks took place between the respectively authorized representative organizations of both sides — the SEF and ARATS — debunks the myth that the cross-strait dialogue is being conducted party-to-party, rather than government-to-government. The Legislative Yuan must approve any accord worked out with ARATS involving domestic laws. Only this administration, duly elected by the voters in Taiwan — and not any political party at either end of the political spectrum — sets cross-strait policy and speaks on behalf of the people of Taiwan.

Minister Su acts as if no one heard that Taiwan's Straits [sic] Exchange Foundation (海峽交流基金會) chairman and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice-chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) recently referred to himself as nothing but a "rubber stamp" in these so-called negotiations.

There's also the strange issue of why the Ma administration won't allow a referendum on the issue, even though the number of signatures collected to initiate the process was nearly double the required threshold. That's not "speak[ing] on behalf of the people of Taiwan," Mr. Su.

While Su dished out some "tough" talk about how much control this government could exert just two blockquotes above, he does a 180 below and says that his government has no control over anything:

Professor Kagan's letter also dwelled on the disingenuous complaint that using "Chinese Taipei" as the name of our country in international events and organizations signals a deliberate diminution of national sovereignty. Taiwan's participation in such events under the rubric "Chinese Taipei" during previous administrations did not diminish national sovereignty, nor can it do so now. This government has always sought and continues to vigorously seek the use of our official name, "Republic of China," or at least "Taiwan," in such situations. However, given Taiwan's unique international status, use of our national title is beyond our control. We warmly welcome support from Dr Kagan and his colleagues for the correct use of our national title by international events and organizations hereafter.

It actually is entirely under your control whether you choose to participate using such names and whether you do so gladly (as in the World Health Organization [WHO] fiasco which did damage to Taiwan's sovereignty) or under protest, as the DPP would have done.

Su's jeremiad continues:

The mantra that democracy in Taiwan is less robust than before utterly conflicts with reality. Domestic political debate in Taiwan is as spirited and vigorous as ever. The local media scrutinize every action of this administration closely, and public demonstrations on political issues of every kind are commonplace. Any concerns that Taiwan is reverting to one-party rule were surely dispelled by the results of local elections held last month. KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] candidates for mayor and county magistrate posts received 47.88 percent of the nationwide vote, while DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] candidates garnered 45.32 percent. There is no clearer proof that the people of Taiwan have the absolute power to choose their government.

Here, Su ignores the Chinese KMT's continued drive to take over Taiwan's Public TV (PTS, 公共電視). Furthermore, he confuses gains in city, county, and township elections with having both a balanced legislature and a president who listens to majority opinion without oppressing minorities or stupidly telling aboriginals out loud that "I see you as humans," as Ma did before being elected to office.

Su ends his letter like this:

The people of Taiwan have every reason to be proud of the democracy and freedom they have achieved. Taiwan continues to shape the debate on whether democracy is attainable in the Chinese-speaking world, even as cross-strait ties improve. We remain resolutely confident that the undeniable fact of democratic attainment in Taiwan will ultimately prove just as, or even more, powerful to spur positive developments on the opposite side of the Taiwan Strait. That can only be to the benefit of the people of Taiwan and those of the mainland, as well as the world in general.

Look at the language he uses: "Chinese-speaking world" is a culturally-imperialist phrase which ignores Taiwan's many other languages; "cross-strait" is an adjective which hides the fact that two separate countries are being discussed; and Su's repeated use of the word "mainland" (when he means "China") also reveals how he see's Taiwan's status as a lesser entity. (I'm sure discerning readers can find even more to criticize in the above paragraph.)

The minister also must think that you, the reader, have forgotten that while former President Chen has been in jail for over a year now, the Ma administration's "Ministry of Just Us" apparently still hasn't collected enough real evidence to convincingly convict him of the life sentence which has already been handed down and is instead using judicial pressure to try to get those close to Chen -- even his former housekeeper -- to squeal.

All of these things are clear signs of the continued erosion of justice, freedom of the press, and democracy, even if -- in Mr. Su's mind -- it's all sweetness and light.

Full Political Alchemist
Oh, and by the way, Su didn't dare address this important bit from Professor Kagan's letter which demonstrates the GIO minister's lack of logical skills:

Su claims that Taiwan's ranking in the report on 180 countries issued by Transparency International rose to No. 37. This statement reveals political alchemy at its best. For instance, Taiwan's score in 2007 was 34. Numerically it did rise to 37. But the higher a country gets, the greater the index of corruption. Somalia is rated at No. 180. In fact, Taiwan fell into greater corruption by three points.

Can you say "fail"?

The prequels
Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter -- as an online petition -- has been signed by more than 2,000 people.

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:

According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]

* May 22, 2009: An estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts.

* November 9, 2009: Then there were 31. The Taiwan News publishes an "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars" which reminds us that "a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but [...] that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy" and that "Taiwan should be more fully accepted by the international community as a full and equal partner." (Here's a version with 31 names on the web site of one of the signatories, Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D.)

* December 13, 2009: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) submits the "GIO response to Nov. [9] open letter" to the Taipei Times.

* December 25, 2009: Richard Kagan, professor emeritus at Hamline University in St Paul, Minnesota and one of the signatories of the November 2009 letter, replies to Su Jun-pin's silliness in "GIO's response misses the point"

Don't expect this to end anytime soon.

In the meantime, never let your guard down. Stay angry, and fight this injustice every chance you get -- whether it's writing a blog, attending protests, reminding your mother-in-law that not "all politicians are alike" (especially when it comes to Taiwan's two biggest parties), pointing out to your doctors that the lie-filled pro-Ma TV stations blaring in the waiting room aren't good for their patients' physical or mental health, or even just by actively using the name "China" instead of "mainland" out of mere habit when referring to our bellicose neighbor.

And if you're registered to vote in today's elections in Taichung, Taoyuan, or Taitung -- the first two of which are being held as the result of Chinese KMT vote-buying convictions -- get out and vote for the DPP candidate in your area.

Good people must prevail against injustice.

---

Dockets for deliberation: Taiwan, 台灣, open letter, 公開信, Su Jun-pin, 蘇俊賓, Richard Kagan, 柯義耕, justice, 正義, Ministry of Justice, 法務部

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Statement of support for Lee Ming-tsung

Prof. Lee Ming-tsung
image (cc) 楊竣傑
via 生命力新聞

Statement
We, the bloggers of Taiwan Matters, stand in solidarity with National Taiwan University Professor Lee Ming-tsung (李明璁) following his indictment last month on charges of violating the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法).

Professor Lee participated in a protest in November 2008 with a group of students which later came to be known as the "Wild StrawBerries Movement." They had three specific demands [edited here for formatting, clarity, spelling, and completeness]:

1. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) must publicly apologize to all citizens [for creating the situation which allowed the police to treat protesters the way they did during Chen Yunlin's (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan].

2. National Police Agency (NPA) Director-General Wang Cho-chiun (王卓鈞) and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming (蔡朝明) must step down [to take responsibility for the police brutality that occurred as a result of the massive police presence].

3. The Legislative Yuan (行政院) must revise the Parade and Assembly Law (集會遊行法), which currently restricts the rights of the people [and which are set to become even more repressive early in 2009]. [This is basically a simple demand for "Freedom of Assembly."]

If there had been sufficient reason to charge Professor Lee, it could have been done at the time of the protest instead of seven months later.

In the interim, political persecution, threats, and violence have with increasing frequency been carried out against those who are active in their opposition to the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration's policies of moving politically closer to China and reversing the progress made during Taiwan's transition to sovereign democracy over the past twenty years.

The current administration has severely undermined the integrity of Taiwan's judicial system with its continued detention of former President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) while justice officials perform skits mocking the defendant. Despite President Ma's promises that he would reform the Assembly and Parade Act, all indications are that it will become a stricter law than it was previously.

In fact, more laws infringing on free speech are being passed. One example is the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法):

The Act prohibits academics from wearing or displaying flags or emblems of any political parties or groups at teachers' or researchers' offices. It also prohibits academics from convening demonstrations, launching signature bids and the editing, printing or distribution of political flyers or related documents using public equipment at public offices. The Examination Yuan and the Executive Yuan are also authorized to impose more bans through administrative orders.

The indictment of Professor Lee is yet another example to add to the ever-growing list of partisan indictments which strongly suggest systemized political persecution. There is no political capital to be gained by such actions, except perhaps in Beijing.

What we need in Taiwan is justice, not the "just us" mentality that is currently being demonstrated by the Ma administration.

To summarize, we stand behind Professor Lee Ming-tsung in his rational, nonviolent attempts to defend and deepen Taiwan's democracy. As long as the current government's policies continue to carry us backward toward an authoritarian past, the protests are likely to grow.

Signed,
The Taiwan Matters blog team

Participate
Others who wish to "sign" this statement can do so in the comments section below or let us know by e-mail (address is in the sidebar).

FURTHER READING/VIEWING:
Learn more about the controversial practices of the current judicial system.

* The Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights (捍衛民主人權陣線) harshly criticizes the Ma administration and shows strong support for Professor Lee as well as for National Taiwan Normal University (國立台灣師範大學) Professor Lin Chia-fan (林佳範) in the wake of his indictment on charges similar to those being pressed against Professor Lee.

* The Monday, July 13, 2009 edition of the Taipei Times has an editorial piece by Chiu Hei-yuan (瞿海源) called "The Act that silences academics."

* The Tuesday, July 14, 2009 Taipei Times reports that "More than 120 academics and human rights activists said yesterday they would turn themselves in to prosecutors for breaking the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法) in a protest against the legislation." Read all about it in an article titled "Activists, academics 'surrender' to protest law."

* The full text of the new Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法) can be read in English on Brock Freeman's blog.

* Read David Reid's recent post on how the Assembly Law attacks freedom of speech.

* Taiwan Echo blogs in English and Hanzi on the illegal reasoning behind the latest extension of the detention of Chen Shui-bian: Lawless Taipei District Court extends Chen's detention based on illegal taping; 目無法紀的蔡守訓與台北地院用違法盜錄的看守所對話延長對扁的羈押

* Read a March 2009 statement from Chen Shui-bian (translated into English) which mentions interference by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰).

* Watch Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng in August 2008 publicly discussing details of the ongoing investigation into the case against Chen Shui-bian as covered by New Taiwan Forum (新台灣論壇), FTV (民視新聞台), and Talking Show (大話新聞).

* Read Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng's denial of what you see happening in the three video clips above.

(Written by all current team members, posted by Tim Maddog.)

---

Tags: Taiwan, 台灣, Lee Ming-tsung, 李明璁, Assembly and Parade Act, 集會遊行法, Ministry of Justice, 法務部, Wang Ching-feng, 王清峰, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Non-lawyer Ma Ying-jeou misrepresents reality yet again

I can hear it in his voice, and it shows in his eyes

Here are the key points from an article in today's Taipei Times:

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) said yesterday that a pharmaceutical company linked to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had been fined for failing to avoid a conflict of interest when selling drugs to Taipei City Municipal Hospital.

Ma Yi-nan (馬以南) [one of Ma's four sisters] was deputy manager of China Chemical & Pharmaceutical Co (中化, CCPC) at the time of the sale, while her brother Ma Ying-jeou was Taipei mayor.

[...]

Citing the Public Officials' Conflicts of Interests Prevention Act (公職人員利益衝突迴避法), Kuan [Kao-yueh (管高岳), director of the Department of Government Employee Ethics] said the city government should not have had any business deals with Ma Yi-nan's company.

The act stipulates that companies found to be in violation be fined one to three times the purchase amount.

The accusation first surfaced last February during the presidential campaign when then-Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) team accused Ma Ying-jeou of lying about his role in his sister's business relations with Taipei City Municipal Hospital.

Hsieh's campaign team said Ma Yi-nan had been granted sole distribution rights for drugs sold to the hospital.

At the time, Ma Ying-jeou denied the allegation, saying his sister was not involved in selling medicine to the hospital.

Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said yesterday that the president respects the ministry's decision.

... which means, once again, that Ma wasn't telling the truth.

Surprised? I guess you'd expect the scorpion not to sting the frog or something?

No "Just Us," No Peace!
In case you think the Ministry of Justice is now handling "blue" cases, note that Ma and his sister remain untouched by the judiciary here and that the pan-blue media will do their part to whitewash any of the dirt from this which may rub off on Ma. Don't be fooled.

Related video
I wonder if the unconstitutional NCC (National Communications Commission) will be upset at TVBS (AKA BS-TV) about this report:


1:17 YouTube video: "未利益迴避藥廠重罰,大門神馬以南沒事??馬是美國公民抓不到??"
Translation: "Because of conflict of interest, pharmaceutical company gets severe penalty,
nothing happens to 'protector' [literally, 'door deity'] Ma Yi-nan??
As an American citizen, Ma [Yi-nan] can't be taken in??"

---

Evident circumstances: Taiwan, 台灣, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Ministry of Justice, 法務部

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!