The Cross Strait Times

The arrest of former President Chen and the whole money laundering/corruption scandal has drawn the attention of the international media, calling into question if the arrests are a form of political persecution. Furthermore, all the recent arrests have been DPP members. What about corrupt KMT-PFP members? Everyone knows that they haven’t been sparkling clean all these years. They’ve been slapped on the wrist and sought asylum in China. It would be ironic if our judiciary allows Taiwan’s pro-independence lawmakers to seek asylum in China. The result wouldn’t quite be justice, but it would be poetic nonetheless.

According to the laws of Taiwan, a person can be held in detention, incommunicado, without due process for up to two months, and renewable for a total of four months! Imprisonment for convicted criminals is justified, but just under suspicion? This does not show Taiwan’s legal system in the best light.

Will the prosecution of the former president lead to greater transparency and democracy as it has in South Korea? While I would like it to be so, incommunicado detentions really don’t help Taiwan’s image. Chen Shui-bian needs fair and open proceedings. The fact that justices have openly said that they are determined find Chen guilty is troubling. Can the public find such an investigation legitimate?

Photo credit: China Post

On Tuesday, the anti-corruption unit detained former President Chen Shui-bian over the “state affairs funds” and a money-laundering case involving the former first family. President Chen had been a loud voice against the ARATS-SEF meeting last week and yesterday was led away in handcuffs. He had even announced another bid on the ROC presidency for 2012.

He insisted that he was being jailed for political reasons, for being the “top prisoner of war of the ruling KMT and the Communist Party of China,” despite the fact that he had publicly apologized for breaking the law months before.

Since the end of Chen’s second presidential term, he and his family have been investigated on suspicions of embezzlement, bribery and money laundering during his presidency. Each of the crimes Chen is accused of has a minimum penalty of five years behind bars.

Now, what of Chen Shui-bian’s legacy? As he is being held for questioning and likely to be found guilty of some kind of corruption, I will say something that most Blue supporters would probably never acknowledge: Chen Shui-bian is a hero.

Before 2000, Taiwan was under one-party rule. Any party, no matter how well-intentioned its founding principles, when given too much power becomes corrupt and controlling, doing whatever it can to keep its grip on power. With the ascension of Chen and the DPP to the presidency, the KMT had to adapt and become more accountable to the people to survive as a party. Granted, the KMT’s accountablity is still not ideal (neither is the DPP’s, which cost them the 2008 election), but that should improve with future generations.

Furthermore, the Chen administration’s pushing of the envelope towards independence may have invigorated his base, but also divided Taiwan’s society and alienated a number of people. After he left office, the backlash of his policies brought the majority of Taiwan’s people back to the status quo.

Yes, the pendulum has swung back. It may swing further into Blue and may swing back to Green in the future, but the trend indicates that the pendulum will eventually settle in the center. It is a credit to Chen for getting that pendulum moving in the first place, which had been stuck on the Blue side for so long. Chen, as divisive a man as he is, has calibrated the political ying and yang of Taiwan.

Sure, politics are still volatile and far from ideal, but you can’t deny that Chen’s 8 year stint in the presidency made Taiwan a mature and more resilient democracy. For that, regardless of the charges of corruption against him, Chen should be remembered as a hero.

For all the media coverage of the protests going on over the past week about Chen Yunlin visiting Taiwan, one would think that the people of Taiwan didn’t want anything to do with China. But is that really the case?

Yes, polls in Taiwan are notoriously skewed, so I’ve taken samples from different polls to see what they say.

As reported in the China Post:

The Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC) conducted this poll from Oct. 14-15:

Chen should not defer travel plans because of milk scandal: 54%
Cooperative agreement should be signed to ensure quality and safety of Chinese food imports: 64%
opposed protests during Chen’s stay: 59%
agreed with protests during Chen’s stay: 26%

The China Times conducted this poll of 711 eligible voters:

support liberalization of the Three Links: 56.1%
implies 43.9% disagree or have no opinion (minority)

This poll from the United Daily News of 863 respondents:

satisfied with signing of agreements: 52% (majority)
disagreed with agreements: 16.8%
no opinion: 27.5%

China Times poll: Did the Chiang-Chen meeting harm Taiwan’s sovereignty?

No: 42.5% (plurality)
Yes: 28%
No answer: 29.5%

China Times poll: Do you support the protest against President Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Yunlin?

No: 59.4% (majority)
Yes: 25.7%
Undecided/no opinion: 14.9%

China Times poll: who was to blame for the clashes between protestors and police?

The mob was unruly: 53.8%
The police used excessive force: 19.7%
both police and mob to blame: 11.5%
No opinion: 15%

China Times poll: did Chen’s visit have a positive or negative effect on Taiwan’s future?

positive: 49.9% (plurality)
negative: 22%
no impact: 3.7%
no opinion: 24.4%

China Times poll: should the Chiang-Chen meeting be repeated in the future?

Yes: 55.8%
No: 26.1%
No answer: 18.1%

United Daily News poll: Are you satisfied with how Ma met with Chen?

Yes: 33%
No: 32%

United Daily News poll: Did Ma denigrate his position as President of the ROC when meeting with the ARATS chairman?

No: 46%
Yes: 36%

United Daily News poll: Are you satisfied with Tsai Ing-wen’s leadership in the protest against the ARATS chairman?

Dissatisfied: 53%
Satisfied: 26%

How do people want Taiwan’s future to be?

Status quo indefinitely: 49%
Independence immediately: 16%
Status quo to eventual unification: 16%
Eventual unification: 6%
Unification immediately: 4%

As reported in the Taipei Times:

MAC poll: Are cross-strait exchanges being pushed too fast?

Yes: 30%
implied: 70% either think they are going at the right speed, not fast enough, or have no opinion. This opinion would then form the plurality, if not majority, of what people in Taiwan think.

MAC poll about the negotiations between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) to resolve cross-strait problems. 1,067 adults across Taiwan were surveyed in the poll.

In favor of continuing this negotiation model: 75%
Happy with the four agreements signed: 80%

Will the four agreements have a positive impact on the economy?

Yes: 60%

Did the Chen-Chiang meeting undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty?

No: 67%
What should be discussed in the next round of negotiations?

Procedures for cross-strait exchanges: 75%
Investment cooperation: 57%
Industrial collaboration: 51%
Financial partnership: 46%
Cultural, educational, and media exchanges: 44%

The media would have us believe that people in Taiwan are not happy with the ARATS-SEF meeting, but clearly the opposite is the case.

China Post: China says no progress made at Tibet talks

I don’t know what’s so difficult for Beijing. Talking like this before the talks between the Dalai Lama’s envoys and PRC leadership even begin is not going to help anything. The Dalai Lama himself has clearly said no to independence and only wants “meaningful autonomy.” While what the Dalai Lama and the PRC leadership consider “meaningful autonomy” may differ, the Dalai Lama is one who knows that compromise can be necessary to achieve a goal. And yet the PRC leadership says, “We will never make a concession.”

When will the PRC leadership get it through their heads? Compromise is always necessary to reach a win-win situation. It is precisely because of their stubbornness that they have been unable to reach an agreement with Tibet, can’t they see that using the same hard-handed tactics will not yield the desired results?

Seriously. The Dalai Lama knows that Tibet stands to benefit from the growing Chinese economy and protection of the Chinese army. The Dalai Lama just wants to have his people be able to live life their own way. While I cannot see the PRC (or any government, really) agreeing with the Dalai Lama over an “ethnically pure” “Greater Tibet,” a Tibet with greater freedom of religion and cultural expression is certainly possible.

The manner in which Beijing handles Tibet says much about the future of Taipei’s negotiations with Beijing. A Beijing that can deal with Tibet in a conciliatory manner will show the people of Taiwan that Beijing is willing to be a sound and levelheaded negotiator.

The Dalai Lama issued a recent statement saying that his hope of reaching a compromise with the PRC government is “thinning, thinning, thinning” and is about to give up. He has stated that he wants to turn the issue of Tibet’s future to the Tibetan people. Now, amongst the Tibetan people is a wide political spectrum: of course, there are those who support the Dalai Lama’s “greater autonomy” call, but on the very extreme are those calling for Tibetan independence, something that the Dalai Lama himself has renounced.

Beijing, instead of offering more dialogue, has only blasted the Dalai Lama for making such statements. They also have not been willing to disclose the details of the negotiations going on right now about Tibet. Does the PRC understand that their approach to the Tibetan situation is not helpful and must be looked at from another point of view? Do they know that without actively working on a compromise with the Dalai Lama, and with the Dalai Lama handing the power to decide Tibet’s future to the people (who obviously include pro-independence supporters), that future agreements will be harder to reach?

Granted, I don’t think all of the Dalai Lama’s requests are workable (for example, an ethnically pure Tibetan state), but compromises on both sides can lead to a win-win situation. That is the true spirit of the Dalai Lama’s pleas. The Dalai Lama himself has OKed Tibet being a part of China, he just wants the political atmosphere to change. He sees the economic benefits and national security Tibet gets from being Chinese, but the way things are done now must change to improve living conditions.

Perhaps the idea that pro-Tibetan independence supporters will take matters into their own hands is the stick necessary to balance out the Dalai Lama’s carrot for a mutually agreeable Tibet policy.