Morning tea with Tsai Ing-wen

Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) spoke to a group of foreign residents in Taipei yesterday morning. She first spent some time outlining her vision for Taiwan before taking questions from the floor.  Tsai is currently on leave from her position as chair of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as she competes in the party’s primary for the presidential nomination. The primary will be decided by opinion polls conducted in the next few days with the announcement of the result expected on 4 May.

In outlining her vision for Taiwan, Tsai focused mainly on relations with China and economic policy. She had some interesting ideas about Taiwan’s future economic development.

On the issue of jobs Tsai said, “We don’t have enough jobs and enough good jobs. Despite the fact you may be able to find a job, you may not be able to find a job with good pay. So the quality of jobs is important too.” Tsai then discussed how this was related to the structure of the economy. Since the 1990s as Taiwanese businesses and capital moved to China the restructuring of the economy was delayed.

This led to Tsai mentioning the effect of large numbers of Chinese tourists coming to Taiwan. “With the outward movement of industrial production to China we are exporting higher pay, better jobs to China. With the inflow of Chinese tourists we are actually importing lower pay service jobs,” Tsai said.

Tsai presented some of her ideas for creating better jobs in Taiwan. These revolved around promoting R&D industries and locating these in rural areas. She also mentioned encouraging artists to move to rural areas. Tsai also mentioned the importance of agriculture. She said Taiwan needs more professional farmers and that people from the cities need to move to the country to get involved in agriculture. These ideas are laudable but I would like to see some more concrete details of the policies.

Hsiao Bi-Khim talks about the election campaign

Klaus Bardenhagen, a German reporter based in Taiwan, interviewed Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), director of the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Department of International Affairs, in Banqiao yesterday. He kindly provided me with a copy of the interview for use on this blog. In the interview Hsiao talks about the current election campaign and the the development of democracy in Taiwan.

I recently noted how the DPP was actively encouraging youth to vote. Hsiao explained, “Young people, according to polls, favour our party over the others by a two to one margin which is very good. Unfortunately the young people are not reliable because their voter turnout is low. Only about 30% of the young people come out to vote. So we really want to increase the voter turnout among younger people.”

Part of the strategy to improve the youth vote makes use of the internet. I blogged about how the DPP was actively using social media in the local elections last year.  “Social media is very important. In addition to traditional TV commercials and advertising, which is very expensive, we want to work on cost effective means to reach the younger people. We have new internet campaign advertising. We use Facebook, Plurk, YouTube and other means to reach younger people,” Hsiao said.

Another part of the DPP campaign is focused on swing voters. Hsiao said, “In order to win the election we have to capture the swing voters. It’s actually a small number of people in Taiwan, but there are people who do fluctuate between the two major political parties. We need to capture them. That’s very important. So our strategy needs to be focused on the issues that are very much relevant to the people’s daily lives. Contrary to other national level elections where ideology and national security issues would be prominent, these elections are really about the local life here in the cities.”

People who watch television news in Taiwan will see a lot of images of candidates out amongst the voters handshaking and greeting. This is a more traditional form of campaigning. Hsiao said, “I think a lot of Taiwanese want to make a personal connection to the political leaders who they see on TV. But there is not that personal connection so as candidates we try to meet them in person and to do that we really need to be on the streets a lot. Walking along the streets and shopping districts shaking hands, going to the marketplaces where crowds tend to congregate.”

The DPP has its roots in the opposition movement that formed during the Martial Law era. The culture of election campaigns has changed a lot since those days. Hsiao said, “Taiwan has matured significantly over the past 20 years in our democratization so nowadays in our rallies we try to be more positive and forward looking instead of protesting something negative, instead of being confrontational. We still have street rallies and parades but we try to be more festive and positive so that families so that families can come. We are no longer a confrontational challenge, but instead a party that has a forward looking and happy agenda.”

Voters in the five cities — Greater Kaohsiung, Greater Tainan, Greater Taichung, Xinbei City (formerly Taipei County) and Taipei City — will cast their votes on 27 November. The DPP is widely expected to win the mayorship in Kaohsiung and Tainan while the KMT is expected to win in Taichung. The contests in Taipei and Xinbei cities are much closer and difficult to predict. The results will set the stage for the next major elections for the legislature and president in 2012.

*Photo from Hsiao Bi-khim’s Facebook page.

Youth can change Taiwan!

My recent letter in the Taipei Times ended by saying that youth must speak out to protect freedom in Taiwan. After I posted a link to my letter on Facebook Michael Turton commented that the youth also need to vote.

It seems very timely that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) just released a campaign video featuring rapper Dog G* (大支) titled “Change Taiwan” (改變台灣). The DPP writes in the description (see full text and translation below) of Dog G’s video that they want youth to actively participate in and contribute their ideas to the election campaign. They go on to write, “the DPP wants to promote an overall increase in the youth vote. It is not just concerned with the overall breakdown of votes between the parties. The key point is that youth should play a key role in this election!”

The description also says that the video seeks to overthrow older people’s stereotypes about the younger generation. The lyrics intend to highlight how young people are actively engaged in society. For example, mobilising to help after the Typhoon Morakot floods and their role in the Dapu Land Grab Incident.

The video is also interesting because although it was created for the DPP, it doesn’t actually mention the DPP anywhere in the video. This follows an earlier campaign video from the DPP which also appealed to the centre ground. Peter Martin at Sinocentric noted the earlier ad, “pitches strait to the political centre-ground and tries to talk past the highly partisan debates which often characterize Taiwanese politics.”

The lyrics of the song represent a paradigm change from the ethnic-based politics of the past to a younger generation who have gone beyond ethnicity to just identify with Taiwan. Dog G sings:

我們不管藍綠綠藍這些

[We don’t care about blue versus green and green versus blue]

我們很簡單就是關心台灣，關心社會

[We just simply care about Taiwan and care about the society]

我們也沒有什麼族權問題總總

[We also don’t have a problem with different ethnic groups]

The V-sign in the video represents the word “vote”. I also suggest that V can represent “voice”. The combination of youth using their vote and their voice can change Taiwan.

*At the time this article was published rap artist 大支 used the English name Dog G. He now goes by the name Dwagie.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Chinese-language text from the video description. English translation by David.

年輕選票成為這場選舉的關鍵力量！

Let the youth vote become this election’s key power!

對於台灣的未來，年輕人應該擔當的是有主導權的關鍵者，而不該是在一旁唱唱跳跳的旁觀者。因此選戰以來，民進黨不僅鼓勵年輕人主動參與、規劃各項競選事務，由他們按著自己的想法來主導，對於青年族群在選舉中的影響，民進黨更關心的是整體青年投票率的提升，而非僅僅於政黨的得票比例。重點是年輕人要在這場選舉裡扮演關鍵角色！

Regarding Taiwan’s future, youth are taking on a key leadership role and not just standing on the sidelines as spectators. Hence, since the election campaign began the DPP has not just encouraged youth to participate in planning every aspect of the campaign, it has also let their ideas lead the way. Concerning the influence of youth groups on the election the DPP wants to promote an overall increase in the youth vote. It is not just concerned with the overall breakdown of votes between the parties. The key point is that youth should play a key role in this election!

這首[改變台灣]由知名的HIP HOP歌手大支創作，MV則由來自五都，包括多個大學HIP HOP社團學生、運動員、藝術工作者等各行各業超過150位年輕朋友在月前透過網路揪團拍攝。[改變台灣]歌詞推翻年輕人被大人世界加上的[草莓族]、[政治冷感]刻板印象，特別以88水災時年輕人發動比政府更有效率的救災行動、日前成功爭取社會注目，最後逼得馬政府退讓的「大埔農地」事件為例，強調年輕人不僅不是冷漠的旁觀者，更有領導時代，改變台灣的雄心與能力。而改變台灣的方式，mv當中則以[v]手勢，作為年輕族群揪團投票(vote)的默契，邀請所有年輕人用選票打造自己的理想五都。

The song “Change Taiwan” was created by well known hip hop artist Dog G. In the music video there are students from university hip hop clubs, athletes, artists and workers of every kind from all five cities* who seized the chance to film last month. The lyrics overthrow older people’s stereotypes of the youth as being the strawberry generation or indifferent to politics. The lyrics especially mention the youth response in providing disaster relief during the Typhoon Morakot floods was more effective than the government’s response. The way youth argued with the Ma government over the Dapu Land Grab Incident is another example. This emphasizes that youth are not just indifferent spectators. They are leaders with ambitions and potential to change Taiwan. The V-sign in the video means “vote” and signifies youth recognising the power of the vote. We invite every young person to use their vote to create their ideal “five cities”.

*Five cities refers to the five cities holding elections: Taipei City, Xinbei City (Taipei County), Greater Taichung, Greater Tainan and Greater Kaohsiung.

Deepening democracy in Asia

A forum in Taipei yesterday titled “Democracy Building in Asia” brought together experts from Taiwan, the US and Asian countries. The forum was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) and the Institute for National Policy Research.

In one of the opening speeches John Chiang (蔣孝嚴), a Vice-Chairman of the KMT and board member of TFD, said it was timely to have the conference in Taiwan now that there have been two orderly and peaceful transitions of power and this shows that democracy can work in Asia.

Lin Wen-cheng (林文程), the President of TFD, speaking in the afternoon said that democratic countries should be more pro-active in promoting democracy in their foreign policy. Taiwan is the only country in Asia that has established a national foundation to promote democracy in the region. Lin said that other countries, especially Japan and South Korea, should establish similar organisations.

The need for greater regional efforts in promoting democracy was highlighted by the presentations of several foreign speakers. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, President of the National Human Rights Society in Malaysia, said that Malaysia had a very good constitution that included a bill of rights when it obtained independence in 1957. However, since 1987 its democracy has been under attack. Malik emphasised the harm that had been done to the judiciary through sacking key judges who made decisions that went against the government and appointing crony judges.

Jarius Bondoc, a journalist from the Philippines, said that 67 journalists had been killed in the Philippines since 2001 and the harassment of journalists continues.

The first session in the morning was about legislative optimisation. It included talks by representatives of the Congressional/Parliamentary Research services from the US and India.

Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴), a former legislator and currently Director of International Affairs for the DPP, spoke about how procedure in Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan could be improved to consolidate democracy. She identified four categories for change: (1) electoral system, (2) structure of the Legislative Yuan, (3) accountability and (4) quality of legislation.

With regard to the electoral system she said the new system, first adopted in the 2008 election, resulted in a the KMT winning a large majority with many more seats than the percentage of their vote. Small parties were also locked out by the new system. I raised a question about exactly how the system should be improved. Bi-khim replied the issue is being discussed by the DPP but there is no consensus within the party. There is also no consensus between parties on the issue.

Bi-khim also discussed how there was a need to change the committee system in the legislature. The current system offers advantages to members of certain committees who can use them to secure projects for their electorates. There is no consideration of professional skills or seniority in assigning legislators to committees. The rotation of committee chairs also leads to inconsistencies.

As well as reform of the legislature, judicial reform was the topic in the final afternoon session. Dr Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), Taiwan’s former representative in Washington and now a professor at NCCU, said Taiwan has consolidated its democracy through two transitions of power, but there were still important issues that need to be resolved.

Wu highlighted the cases of the Kaohsiung MRT, Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen and former President Chen Shui-bian as examples of problems in the judicial system. He said there was a need for serious reform of the judicial system. In particular there needs to be better monitoring of judges, judges should not maintain close relationships with prosecutors, there should be presumption of innocence and the recruitment of prosecutors and judges needs to be reformed. There is also a need to revise the criminal procedure code to limit the detention period, Wu said.

Wu said the top leadership must recognise there is a problem with the judiciary and ask top officials to research and investigate this. The government must accept whatever recommendations are made and put them into place.

Other media: The Taipei Times published an article about the forum. The China Post also has a report. The Taiwan News has a related editorial today on reform of Legislative Yuan.

Taiwan needs justice not persecution

For a long time I have wanted to write something about the detention of former President Chen Shui-bian. I have avoided it for a number of reasons. First, it has been painful to watch the downfall of someone I once greatly admired. Second, I find it hard to accept the animosity and vitriol that many people in Taiwan express toward A-bian. It is clear the KMT and its cohorts in the media have succeeded in convincing a significant percentage of people in Taiwan that A-bian is an evil monster who doesn’t even deserve basic human rights. As a result it is difficult to have a calm and rational conversation about the topic.

A must read article by Paul Katz (中文) at The China Beat finally prompted me to go back to this article that has been in draft for so long. Katz writes that 4 June marks the 185th day of Chen’s detention. That’s more than half a year. It’s too long. Remember that Chen was first detained on 12 November 2008 and not indicted until 12 December 2008. He was released and two subsequent appeals by prosecutors to detain Chen were rejected by the court. It was only after the much criticised switching of judges that Chen was detained again on 30 December 2008. He has been continuously in detention since then.

It is clear that Chen Shui-bian’s family have engaged in inappropriate financial dealings. Their actions should be investigated and tried before a court. All people are equal before the law and the fact a former President is on trial is proof of that. Nobody should escape justice because of any position they hold. It is important to remember though, there is a significant difference between doing something wrong and being found guilty in a court of law. The principles of being innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial are fundamental.

From the beginning it was obvious Chen’s trial would be subject to great scrutiny and needed to be conducted to the highest judicial standards. Katz expresses it quite eloquently:

having a top-ranking politician found guilty after a trial deemed fair and impartial would constitute an immense boost in prestige for Taiwan’s judicial system, while also sending a crystal-clear message to all politicians facing similar forms of temptation. However, a conviction following proceedings that suggest Chen is presumed guilty and likely to be found guilty as well would represent a major step backwards, and risk causing a reversion to traditional views of the law as being simply a tool to enhance state interests.

Chen’s trial has been marked by ongoing events which show that the judiciary doesn’t adhere to the high standards that it should. There has been political interference in the appointment of judges, inappropriate behaviour by prosecutors and a lack of respect for basic principles of human rights. Chen’s detention has limited his ability to properly consult with his lawyers in preparing the case for his defense. Chen has a sharp legal mind and the chance to stand up and defend himself in a fair trial is something that he would have relished not run away from.

Ma Ying-jeou was charged with corruption in 2007 and subsequently acquitted. He did not spend a single day in detention. The double standard in Chen’s ongoing detention is clear and obvious. Katz further elucidates here:

detention of politicians on such charges is almost unprecedented. Over the years, numerous politicians of all stripes have been accused of corruption. Some have been found guilty and sent to prison, while others have been proven innocent. Only a small percentage has been subjected to detention (most are allowed the right to bail), although many suspects have fled the country and are currently living high on the hog (swine flu notwithstanding) in China and the U.S. Apart from Chen, however, no Taiwanese politician has been detained for such a long period of time on corruption charges without having first been convicted of a crime.

The real reason for A-bian’s ongoing detention has nothing to do with justice. The Taiwan News writes in its editorial today:

After all, the genuine source of the hatred against Chen has little to do with the question of whether he was really corrupt but lies in the fact that the human rights lawyer and fiery lawmaker and “upstart,” for all of his undeniable defects, led Taiwan’s grassroots Democratic Progressive Party in an electoral campaign that pulled the KMT down after nearly 55 years of unchallenged authoritarian and one-party dominant rule.

The Ma government had a great chance to show that it was genuinely committed to fighting corruption through Chen’s trial. Instead we got a circus, a kangaroo court and trial by media. There is no justice in Taiwan. The KMT continues to act with impunity while those that challenge its power are persecuted.

中文版：台灣需要公平正義而不是迫害

Transitional justice and Taiwan

The International Center for Transitional Justice defines transitional justice as follows:

Transitional justice refers to a range of approaches that societies undertake to reckon with legacies of widespread or systematic human rights abuse as they move from a period of violent conflict or oppression towards peace, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for individual and collective rights.

In making such a transition, societies must confront the painful legacy, or burden, of the past in order to achieve a holistic sense of justice for all citizens, to establish or renew civic trust, to reconcile people and communities, and to prevent future abuses. A variety of approaches to transitional justice are available that can help wounded societies start anew.

It goes on to detail some of the approaches by which transitional justice can be achieved. These include both judicial and non-judicial methods. I think a key point is that transitional justice is not merely about seeking revenge or punishment for past wrongs. It also looks toward reconciliation, institutional reform and ensuring the wrongs of the past are not repeated.

So why has Taiwan failed to achieve significant transitional justice? I think it is first important to recognise that things have been achieved. Since the DPP came to power in 2000: the statues of Chiang Kai-shek are slowly but surely being removed, 228 has been declared a public holiday and the textbooks gradually rewritten.

The main obstacles to achieving more lies in the fact that the KMT still has a majority in the legislature and they have used this to stonewall the government. Also many current KMT officials may be guilty of human rights abuses, so they will use their position to avoid any potentially embarrassing probes into their past.

Another key point is that for many people, both victims and perpertrators of crimes, the past is just filled with too many things that are painful to look at. Memories have been repressed, both actively and as a natural response to trauma.

The Taiwan News on 23 July 2007 had an article titled, Scholars point out martial law mentality lingers long after era. In the article Yao Jen-to, an assistant professor of sociology at National Tsing Hua University, is quoted as saying:

“The former regime has made many Taiwanese live like walking corpses, living without passion. The 38 years of authoritative rule has also made them stop thinking, with many focusing only on how to make money,” Yao added.

The Foreigner on Formosa writes that “walking corpses” is something of an exaggeration, but his personal observation is that many Taiwanese are unwilling or unable to freely express their own opinions. I believe this problem also has its roots in the education system, which was also heavily shaped by KMT ideology and martial law.

During the martial law era while some people were victims or perpetrators, perhaps the majority probably just did their best to live their lives and stay out of trouble. In order to do this they may have had to maintain a silence refraining criticism of the government and turning a blind eye to abuses of human rights. This attitude persists today; people simply want to get on with their lives and not dig up the horrors of the past. As Taiwan is now relatively prosperous and free people see no reason to challenge the past.

It is a lack of transitional justice that underlies the deep political divisions that exist in Taiwan and remain the greatest obstacle to constitutional reform and the strengthening of democratic institutions. Vincent Wang wrote in the Taipei Times last year:

Up until now Taiwan’s democratization has been through a series of “transitions without justice.” Taiwan’s democratic transition, because of a narrow-minded focus on elections, is simply understood as transition of power, as unjust aspects of the system have not been thoroughly examined and corrected. In the glow of the transfer of power, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) forgot to be resolute about transitional justice.

One of the key issues remains that of the KMT Party assets. Jerome Keating writes:

The KMT had assets of over NT$27 billion which when matched to its liabilities left them with a net worth of over NT$25 billion dollars. The DPP was second with Assets of NT$339 million and a net worth of NT$253 million.

Now tell me in a democracy, just how does one party have assets over NT$25 billion and the total of all the other parties is less than NT$300 million; not even a third of one billion dollars. The answer of course can be found in approximately forty years of Martial Law and a one-party state and no transitional justice.

This will be an issue during the elections next year. Some might say the DPP is simply using the issue of party assets as a political wedge, but the issue is very genuine. These assets belong to the people of Taiwan. As long as they continue to be used to benefit one political party then they remain an obstacle to strengthening Taiwan’s democracy.

In May this year Nobel-laureate Desmond Tutu visited Taiwan to talk about transitional justice and reconciliation. There is probably no one more eminently qualified to speak on this topic. The Taiwan Journal records him as saying:

“This is a very delicate business, what you do in a transition,” Tutu remarked. “There is, on the one hand, the release, the joy, even the euphoria that a period of great suffering has ended. And when that happens, people will be singing in deep thankfulness and relief. But on the other hand, it is also a time of great sadness, because people, loved ones, were the victims of egregious violations of human rights: those who were tortured, secretly abducted, imprisoned, killed, possibly burned. And there is almost universally, in this kind of period, a deep hunger for the truth.”

“Frequently, there would be those who demanded that the culprits be brought to book, be arrested and arraigned,” he explained. “But the new dispensation of freedom is fragile, precarious, and it just might be that to pursue the ends of retributive justice might jeopardize the new order.”

“On the other hand, you want to ask, ‘Do you let the culprits go scot-free?'” Tutu continued. “Would they not repeat their awful deeds again, knowing they would not have to face the music? What to do in such a period is a real agonizing problem in this period of transition.”

There are no easy answers about the best way to achieve transitional justice in Taiwan. But it is important to remember the past in order to prevent the same mistakes being made in the future.