2004 Taiwan’s Civil Rights Violation Report
Prepared by the Taiwan Civil Rights Watch Group
Washington DC Democracy and Truth Alliance
December 2, 2004
Introduction
Taiwan’s official name is the Republic of China (ROC). The population is comprised of four ethnically or dialectically different groups -- the indigenous, Fu-Lao or Southern Fu-Jianese, Ke-Jia or Hakka, and mainlanders. The last three groups are Chinese Han tribe people that migrated to Taiwan at different periods of time.
The indigenous native aborigines are small in number, about 2% of total population. They are not different from other Polynesian islanders that populate throughout southeastern Asian islands.
The Ke-Jia (Hakka) group is ethnically Han-Chinese primarily from Canton province and few from other parts of mainland China. These Chinese are the second largest group in the total population, about 15%.
The Fu-Lao group is the largest group, about 70%, which arrived as early as seventeenth century from Fu-Jian province on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. These Han-Chinese speak the southern Fu-Jian (Min-Nan) dialect. Historically, in 1661 at the end of the Ming Dynasty, General Zheng Cheng Gong (Kuosinga) and his renegade troops came to Taiwan and expelled the colonizing Dutch settlers to restore Taiwan’s sovereign rule under his command. The Manchu Emperor, Kang-si, in 1683 dispatched troops to squash Zheng’s resistence army and formally placed Taiwan under control of the central imperial government in Beijing.
In 1895 Japan invaded and defeated China in the Sino-Japanese War. It demanded China to relinquish sovereignty over Taiwan as a war retribution. After 50 years of Japanese colonization of the Chinese people in Taiwan, Japan formally returned Taiwan to China in 1945 after the Japanese defeat and unconditional surrender in World War II.
Another new wave of migration of people from all regions of mainland China began to arrive in Taiwan between 1945 and 1949. They came as civilian immigrants, government officials, or troops. Those new immigrants speak primarily Mandarin, the official language in China. The bulk of this latest group migrated to Taiwan after the Communist victory of the civil war in China in 1949.
This group, about 13%, is labeled by the majority Fu-Lao group as “out-of-state” people or mainlanders. This ungrounded “ethnic” discrimination by the Fu-Lao group is totally in conflict with and prohibited by the Constitution which has been in practice since its adoption in Nanking in 1947.
At the time of Taiwan’s return to China after 50 years of Japanese policy of colonialization and alienation, Taiwanese people welcomed the initial arrival of mainland troops because it symbolized the return of Taiwan to its motherland. However, mutual misunderstanding and minor disputes soon contributed to greater conflicts between mainland troops and local Chinese citizens. Unrest emerged and spread into citizen arrest and execution without judicial trial. The worst of all was the February 28, 1947 Incident (228 Incident). Human casualties from both sides numbered from a couple of thousands to well over ten thousand people. Even today no accurate death toll has yet been ascertained. Many innocent new immigrants from mainland were also killed by the mob for no reason except revenge of the local people.
Indeed, at the time of the skirmish, the central government in Nanking was largely confused, had no accurate information upon which to act, and was incapable of exercising control from afar. It was preoccupied with the civil war on the mainland against the Chinese Communists. Mr. Chen Yi, the governor appointed by Nanking, was later investigated in regard to this 1947 Incident and was executed in the early 1950’s. However, not until the 1990’s did the Kuomintang government offer an official apology for this Incident to the people and some compensation to the families of those victims. A Memorial Park was dedicated by the government as a permanent acknowledgement of the responsibilities for the 228 Incident. Ironically, those civilians and soldiers from the mainland who died in the 228 Incident never received any attention at all.
After the initial unrest, peace and harmony have steadily grown among the people through marriage and business partnerships in the last 50 years. Any presumed alienation between mainlanders and all other three so-called “native Taiwanese” groups is hardly noticeable at all in the 80’s and 90’s. In 2000, the newly formed Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its leader, Chen Shui-Bian, was elected the 10th President of the Republic of China. It was widely applauded as a major step toward a true democracy in Taiwan because of the free election and the multi-party political system.
Unfortunately this harmonious picture was totally shattered in the 2004 Presidential Election by DPP and Chen. Prior to the election, Chen Shui-Bian began to agressively pursue a campaign tactics of social, political, and economic discrimination against those not speaking the Fu-Lao dialect or those who came from the mainland after 1945. Chen has basically forbided any opposition from the other groups and political parties.
Taiwan today has more than 23 million people who express their political views through five major political parties: Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU under Lee Teng-Hui); Democratic Progressive Party (DPP under Chen Shui-Bien, President of the Republic); Kuomintang (KMT under Lien Chan); People First Party (PFP under James Soong); and New Party (NP under Yok Mu-Ming). DPP and TSU were commonly labelled the Pan-Green camp. KMT, PFP, and NP are labeled the Pan-Blue camp. The Blue camp is currently the majority with a small margin in the Legislative Yuan (the Congress), but this situation can easily change following the results of the upcoming congressional election in December 2004.
Taiwanese people in general can freely join and choose their party affiliation according to their own beliefs regardless of their ethnic origin. Politically, the Green camp supporters are pro-independence for Taiwan, while the Blue camp supporters are in favor of the status quo for Taiwan and continued negotiation with Beijing on conditions for eventual peaceful re-unification. The majority of voters, regardless of party affiliation, are overwhelmingly in favor of peace and the status quo. According to repeated opinion surveys, more than half of all voters support neither instant unification with mainland China nor the declaration of Taiwan independence.
In short, except for the smallest indigenous group, all other three groups are Han-Chinese who came to Taiwan at different times. As the Green camp mainly comprise of Fu-Lao group and the Blue camp are more diversified in ethnic groups, the former, while in total control of the government, can easily play the divisive game of “ethnic politics” to divide, manipulate, and bring disharmony among the general population in Taiwan. They create and exploit ethnic conflicts especially before major elections.
In the 2004 Presidential election and other elections, such as the ones for legislators, and county executives and mayors, most Green camp candidates would advocate that “only Taiwanese love Taiwan.” Such “campaign slogans” are aimed at the majority Fu-Lao voters for their support for Taiwan independence and “for a unique identity with Taiwan’s future in independence.” Those opposed to such a platform are smeared and discriminated against as “betrayers of Taiwan.” The Blue camp voters are, thus, deprived of equal opportunity and social justice, and suffer from political ostracism.
The Green politicians are increasingly exploiting the unfortunate 228 Incident. They used it to arouse ethnic and group animosity and hatred against mainlanders. Today’s Green politicians refuse to distinguish between the very few KMT officials, who gave order to kill and arrest people in the uprising of 1947, and those majority innocent civilians who came from the mainland before or after the Incident to seek a peaceful homestead. All mainlanders are forced to carry the “original sin” for the 228 Incident.
The Green politicians do not acknowledge or respect voters’ freedom of choosing their candidates in a democratic election. They blindly attack voters based on ethnic group identity and on whether they are for or against Chen and DPP. Such is the criteria in Chen Shui-Bien’s policy in creating “ethnic conflicts” and “group hatred” for political exploitation. There has been open disregard of voters’ political beliefs and personal freedom of association. This is indeed a growing crisis in political oppression and discrimination in violation of fundamental civil rights and human dignity as enshrined in the Constitution.
The DPP government today greatly oversteps the limits in violation of human rights. It openly pursues ethnic and group oppression, which is further prohibited by the United Nations, especially in the social, political, and economic arena. Even the government’s own ethnic Fu-Lao members may suffer job loss or demotion because of their different political stance.
After over half a century Taiwan has finally institutionalized a good “democratic system.” However, the pro-independence DPP government under President Chen Shui-Bien has reached an intolerable point in his disregard for true democracy and civil rights. His government appears to be approaching a “political dictatorship.” The democracy in Taiwan is now more of a symbolic gesture than reality.
This report is the first of a series of documented evidence of Taiwan government’s trampling of civil rights, its transgression of the proper operation of judicial system, and total suppression of the media’s exercise of its constitutionally guaranteed rights to the freedom of speech. It is our sincere hope that the readers would understand the potential danger that such a government might bring to the world peace.
I. Violation of Civil Rights
I.1 Open Discriminations Against Mainlanders
In Taiwan’s presidential election of March 2004 one piece of campaign literature distributed in Southern Taiwan asked voters to support candidate number (Chen Shui-Bien), because he is a native son and a “real Taiwanese.” It further stated that to vote for candidate number (Lien Chan), is to vote for a “Chinese” who is not patriotic and is capable of betraying Taiwan. The fact is; Lien’s father was from a prominent Fu-Lao family too. He went to China to join the holy war against Japan when Lien Chan was born in China. To make this deliberate distinction is an act of discrimination and a violation of fair competition under the law.
In the July 2002 flood disaster the director of Kaoshiung’s Public Work Bureau, a DPP hothead, placed the blame on “too many mainland Chinese” living in the city. Similarly, a Green camp legislator complained in 2003 that Taiwan’s “diplomatic difficulties” was due to the fact that “too many staff members in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were mainlanders.”
So the mainlanders became an easy scapegoat for any domestic and international problems in Taiwan.
I.2 Vice President Lu Encouraged Indigenous People To Leave Taiwan
In July, 2004 a Typhoon induced flood in central Taiwan caused massive mudslides and created a serious shortage of food, water, and electricity. Vice President Annetta Lu “told the rescuers that the few citizens who were strandeded on the mountains had irresponsibly cut down the trees and to rescue them was hardly an act of mercy.” On July 8th she further commented that those people still living in the mountains and villages affected by the flood should move out. “I encouraged these indigenous ethnic people to emigrate to Central and Southern America.”
Such discriminatory comments enraged the indigenous people. They staged angry demonstrations on the streets of Taipei and demanded Lu to apologize. She refused. Later she commented that these indigenous people were not “the ancestral people” of Taiwan. She said the “black dwarfs” were the earliest aborigines but they “left no descendents.” This arrogant and irresponsible comment truly inflamed the small aborigines group. They began to protest by holding “fasting, grass and fire tribal ceremonies” in front of the Presidential Palace in Taipei. Over 3,000 of them from 12 different indigenous tribes demanded an apology from Lu or her dismissal from office. She was accused of violating civil rights as enshrined in the UN treaty which is recognized by the Republic. Nevertheless, the vice president chided the demonstrators for their “abuse of freedom of speech” and said they should “terminate their street farce.”
An earlier statement from Vice President Lu condemned the HIV patients as god-forsaken people.
I.3 Ministry of Education Calls For Birth Control of Foreign Brides
On July 6, 2004 the deputy minister of education who is from the Fu-Lao majority group spoke publicly against “racial degradation” resulting from young foreign brides marrying “the old or disabled” citizens in Taiwan. He stated, “They should refrain from having more children to avoid a decline in the quality of human beings.” As a result several human rights organizations protested such flagrant and vulgar statements from a government high official. His irresponsible charges are in fact contrary to the government published statistics on income, health, and the level of education of both foreign brides and brides from China. There is absolutely no evidence to show that offspring from such marriages are any different from their peers in society. One wonders what the motive was behind such statement. The Fu-Lao-controlled government under President Chen Shui-Bien and its high level officials have repeatedly made statements that trample on people’s rights, equality, and human dignity.
The deputy minister later issued a written apology under the pressure from the public. He received verbal criticisms from his superior but was never reprimended.
I.4 Discrimination Against Mainland Spouses
A young bride from mainland China coming to marry a man in Taiwan has to wait 8 years to receive a work permit and the right to vote. A new law is proposing to extend this waiting period to 11 years. Brides from other Asian nations are not subject to such harsh restrictions. Their waiting period is only four years.
In 2003 the Ministry of Interior considered charging a bride from mainland China a high bond of $10,000, so as to make it nearly impossible for a mainland bride to join her Taiwanese husband. When this infamous proposal was leaked to the media and was condemned, the Ministry hurriedly canceled (or withheld) its implementation. The DPP government was only taking measures against the mainland brides. It applies different standdard to brides from other Asian nations. This is a clear discrimination against the people from China.
I.5 Discrimination Against Entertainers With Different Political Belief
Jiang Hsia, the newly appointed general manager of the China TV Network (CTN), openly refused to let entertainers to appear on her TV network shows because they openly supported President Chen Shui-Bien’s opponent during election campaign.. On June 23, 2004 she unashamedly confessed that her job was the President’s reward for her loyal support during the 2004 election campaign. Mr. Lee Shi-Tuan, a popular and highly rated news anchorman, did not have his CTN contract renewed because his news program was not regarded as supporting Green camp enough by Jiang Hsia. As a result, he had to resign. On the other hand, Jiang Hsia immediately contracted a pro-Green talk show host and put him on a primetime spot Monday to Friday to openly attack the Blue camp activities and to incite ethnic hatred.
When several entertainers could not perform a government organized by Jiang Hsia to celebrate the National Holiday on October 10, Jiang accused them to be “unpatriotic.” She threatened that they will not be welcome to perform on her TV network.
Chen Shui-Bian and the DPP government have gone too far in placing political considerations into the media. This is a serious violation of the freedom of speech and borders on media censorship. The government’s direct suppression of the media is now progressingly worse with time. It needs to be stopped.
I.6 Government Requests Entertainers to Make Political Expressions
In 2000 the singer Chang Hui-mei sang the ROC national anthem at Chen Shui-Bien’s inauguration which led to Beijing’s cancellation of her appearance on stage in China. It took her four years to convince the Beijing authority that she was politically neutral and should be allowed to perform in China. Eventually she went back to China to sing as an entertainer.
Surprisingly, on her return to Taiwan she was warned by Vice President Lu on August 6, 2004 that Taiwan and China are in a “semi-war” status and she must choose between the “defending Taiwan” and “singing in Beijing.” Numerous other performers with different political expressions, mainlanders or other groups, were shunned from performances in government sponsored activities or tightly scrutinized. Their only crime is not to have supported Chen Shui-bian or DPP in the elections.
It is clear that the Taiwan government authorities are eager to interfere in a citizen’s professional activities, in order to block any improvement of relations with Beijing. In short, civil rights and political beliefs of professional entertainers in Taiwan are being severely repressed by the government.
I.7 Ministry of Defense Discriminates Against Disabled or Deformed Spouses
In February 2004 the Ministry of Defense, in advising soldiers regarding marriage, suddenly decreed that they must submit a health examination report for their future spouses on a variety of illnesses including disability and deformation and must ask approval [for marriage] from the Ministry. The superior have the right to advice against or discourage such marriage plans.
Many disabled citizens objected to this clear discrimination. The Ministry spokesman argued that this move is to ensure a happy marriage for its soldiers. He promised that this decree will be readdressed in the next revisions of military codes. At this writing, the decree still remains in question.
I.8 DPP Prohibits Mandarin Language and Promotes Fu-Jianese Dialect
Ever since DPP is in charge of the Taiwan government, citizens in Taiwan are criticized or reprimanded if they prefer to speak Mandarin, the official language of the Republic, instead of the Fu-Lao dialect, which is spoken only in the southern Fu-Jian province. Government officials would often make public speeches in Fu-Lao dialect. The switchboard of the Tai-Nan City Government would answer citizen inquiries using only Fu-Lao dialect or English. The media dubbed this phenonmena as Fu-Lao chavinism. Under the encuragement of the Green camp, even bus and taxi drivers are now addressing the customers in Fu-Lao dialect, thus inconvenience the mainlanders or other groups. The government’s interference in this simple matter is clearly aimed at political identity.
In Taiwan, it is very common to see employment advertisements requesting the applicants be non-mainlanders or be able to speak the Fu-Lao dialect.
In a 2003 national qualification examination for government job openings, some questions were given in the Fu-Lao dialect. Ke-Jia applicants strongly protested this unfair practice because they could not understand the questions.
I.9 Promotion/Demotion Based on Political Belief For Government Employees
Those government emplyees who hold political views different from the beliefs of the Chen Shui-Bien government may be subject to a change of job, a decrease in rank, or a reduction in salary. A clear example is the removal of the Executive Secretary from the Central Election Committee. She has spoken out openly that the Central Election Committee ought to stay neutral in handling the presidential election according to the law. She was penalized with a demotion for trying to enforce the law. Many other government employees have now chosen to take early retirements, to avoid humiliation of this kind.
In October 2004, the Attorney General, Mr. Chen Ding-Nan, made a totally out of line promotion of a Green camp Prosecutor. This is poorly received by the public and other judicial staff members because this individual is not qualified for the new job. She received the promotion only because she is a keen supportor to the Green camp.
Earlier Chen Ding-Nan also promoted his personal chaffeur to a government position that he was not qualified for. This was hardly the behavior expected of the highest law enforcement official in Taiwan.
I.10 Government Brought Lawsuits Against Opponents
The Ministry of Defense (MoD) filed a lawsuit against Hsieh Da-Nin, the leader of the Democratic Action Alliance (DAA), an outspoken group against the military procurement proposal to spend a huge amount of government budget to buy obsolete weapons such as diesel powered submarines. Hsieh was cited as “showing no respect for public offices.”
The MoD based its allegation on an obsolete law which was created by KMT military government in the 30/40’s. During the KMT rule in the past 50 years, this law was never applied against DDP and its members who had been more than verbally abusive to the KMT government. Now this law was used by DPP against the civilians who simply spoke out of concern for the welfare of the citizens.
Chao Shio-Kong, a talk show host of the Fei-De Radio Station, was charged when he challenged that Chen Shui-Bian may have given money to the Lady President of Panama as a birthday gift.
The Government can issue statements to clarify any questionable actions when such actions were challenged by the general public. This is the basic spirit of the freedom of speech. Unfortunately Chen’s government chose to bring lawsuits against its citizens whenever there were different opinions expressed by the people. This is obviously a scare tactics to suppress people’s right to question the government.
II. Suppression of Freedom of Press
To the outside world, Taiwan seems to have enjoyed the reputation as a “vibrant democracy” and a model free nation in Asia. But, during the 5 years under Chen Sui-bian’s administration, the freedom of press has been eroded considerably by the government’s insidious manipulation and suppression.
The tactics used to suppress the media include financial leverage with bank loan, enticement with advertising revenue, intimidation through forceful raid and search of newspaper editorial room, and outright control of mass media. By sophisticated use of proper mix of both carrots and sticks, the Chen administration has been able to impose very effective control of news media.
As a result, the Paris-based “Reporters sans Frontieres” has downgraded Taiwan from the rank of No.35 in 2002 to No. 60 in 2004, lagging behind Romania, Mali, and Peru, in its rating of freedom of press around the world.
The following are some of the more serious examples cited by a paper “ Freedom of the Press at Risk in Taiwan”, published by National Policy Foundation, authored by three respected journalists, I.C. Loh, Huang-fu Ho-wang, and Chang Tso-ching :
II.1 Control of Press Through Pinancial Pressure
Through the control of bank loans, advertising revenue, and other fundings from public sources, the government has found means to exert subtle control over the mass media by choking the source of funding for operation, debt consolidation, and expansion.
Most of the major banks have fallen into the hands of DPP supporters by market manipulation through the “ Market Stability Fund”. This allows the government to threaten the media owners by holding leverage over loan approval. Even some major newspapers and TV/radio stations have buckled under such financial pressure.
Through regulatory pressure and maneuver, the government has gained control of the Taiwan Advertisers’ Association, which in turn controls the advertising revenue to the press and media. This is the lifeline for most of the media. Many media organizations were forced to print what the government feeds them.
There is a “ Broadcasting Business Development Fund”, whose original endowment came from the government budget with operating cost from levies on after-tax earnings of existing stations. The fund has been used to provide business development funding for broadcasting stations. Now, this fund has changed from its original status as “a foundation owned by the people” into a government tool to exert leverage on the mass media.
II.2 Manipulating News Content
a. The government budget pool
Each agency has budgeted a certain amount to pay for public announcements. The DPP government has consolidated all the funds into a pool, and uses it strategically to infuse the government propaganda into the news reporting. This is a major violation of objectivity of news reporting. This pool is in the amount of more than 100 millions US dollars, and is a great carrot to entice the media to report in favor of government
b. The Media Watcher Alliance of Listeners and Viewers (MWA)
DPP created such an organization MWA in 2003 to serve as a “watch dog” over the media and press. They intimidate the news media whenever they deem that a certain news report unfavorable to DPP.
II.3 State-Control of Most TV and Radio Stations
a. Control of TV stations
After the revision of the “Broadcasting and Television Act“ (BTA), the government has gained control of four out of five major public TV stations, and is seeking to use the threat of license suspension to harass the only KMT TV station from its sale to a neutral group. The DPP government even interfered with the station for broadcasting a popular travelogue program simply because it covered the sight-seeing spots on Mainland China.
b. Control of radio stations
The government has control of most of the public broadcasting stations, which reach to every corner of the island and also to the outside world. The appointments of the members of the Board and general managers of those stations are made by DPP regardless of professional qualification of the individuals as long as they are loyal to the Green camp.
c. Hasty legalization of underground radio stations that support DPP
During the presidential election, DPP supporters started up many illegal underground radio stations, without operating license. In order to reward these stations for their contributions for helping to win the election, and to get ready for the parliamentary election in late 2004, the government has hastily made these station legitimate, bypassing the required legal procedures, including lengthy review of operating plan and bond-posting.
II.4 Forceful intimidation of press
During the authoritative rule of the Chiang family, the government did not raid the newspaper editorial offices. But Chen’s government committed such blatant act of suppression of press freedom repeatedly.
a. Raid of newspaper and magazine offices
In 2000, in the name of searching for alleged breach of military secrets, the government forcefully raided and searched the editorial office of China Times Evening News, as well as the home of the reporter..
Similarly, both the editorial office and the print plant of the weekly magazine, “Next”, owned by the Apple Daily Group of Hongkong, were raided. In addition, 160,000 copies of that week’s issue were seized. The Association of Repoters headquartered in New York has issued strong protest letters to Chen Shui-Bian about the illegal search and seizure of press material.
b. Threat by law suits
million dollars from her, President Chen immediately threatened that he would sue
the paper. The paper was forced to apologize. After this episode, the law enforcement agencies would not investigate the allegation to avoid similar trouble. It is clear that most media organizations and citizens have no resources to fight with the scare tactics of the government. So they chose to succumb to the government pressure.
c. Promotion of loyal supporters to key positions in media
Through the use of powerful government authority, DPP fills the key positions in media with their own loyal supporters. The most outrageous example is the appointment of Jiang Hsia as the new Chief Executive Officer of CTV. Chiang was only a low level personnel in the TV industry. Her new fame and fortune was due entirely to her conducting a mud-throwing campaign by producing and illegally distributing a digital video disk in 2003 to smear the challengers to Chen Sui-bian in the presidential race. Now, as the CEO of CTV, she replaced prime time popular programs with her fanatic fellow traveler of low taste. The low rating received by this new program has become a laughing stock in Taiwan (Also see I.5).
III. Breaching the Judicial Power
III.1 Exploiting the Judicial Branch to Cover Up the Investigations of High-Level DPP Officials and the First Family
There were many improper financial dealings in military weapons purchases from abroad involving top leaders of the Pan-Green camp in the government and their family members. Numerous examples involved huge amount of commissions, kickbacks, and even murders. Judicial investigations were often blocked or suspended for an unreasonably long period of time. On the other hand, a recent example is the investigation involving possible insider trading, excessive profits, sudden wealth, concealment of stock market profits, and nonpayment of taxes by the First Lady. She was quickly exonerated with a slap on the wrist and a minor fine. DPP demonstrated its ability to totally maneuvre the Judicial Branch for its own gain.
Another recent example is with Mrs. Lo, a close friend of the First Lady. She was improperly paid a high government salary and the use of government personnel and resources. When her illegal affairs were exposed, she refused three times in a row to appear before the Control Yuan to explain her actions, even it is clearly a violation of the law. President Chen came to her defense by making public statements on her behalf.
Chen Shui-Bian also permitted the National Security Bureau service automobile to be used by his son-in-law, his son and the son’s girlfriend. All such cases were unethical, improper, and a violation of the law. But no judge dares to do anything about the situation.
III.2 Abuse of Judicial Power Against Political Opponents
During the presidential election campaign of 2000 the incumbent President, Lee Teng-Hui, encouraged the Justice Department to investigate the opposing candidate, James Sung, on suspicion of improper accounting of expenses to pay the former First Lady, Madame Chiang Kai-Shek in the United States. At the time James Sung was close to winning the 2000 election against candidate Chen Shui-Bien. As the investigation against Sung did not expose anything illegal, the case was closed. However the damage was done. Chen Shui-Bian won by a narrow margin.
In the 2004 presidential election, Mr. Sung of the People’s First Party (PFP) teamed with Mr. Lian Chan of KMT and ran against President Chen Shui-Bien. Chen again exploited the same judicial case against Sung for his own campaign advantage even though the case has been closed by a judicial court. Chen is a lawyer and certainly knows about the double jeopardy law.
During the 2004 election, the Yun-Lin County executive, Mr. R.W. Zhang, came out in support of the Pan-Blue ticket against President Chen. Soon after Chen’s re-election victory, Mr. Zhang was sued in court on an entirely unrelated matter. Today many anti-Pan-Green politicians routinely receive threats of lawsuits. Once such politicians turned around and supported the Pan-Green, their judicial cases woul be dropped.
III.3 Verdict of Nullifying Election Trial Openly Condones Fraud and Dishonesty
In the 2004 presidential election several unusual events occurred on March 19th, the eve of the election. The events shocked the nation and created a deep wound amoung the citizens that would take years to heal. For example, candidate Chen Shui-Bien was shot by an assassin’s “magic bullets” which penetrated only skin-deep into Chen’s abdomen. Another bullet grazed the kneecap of his running mate Annetta Lu. The event took place in front of thousands of spectators in his hometown of Tai-Nan. Yet nobody saw or hear anything. This attempted assassination on the president was investigated only by the local police. Chen Shui-Bian has stubbornly refused to form an Independent Truth Investigation Committee despite the repeated requests from the Blue camp and most of the citizens. The president, after being shot, was able to walk into a local hospital, owned by a personal friend, for surgery. While he was on the operating table he was videotaped as talking on a cell phone. Later on, his Secretary General, Chiu I-Ren, openly announced on TV that a bullet was found on the President implying that he was injured more seriously than he really was. Mr. Chiu also activated a non-existent National Security Mechanism to deprieve the millitary personnel, which are mostly Blue camp, to come out to vote. The underground radio stations began to spread the rumor that the assassination was a conspiracy between the Blue Camp and the Chinese Communists, further inciting the Fu-Lao group.
Although the voting took place peacefully the next day. Chen Shui-Bian received many “sympathy votes” and won by a very narrow margin of 21,000 votes out of over 13 million votes. Rumors were abundant that the Green camp has employed illegal voters and officials to produce fraudulent votes. The Pan-Blue camp immediately filed two lawsuits to nullify this unusual election. Hundreds of lawyers from both Blue and Green camps poured over the ballots and Voter’s Registry Books for evidence of wrongdoings. At the end of the investigation, numerous invalid and illegal ballots were discovered, totaling to well over nine hundred thousands of disputable ballots.
On November 4, 2004, the High Court announced the first verdict of the lawsuit filed by the Blue camp. It stated “althought the fact existed that the Green camp has exploited the gunshot incident for its own advantage, it is not illegal as long as the Green camp did not use force or violence to make people vote for it.” In another words, the verdict informs people that fraud and dishonesty are acceptable as long as no threatening forces are used in the election. The fact that there were 900,000 disputable votes, forty times the margin of victory of 21,000 votes, is totally ignored. The truth of the seemingly staged gunshot incident was not investigated to the satisfaction of the people. In addition. the bundling of the presidential election with a referendum for purchasing arms, a clear violation of the election laws, was deliberately overlooked.
In July 2004, a member of the Taipei City Council, Lee In-Yuan, was sentenced to serve a six-month prison term because he published a book exposing a ficticious extramarital affair of Chen Shui-Bian during the Year 2000 presidential election. Mr. Lee did not use violence or threats on voters, why was he subject to judicial prosecution? The double standard of the Green camp and its use of judicial power to suppress the opponents are now too obvious to the Taiwanese people.
IV. The Breakdown of “Checks and Balances” - President Chen is Becoming a Dictator
A democratic society relies on the system of “checks and balances” in the government to insure its proper execution. This includes the utilization of media as the fourth institution aloneside the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. Unfortunately in Taiwan, the re-election of Mr. Chen Shui-Bian in 2004 has destroyed such democratic accountability. Chen is now controlling all the government resources and he uses them effectively to control the media as well.
IV.1 Congress Mandated Truth Investigation Committee Is Blocked by Green Camp From Carrying Out Its Mission
Attempted assasination of a president is a major crime in any democratic country. It needs to be investigated by a state authorized independent committee such as the Warren Commission created after the Kennedy Assassination. However in Taiwan, the incident was investigated at a local level as a community crime. President Chen has steadfastly refuse people’s request to form an independent investigation committee. Six months passed with absolutely no progress made on the investigation of the assassination. Critical evidence such as the telephone records and crime scene details were potentially lost.
Finally the Congress decided to take the matter into its own hand in September and passed a House Bill to create a multi-party Truth Investigating Committee (TIC) to seek the truth. The Green camp immediately began to take actions to blockade the TIC’s execution of its mandated mission:
A. The Green camp insisted that the legislative effort was in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of China.
B. The Executive Branch refused to honor the House Bill and requested a legislative review to upturn the decision to form TIC. Although such review was voted down in the Congress, it was discovered that members of the supreme judges were asked to call and persuade an independent legislator to vote against TIC. Legislator, Mr. Y.K. Su, exposed this inappropriate contact by a supreme court judge. However he refused to identify the judge in fear of his personal safety.
C. Green camp politicians phoned high court judges asking them to declare such an investigation as “unconstitutional” and to freeze the TIC.
D. Pan-Green legislators refused to participate in such an investigation.
E. One Green legislator, Mr. Tsai Wen-Bin, expressed willingness to participate. His DPP membership was instantly suspended. He was labelled as a traitor.
F. The Executive Branch refused to fund the investigation even though it is mandated by the Congress. TIC must now turned to donations from its members and the public.
G. Interior Minister, Su Jia-Chun, stated that government employees have the right to resist appearing to testify during the investigation. Government prosecutors and police may reject the committee’s call to be interviewed or hand over related materials.
H. Many Green camp supporters surrounded members of the investigating committee to verbally abuse and threat them with bodily harms. President Chen apparently condoned such violent behavior.
IV.2 Control Yuan Cannot Carry Out Its Mission of Impeaching The Wrongdoers In Government
According to ROC’s Constitution, the members of the Control Yuan are to be elected mutually among the county or local city councilmen. The primary mission of the Control Yuan is to oversee the proper functioning of the central government on behalf of the people. It can investigate any inappropriety of the government officials to recommend to the judicial branch for impeachment and other actions.
However the most recent amendment to the Constitution gave the president the right to nominate and appoint members of the Control Yuan. The presumed neutrality and independence of the members are forever lost.
On October 29, Chen Shui-Bian appointed a nomination committee to nominate and evaluate new candidates for the Control Yuan for the next six years. The Chairperson is Ms. Annetta Lu, the Vice President. Committee members include Chien Fu, currently the Director of Control Yuan; Chang Chien-Bun, a Senior Presidential Advisor; Mr. Shiao Hsin-Huang, Senior National Advisor; and Mr. Su Chin-Chun, Secretary General of the President’s Office. He also apponted Ms. In-Chi as a member of the nomination/review committee. Of the six, four are DPP core members. Ms. In Chi, Chen Shui-Bian’s lont time supporter, is the owner of a constrauction company currently under contract with the government to build the High Speed Train. Her company has been shrouded with suspicions of collution with government officials. She has been investigated intensively by the Control Yuan in recent years. But she is now appointed by President Chen to nominate and evaluate the future members of the Control Yuan. This is certainly an outrageous decision on Chen’s part. He is obviously ignoring the conflict of interest aspect of her appointment.
The Chairperson Annetta Lu has stated openly that the political party affiliation will be an evaluation factor in selecting members for the Control Yuan. So how could the Control Yuan effectively and justly monitor the performance of the government?
Currently government officials, when being investigated by the Control Yuan, often refused to be interviewed. Supeonas to witnesses of the 319 assassination investigation and the Mrs. Lo’s investigation were ignored by those people. Even though the Control Yuan produced an investigation report on certain cases, its recommendation was not enforced.
IV.3 The Referendum Was Ignored
The referendum regulation forbids holding a referendum during a presidential election. Chen Shui-Bian openly ignored the law and held the Arms Procurement Referendum on the same day of the presidential election. His goal was to take advantage of voters’ sentiment in the issue of arms procurement. He erroneously assumed that people would go for the proposed purchase out of fear of the communist China. However, the result of the referendum showed otherwise. Most people rejected huge spending and to start an arms race with China.
After Chen Shui-Bian was elected President, he continued to push for the arms procurement despite people’s wish.
VI.4 Central Government Allocates Funds to Local Governments Based on Party Affiliation
The counties and municipal cities would receive ample allocations of funds from central government if the county or city executives are members of the DPP. The Blue camp executives would have their budget reduced or eliminated. The most prominenet case is with the Capital City of Taipei. The Mayor, Ma In-Chou is a senior KMT member. Despite the fact that Taipei City pays the highest amount of taxes to the central government, its operation budget has been repeatedly cut and reduced.
The Tai-Dung County Executive Hsu Ching-yuan, a PFP member, has been denied audience with the Prime Minister for over six months. His request for NT$1.6 billion for local development received no responses from the central government. He was forced to resign from the PFP party and began to support the Green camp candidates in their election campaign. Only by doing so, he will be granted the fund that he requested.
Another example is the Jia-I County Executive, Chen Min-Wen. After he resigned from KMT and joined DPP, his county received economic development fund from central government without any difficulties.
The national resources such as tax dollars and manpower were used by the DPP as tools to influence the local politics and to acquire votes. DPP totally ignores the need of the local people and their fair share of the national resources.
Conclusion
A Empty Ethnic Group Harmony Resolution
And
A Disabled Checks and Balances Structure
On August 26, a Resolution entitled “Multi-ethnic National Solidarity Statement” was passed at the Democratic Progressive Party National Assemby Conference. It emphasized that the recognition of the Republic of China and the recognition of Taiwan must be reconciled with each other. All ethnic groups are citizens of Taiwan. Any discrimination, whether in speech or action, against the identities of any of the ethnic groups shall be condemned and punished.
Without any doubt, in the Presidential Election held in March 2004, the DPP attained the narrow victory by manipulating the ethnic conflict and creating the discriminating environment for its opponents. Right after the election, the DPP Legislator, Mr. Shen Fu-Hsiun, criticized the party tactics. He raised the points openly that DPP shall not question opponent’s ethnic background and their political views on the issue of Taiwan Independence or reunification with China in any future elections. His statements received wide and harsh criticisms from his party comrades. Four months later DPP passed the Resolution due to tremendous pressure from the public. Still, Mr. Shen commented that it should not include words such as “original sin” because he did not believe that the mainlander group should be held responsible for the 228 Incident that happened fifty seven years ago.
Legislator Duan I-Chien, one of the very few mainlander DPP members, reminded his colleagues that the Resolution is merely a beginning. More importantly, he wants to see more actions.
We want to applaud the self-reckoning of DPP, a political party that ia so used to taking great advantage in elections from the manupulation of ethnic awareness of its constituents – the Fu-Lao group.
However DPP has not yet formulated any action plans in the Legislative Branch (Congress) such as a equal right amendment, or measures for handing out punishments to civil right violators. So far the DPP Resolution is only a piece of document, worth no more than the value of the paper it is printed on. The non-Fu-Lao groups continue to receive discriminatory treatment in finding jobs, promotion, and other common daily activities.
Nor can we ignore the facts that the non-abating discrimination statements, targeted at the non-Fu-Lao groups, disabled citizens, and people with different political views, from Vice President Lu, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Education high officials, CTN Chief Executive Officer, and other high government officials were not addressed with reprimants or restriction as stated in the Resolution. The demand for apology or equitable compensation from those victims whose civil rights were violated by DPP members often went unheeded. Ironically the one single individual that has repeatedly issued civil rights violating statements, namely Vice President Annetta Lu, was appointed as the Chairperson of the Presidential Civil Right Watch Group. It is not hard to imagine the true status of the civil rights of the citizens in Taiwan.
The checks and balances mechnism is the most precious instrument in a democratic society. It prevents a powerful head-of-state from becoming a dictator. Such mechnism exists in Taiwan only in form today. It is not functional. It is disabled by a powerful President. The Green camp plays the ethnic cards effortlessly to converge the majority Fu-Lao group into an effective election machine. The President can do whatever that delights his ambitious mind. The illegal and immoral activities were brushed under the rug with help from the judicial branch, the last defense line of the people. The numerous civil right violations quoted in this document show only the tip of the iceberg. Taiwan is well on its way toward a dictatorial holocaust.
Prepared by:
Taiwan Civil Rights Watch Group
Washington DC
Democracy and Truth Alliance
P O Box 1046
Rockville, Maryland 20849