Did Kurt Vonnegut's brother ruin the 626 protest?

What does a Canadian reporter, columnist and deputy news editor do on his one day off in Taipei? The obvious answer, if you lived in Taiwan, would be to say: Go to the Canada d’eh celebration on the beach, especially when this is only the second Saturday you’ve had off in about four years. When it comes to this odd Canadian, however, the answer would be: go to an anti-ECFA rally in downtown Taipei.

I met up with a couple of friends at the Longshan MRT station at about 3pm, whence we snaked our way through the gathering crowd and ended up at the Wanhua rail station, were former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was expected to make a speech sometime after 3:30pm. From our walk starting at the MRT station, where I only saw three police officers, to the train station, I’d estimate there were several thousands protesters (far more already than the 5,000 TVBS said would show up earlier in the day), all gathered to express their anger at, and demand a referendum on, the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) the Taiwanese government is expected to sign with China in Chongqing next week. As always, the composition of protesters was about 85 percent people of a certain age, and 15 percent young adults or teenagers.

This was my fifth or six major demonstration here since I moved to Taiwan, and as expected, people were friendly and welcoming (I was once again thanked, given paraphernalia and asked to have my picture taken with some Taiwanese), and the banners and placards were colorful, well-designed and original. There even was a man who, in my view, was the epitome of the Taiwanese demonstrator, with two LCD panels affixed to his chest and an epilepsy-inducing led-lit hat on his head (my fear is that later on, when mother nature decided to pour down on us, the poor man may have been electrocuted — but hey, it was a worthy cause). Some people were blasting their gas canister horns or by-now World Cup-famous vuvuzelas, and one man had an actual trumpet, while flag-studded vehicles played speeches, songs and recordings. Overall, though, this was by far the quietest protest I’ve attended in Taiwan. There were very few foreigners (less than I’ve seen at previous protests), but I did run into Ralph Jennings from Reuters on his bicycle. It was very hot and I was happy I’d brought my Cambodian kroma, or scarf, which saved me for a heat stroke back in Cambodia when I was building houses there last year.

After Mr. Lee and others were finished making their speeches, we all began our long walk toward the Presidential Office, where another group of protesters — who had launched their  “anti one China ” march on Zhongxiao E. Road — would meet up with us. The procession was extraordinarily orderly, and during the hour and a half that we walked, we only encountered a handful of police officers, who were making sure people were stopping at the red lights (protesters would actually thank the officers after the light turned green, how rude!). Only once did I see a small group of Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officers — three of them — taking pictures and filming the protest. This was a welcome departure from previous protests, especially those that surrounded visits by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) officials in November 2008 and earlier this year, where the presence of thousands of law-enforcement officers was actually intimidating and severely hurt the image of the city and central governments. My guess is that there were no senior Chinese officials to protect, and little signs that violence was brewing (for some odd reason, AFP reported today that police presence was heavy; it certainly wasn’t where I went). None of the agents provocateurs who were expected to show up and create trouble — as they did in November 2008 — did so, at least not on the route we were on.

Then, at about 6pm, the rain began, and it poured. Given the season we’re in, I had thought that demonstrators were getting a break today, as by 2pm — when it inevitably starts raining — not a drop had fallen, and the weather bureau said chances of showers were fairly small. But rain it did, even if belatedly. Our theory was that the KMT paid Bernard Vonnegut, author Kurt Vonnegut’s brother and co-inventor of cloud seeding (patented in 1975), to bring the rain. But that’s just a theory. Organizers called on demonstrators not to go home, and it looks like most people heeded the call. 

We continued walking for a while, but after taking a short break at the one 7-Eleven we encountered in our entire walk, and seeing that the rain was not abating, we called it quits and went to have dinner instead. Sadly, this means we did not make it to the Presidential Office, where more speeches were expected. But we did our part. 

As to whether the demonstration will have any effect on government policy regarding trade with China, I have strong doubts. The ECFA will be signed, no matter what, and the legislative “review” — in a legislature where the ruling KMT has a three-quarter majority — will be little more that window dressing. Taiwanese have grown cynical of mass demonstrations, which, weather aside, could explain the substantial drop in participation I have noted since I began attending rallies four years ago. At best, today sent a signal, and hopefully some good pictures will be circulated worldwide so that readers abroad can be aware that a substantial percentage of Taiwanese do not support the ECFA, or at least oppose the manner in which it was negotiated in secret and shoved down our throats by the government. As I’ve said before, media (including my employer) played into the KMT’s hands when they referred to the trade pact as a “proposed ECFA.” Proposed implies that under certain conditions, a plan could be altered, or nixed altogether. In this instance, there was no such intention, and the pact was to be signed, no matter what.

(Funny anecdote: At one point during the march, I was approached by a young Taiwanese woman who told me she was from the media and was hoping to interview a foreigner about the protest. I asked her which organization she was from, to which she responded: the Liberty Times. When I told her we shared the same employer, she realized that she could hardly interview me, as the Taipei Times belongs to the Liberty Times Group.)

Cross-strait ‘radicals’ and ‘hardliners’

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Hard-line, adj. Definition: advocating or involving a rigidly uncompromising course of action. Radical, adj. Definition: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional: extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.

With this in mind, let us turn to today’s reporting by Agence France-Presse on a vote by Hong Kong lawmakers on democratic reform:

Hong Kong lawmakers on Thursday agreed to enlarge the electoral base for choosing the city’s [sic] leader, while stopping well short of one person, one vote for the Chinese territory’s seven million people … A split in the pro-democracy opposition allowed passage for the first part of a package of political reforms, to expand the Beijing-backed committee that elects the chief executive from 800 members now to 1,200 in 2012.

Now, the interesting bits:

Radical legislator ‘Long Hair’ Leung Kwok-hung accused moderates in the Democratic Party of betrayal, as hardliners vowed to settle for nothing less than universal suffrage in 2012.

Three words stand out, all editorializing: radical, moderates, and hardliners, all terms that aren’t used, further down in the story, to qualify “the former British colony’s communist overseers in Beijing,” or, in a separate story on June 21, Hong Kong “Chief Executive Donald Tsang.”

Not unlike its reporting on Taiwan, where it invariably describes the opposition Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union as “anti China” and radical,” AFP is once again portraying anyone who disagrees with Beijing in a bad light. Rather than avoid politically hued characterizations altogether (in a bid for journalistic neutrality) or, conversely, making sure that such characterizations are equally applied when necessary, AFP limits its use of negative connotations to Hong Kong lawmakers seeking democracy and universal suffrage and Taiwanese parties that want Taiwan’s 23 million people to determine their own future without the threat of use force by China.

Surely, if AFP weren’t so openly biased, it would have used the term “hardliner” for Beijing and Tsang, who, as per the Merriam-Webster definition provided above, “advocat[e] … a rigidly uncompromising course of action” — in this case, denying residents of Hong Kong universal suffrage and ensuring that Beijing continues to control the territory, often against the wishes of its people.

The same applies to the term “radical.” How could support for democracy and universal suffrage — accepted notions the world over — possibly be equated with “extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions” or “constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change” or “advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs”?

Using non-violent means to ensure the rights of Taiwanese and Hong Kongers isn’t radical or hard-line or extremist. So why does AFP continue to use such terms, if not to please Beijing?

Nuclear power plant a ‘disaster’: contractor

The Kuosheng nuclear power plant in Wanli (萬里), Taipei County, is an “absolute disaster,” according to the head of a diving company charged with conducting underwater maintenance at the plant.

Making assertions that raise concerns about the safety of the plant, Robert Greenspan, president of the Rapid City, South Dakota-based Midco Diving and Marine Services, said during a telephone interview with the Taipei Times on Tuesday last week that Taiwan Power Corp (TPC), the operator of the nuclear power plant, was treating the suppression pool — a critical component in case of an emergency — as a “garbage dump.”

The cleaning contract for the suppression pool was awarded to Taiwanese firm Ming Tai and subcontracted to A&P Solar Enterprises, a California-based company. A&P in turn subcontracted the diving portion of the work to Midco.

Greenspan’s company conducted underwater maintenance at Unit 2 in November 2008 and March last year.

Soon after starting work at the suppression pool — a 6m deep pool surrounding the nuclear reactor that can release large quantities of water to cool the reactor to prevent a meltdown — Greenspan’s team came upon a scene they were not prepared for.

“I’ve worked in half a dozen nuclear plants in the US,” Greenspan said. “I’d never seen anything like this … You could find everything short of a bicycle in there.”

Among the foreign objects found were cable spools, oxygen tanks and masks. As they were doing work, more debris kept falling in, Greenspan said.

This article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

CPPCC resignation is not enough

After Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Pan Meng-an (潘孟安) told the legislature late last month that five stakeholders at Hong Kong-listed China Strategic Holdings (CSH) were members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), China Strategic’s chief executive, Raymond Or (柯清輝), announced that he was resigning his CPPCC membership, saying he was doing so to avoid further delays in a consortium bid for Taiwanese life insurer Nan Shan Life.

The Investment Commission, which has already delayed approval of the bid over various unanswered questions surrounding the structure of the consortium (in which CSH is a leading player) and its funding sources, rightly said that Or’s resignation would have little impact on its decision whether to allow the acquisition to proceed.

A report released in March by Pan’s office showed that three China Strategic shareholders — Chongqing-born Zhang Song-qiao (張松橋), one of the 100 richest people in China; Wu Lianghao and Li Wulin — are also CPPCC members. Further investigation reveals that Hong Kong businesswoman Pollyanna Chu Yuet Wah is a major shareholder in the company. Her profile on the Web site of Golden Resorts, where she is chief executive officer, shows that Chu is a member of the National Committee of the CPPCC, a member of the Guangdong committee of the CPPCC and vice chairman of the Hong Kong CPPCC (Provincial) Member Association Foundation.

Membership in the CPPCC is both an instrument of co-optation by the CCP and a means to “reward” Chinese and members of minority groups — such as Hong Kongers and Tibetans, for example — for toeing the party line. What this means, therefore, is that members have either willingly submitted to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) line as an external agent or have a proven track record of respecting party ideology prior to being approached for membership.

This op-ed, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Radically one-sided

Describing protests in Taipei on June 3, in which some demonstrators threw chairs at a building where discussions on a proposal for a referendum on an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) trade pact with China — which was turned down later that day — were under way, Agence France-Presse (AFP) once again showed its great ability for one-sidedness. Coming back to the office after two days off, the first thing I saw on my desk was a printout of an AFP filing, put there by editors who knew its contents would spark yet another of my tirades (it did).

After introducing the context (demonstrations, talks on ECFA referendum), the article wrote the following:

The dozens of demonstrators attempted to push their way into the building where the proposal by a radical pro-independence party called Taiwan Solidarity Union [TSU] was being reviewed by a commission authorized by the government [italics added].

While this paragraph is factually true, the characterization of the TSU as “radical” borders on the insane. The problems with this adjective are self-evident. First off, most TSU members are of advanced age (in their 50s and 60s) and probably couldn’t engage in “radical” action even if they wanted to (I have long lamented the absence of young Taiwanese at demonstrations organized by the TSU and the Democratic Progressive Party). Secondly, what does “radical” mean? Without a proper context and further explanation, it could mean anything from very pro independence to employing violent means to achieve political objectives. Regardless, the word has a negative connotation that, for those who don’t know any better, gives the impression that TSU members are “irrational” (they haven’t been called terrorists yet, but the way things are going, this could come).

What’s equally irritating about the unnecessary — and ultimately misleading — insertion of that word is that AFP does not make similar characterizations of deep-blue Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) members, pro-independence groups, or retired People’s Liberation Army officials who, on visits to Taipei, call the Taiwanese independence movement “doomed” and openly threaten use of force should Taiwan declare independence. Isn’t threatening war “radical,” or at minimum deep-red?

Why is this tag only attributed to the TSU, if not but to discredit it as an organization that can be reasoned with?

Kwok could control Chinatrust: report

Hong Kong investor Peter Kwok (郭炎) could become the largest shareholder of Chinatrust Financial Holding Co (中信金控) and ownership of Taiwan’s largest credit-card issuer could shift from the Koo family to the Kwok group if an equity offering currently under consideration were allowed to go through, a new report dated May 20 warns.

The report, a copy of which was obtained by the Taipei Times earlier this week, was prepared by the office of Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Pan Meng-an (潘孟安) and raises serious questions about Kwok’s financial capabilities, his political allegiance and the origin of some of the money that would be used to finance his investment.

At present, the shareholder composition at Chinatrust is chairman Jeffrey Koo (辜濂松) at 7.28 percent (Koo family members hold an aggregate of about 20 percent); Morgan Stanley and other foreign companies at 43 percent; Cathay Life Insurance (國泰人壽), Far Glory Life Insurance Co (遠雄人壽), the Bureau of Labor Insurance and Fubon Life Insurance Co (富邦人壽) at between 1.04 percent and 1.42 percent each, the report says.

Following delays in capital collection, the board of directors at Chinatrust decided on May 17 to issue 2.5 billion shares through private placement at NT$16.45 per share, with a total value of NT$41.125 billion (US$1.28 billion), which will be submitted during a shareholders meeting scheduled for June 30.

This is the largest seasoned offering in the nation’s history.

This story, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Taiwanese funds financed Liberian dictator

Seven years after an international warrant was issued against former Liberian president Charles Taylor, investigators have yet to find any money in his name, though his hidden wealth is estimated at between US$280 million and US$3 billion, the New York Times (NYT) said.

This wealth, which Taylor denies having access to, is believed to have come from Liberia’s timber and diamond trade, its international merchant shipping registry, tax coffers and the government of Taiwan, the NYT said on Sunday.

From 2000 though 2003, when Taylor's official presidential salary was US$24,000, records show that more than US$24 million was moved into and out of his account at the Liberian Bank for Development and Investment in Monrovia. Investigators say the money came from foreign banks, with Citibank in New York acting as the clearinghouse and processing the transfers, the NYT wrote.

All but US$4 million of that US$24 million came from the government of Taiwan in eight separate payments, as Taipei was engaging in checkbook diplomacy to maintain diplomatic recognition amid fierce competition from Beijing.

Beijing first broke off relations with Liberia in 1989 after Monrovia recognized Taiwan. China re-established ties with Liberia on Aug. 10, 1993, and until October 2003, Liberia was one of the few countries to have official diplomatic ties with both Taipei and Beijing. After Taylor was ousted and forced into exile in late 2003, one of the first acts of the new Liberian government was to cut diplomatic ties with Taipei.

Taylor was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague on June 4, 2003, on 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. His trial began on Jan. 6, 2008. In court, Taylor said the funds earmarked for various projects sponsored by Taiwan covered military salaries, Balkan arms deals and “the airlift of wounded bombing victims,” the NYT wrote.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the money was intended for AIDS medicine, a children's center, as well as vocational training and charity contributions.

Michel Lu (呂慶龍), ministry spokesman during former president Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration and now Taiwan's envoy to France, said in an interview that Taipei “deeply regretted” the “humiliating” turn of events, adding that because of Taiwan's isolation, it had been under great pressure from Taylor, who “threatened to cut off relations,” the NYT reported.

“Frankly speaking, nobody can tell you where it [the money] went,” Lu said.

This article was published today in the Taipei Times.

Book Review: The unfortunate consequences of China’s rise

Forget about the military threat from China, risks of war in the Taiwan Strait, Beijing’s purchase of US debt or its dislocating effect on jobs at home — all are manageable challenges that have been blown out of proportion by pundits and government officials.

So argues Stefan Halper in The Beijing Consensus, a timely little book that turns conventions on the “China threat” upside down and argues instead that the real challenge from Beijing — one that the Obama administration has so far unwisely neglected — lies in the transformative forces, operating at the global level, associated with China’s rise.

China is undoing the West, Halper writes, not by a calculated strategy that seeks such an outcome, but rather as a result of its authoritarian model and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) need to maintain a high level of economic growth at home to ensure its legitimacy and survival. In so doing, it has turned to every corner of the earth for natural resources and energy to meet its growing domestic requirements.

While there is nothing unusual, or even alarming, in this development, Beijing’s policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries means that it has no compunction in dealing with the world’s worst human rights offenders, as long as they have certain commodities to offer. As Halper rightly argues, the West — from big oil companies to George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism” White House — has its own checkered past from turning a blind eye to abuse when it is convenient to do so, but in recent years a certain consciousness has arisen that imposes limits on how Western firms and governments can and will engage serious human rights abusers.

This book review, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here (pdf) and here (html).

Security lax at super-secret base

Defense experts and officials in Taipei and Washington had mixed reactions to the embarrassing news, published on Monday by Defense News and Kyodo news agency, that security at a key signals intelligence facility in northern Taiwan was so lax that neighboring cows were observed walking freely around the base.

Located in Linkou (林口), Taipei County, Linyuan Base collects imagery and signals intelligence deep inside China and at sea.

The facility, which is operated by the Ministry of National Defense’s (MND) ultra-secret Office of Telecommunication Development (OTD), General Staff Headquarters, was built in 2000 and started operations in 2003, Defense News wrote.

Kyodo said construction of the OTD facility cost more than NT$4 billion (US$124 million).

Consisting of a large building for data processing, barracks, a number of satellite dishes and two Circularly Disposed Antenna Arrays (CDAA), or “crop circles” that detect the direction of radio signals, the site has been described by local sources as a combination of the US’ National Security Agency (NSA) and National Reconnaissance Office.

The facility has a range of about 5,000km and can cover all of China, and the larger of the two CDAAs is still, according to Desmond Ball, a signals intelligence expert, “the most important high-frequency radio interception and direction- finding station in Taiwan.”

This story, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

It’s actually not just the economy, stupid

As the saying goes, you stand where you sit. Not long ago, when Paul Wolfowitz was closer to defense than the corporatism he now embodies, he was instrumental in the drafting of alarming reports about the rise of the Chinese military and the threat that this represented to US security and, by extension, Taiwan.

Now that he is chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council, however, Wolfowitz sings a different tune. This does not mean that his views on the Chinese military threat have softened, but his new role forces him to look at the same object from a different perspective. By doing so, he appears to have lost sight of the fact that China remains a threat, especially in the proximate environment of Taiwan.

Wolfowitz, like many others who look at Taiwan from a purely economic angle, appears to have divorced a conundrum that can only be fully understood if all the components are taken into consideration. In other words, despite what President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has repeatedly said, the question of cross-strait economics simply cannot be addressed without also taking into account matters of politics and security.

However, this is exactly what the hitherto hawkish Wolfowitz appeared to be arguing when he told the American Enterprise Institute in Washington that “I really hope that somehow the two political parties find a way to come together in a truly bipartisan spirit, because getting an ECFA [economic cooperation framework agreement] and getting it right — which means it will be sustainable even if there is a change in administrations in Taipei — is not only important to Taiwan’s economy, it is important to Taiwan’s national security.”

This op-ed, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Prosecuting war by other means

On its own, the widening gap in military capabilities in the Taiwan Strait — in which the Chinese air force will enjoy a more than two-to-one advantage in combat aircraft by 2014-2015 — is a worrying development. Equally disturbing, however, are recent signals from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) that he does not accord the nation’s ability to defend itself against Chinese aggression the importance it deserves.

Not only did Ma claim last year that the country’s No. 1 enemy was mother nature, he has also cut the number of military exercises simulating a Chinese invasion. There is even evidence that Taiwanese officials in Washington have not really pushed for sale of the F-16C/D combat aircraft the nation so desperately needs to level the playing field. All of this, added to Ma’s remark that he would “never” call on the US to fight on Taiwan’s behalf — which he subsequently had to qualify, given the political storm it created — points to a president who does not take defense seriously.

While there are ample reasons to believe this is true, such a discussion distracts from the formidable, and at present far more real threat, to Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Before we explore that other threat, however, let us ask ourselves the following questions: If China really did intend to launch military strikes against Taiwan, would it invest billions of dollars in Taiwanese insurance companies, real estate and other sectors? Would it allow thousands of its own citizens to visit every day? Would it send delegations, led by top Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials? And would it send its students, putting all of them in harm’s way?

This op-ed, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

China’s new target in Tibet

While the world focuses on China’s monitoring of Internet and SMS activity, news has now emerged that Beijing authorities are clamping down on a medium from the previous century — photocopying machines.

In a report on Wednesday, the BBC wrote that people in Lhasa will have to register their names if they want to make photocopies. From now on, individuals wanting to photocopy documents will have to show their ID cards and have the information recorded. Companies providing copy services will have to register the name and address of the individuals seeking to make copies, the number of copies they want to make and provide the name of the manager in charge of the work.

The authorities, we learn, are particularly concerned about material printed in Tibetan, with less attention paid to material in Chinese. Chinese authorities say the change is aimed at stopping “criminals” carrying out “illegal” activities — in other words, political pamphlets.

Oh yes; China brought civilization to those “barbaric” Tibetans. I wonder if one day we’ll have to do the same in Taiwan (though Taiyu, or Hoklo, isn’t a written language).

Things that get buried

Sometimes important pieces of information that probably belong on the front page bet “buried” inside the paper, which means that they will not attract as much attention and receive the consideration that they deserve. One such bit of info appeared in the lead story on page three of the Taipei Times on Sunday, which I happened to edit. Admittedly, the story tops the political page, but the pithy part is hidden halfway in:

In the past two years, 373 administrative orders involving China took effect without review from the legislature. Only 3.75 percent of administrative orders went through the legislature, information from [Taiwan Thinktank] showed.

The Council of Labor Affairs, for example, amended the Act Governing Approval for Mainland Area Professionals to Engage in Professional Activities in Taiwan (大陸地區專業人士來台從事專業活動許可辦法) last year and again this year to allow Chinese nationals conducting business in Taiwan to stay longer, she said.

The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said that Chinese companies investing US$33 million are allowed to send a maximum of seven managerial staff members to Taiwan.

However, the amendment said that Chinese-invested firms in Taiwan can receive an unlimited number of Chinese professionals as long as they are considered to be “making a contribution” to the local economy, job market and society and obtain the approval of government agencies.

So here we are: Only 3.75 percent of all administrative orders have been reviewed by the organ that supposedly keeps the government in check. And yet, Presidential Office Spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) was telling reporters on Sunday that “All official dealings with China are supervised by the legislature … Everything is open and transparent.”

Not only are orders not being monitored by the legislature, but amendments are being made that are so vague — intentionally so — that they can open doors to all kinds of abuse. Much as the “in the public interest” clause in the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (電腦保護個人資料處理法), amended on April 27, is vague enough to allow government authorities to interpret it in a manner that suits their needs, the amendment to the Act Governing Approval for Mainland Area Professionals to Engage in Professional Activities in Taiwan uses language (“making a contribution”) that can mean anything. What are “contributions” and who is the judge of that?

As I wrote in my review of Christine Loh’s (陸恭蕙) study of the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, Underground Front, the danger of signing agreements Beijing-style is that everything is vague and open to interpretation — by those in power. Again, the entire negotiation process during the 1980s, in which the UK and Beijing prepared the terrain for handover in 1997, should be closely studied by Taiwanese watchers, as history appears to be repeating itself. One complaint on the British side and among those in Hong Kong who worried about their future, was that everything was done behind closed doors, by unelected elite with close ties to the business world, with little oversight or supervision, no public consultation. And a heavy does of vagueness.

The legislature has been sidelined, its speaker rendered obsolete by his willingness to please the Executive, and as a result Taiwan’s democracy is being dismembered before our eyes. The Presidential Office is feeding us lies, which sadly many people appear to be swallowing. Is this in the “public interest”? Is this making a “contribution”?

Book Review: Chinese imperialism and the seeds of anger in Tibet

After nearly half a century of Chine occupation of Tibet, riots on an unprecedented scale occurred not only in the Tibetan Administrative Region (TAR), but also in parts of China with substantial Tibetan populations. Prior to what has come to be known as the March Incident of 2008, Tibetan protests had largely been limited to areas within TAR proper. How can we explain the spontaneous — and violent — uprising that shocked the world months before the Beijing Olympics and invited an ironfisted crackdown by the Chinese authorities?

The answer is the culminating achievement of The Struggle for Tibet, a collection of articles written by Tibetan academic Tsering Shakya and the Chinese intellectual Wang Lixiong (王力雄). In what often reads like a dialogue between the two authors,

the book explores the question of Tibetan identity, religion, assimilation and resistance from the perspective of Tibetans.

My review of this very helpful book, was published today in the Taipei Times and continues here (pdf) and here (html).

Watchdog decries Chinese media sanctions

Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) on Wednesday condemned a recent wave of sanctions against Chinese business media and journalists over their coverage of the private sector.

Last week, the weekly magazine Business Watch was suspended for a month, while Bao Yueyang (包月陽) was fired on Wednesday as the editor of another business newspaper.

“The free flow of business and financial information is still not a reality in China,” RSF said.

“There is an urgent need for the Propaganda Department, local authorities and both state and private-sector companies to stop obstructing investigative reporting by the business media. We call for the sanctions against Business Watch and Bao Yueyang to be rescinded,” it said.

Business Watch was suspended for a month at the beginning of this month after it published an investigative report in its March issue about the state-owned power company Grid Corp. The reporter had used internal company documents for the report, which Chinese authorities did not appreciate, RSF said.

This was not the first time the Xiamen-based magazine got into trouble over its investigative reporting. Two years ago, it was suspended for two months for an article about Tianjin Mayor Huang Xingguo (黃興國).

In the other case, Bao was removed from his job as editor at the China Economic Times and transferred to another post at the Development Publishing Co following the publication’s coverage of contaminated vaccines in Shanxi Province.

After wide coverage of the matter since March, the authorities restricted reporting on Chinese Web sites and ordered traditional media to limit themselves to dispatches from state-owned Xinhua news agency, RSF said.

Bao is well known for encouraging his reporters to investigate sensitive issues.

Also recently, Chinese authorities ordered the daily Nanfang Dushi Bao to remove from its Web site an editorial expressing reservations about the philanthropic practices of some Chinese firms, RSF said.

Meanwhile in Hong Kong, as many as 10 foreign and local reporters have been briefly arrested in the past few weeks, RSF reported.

At least three Japanese journalists and several South Korean journalists were arrested at Dalian and Tianjin during the visit last week of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Four Hong Kong journalists sent to Sichuan Province to cover a corruption story linked to the 2008 earthquake were prevented from working by local officials, who escorted them to a police station, RSF said.

RSF urged US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to raise the issue of press freedom with Chinese diplomats during a human rights dialogue between China and the US that started yesterday.

This article appeared today in the Taipei Times.

Tsai fell into Ma’s PR trap in debate

A lot has been said about the April 25 debate pitting President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) against Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) over the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) the Ma administration intends to sign with China next month.

Depending on who conducted the polls afterwards, Ma or Tsai prevailed in the debate, with some critics saying that Ma looked more comfortable than ever while Tsai failed to make eye contact and appeared too bookish. Some said the occasion helped Taiwanese better understand the reasons for and implications of the proposed trade agreement; others said it failed to persuade them. Tsai was criticized for what some said was turning the debate into an opportunity to position herself for the presidential election in 2012. For his part, Ma was accused of either not answering Tsai’s questions or of dissembling, an art — as we should all know by now — at which he has mastered.

All this post-facto analysis, however, misses the point altogether and blinds us to what actually occurred (or didn’t) on that supposedly “historic” day.

From the onset, it was obvious that Ma wasn’t approaching the debate as a means to learn more about the opposition’s views, let alone as a catalyst for a change in policy. In the tradition of the semi-authoritarian leadership that existed in Hong Kong under British rule or in Singapore today, the government is paramount: It knows what’s best and does not change its mind. At most, it engages in “consultations,” which often is a euphemism for “educating” the simple-minded “natives.”

This op-ed, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Thousands protest Chen's detention

Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) mother yesterday said at a protest against his detention that she was saddened by the fact that for the past two years her son has been unable to call her on Mother’s Day.

Chen Lee Shen (陳李慎) came to Taipei from Tainan to join a sit-in rally on Jinan Road calling for Chen’s release that was organized by various pro-localization groups, including some Democratic Progressive Party officials from southern Taiwan.

“I have not seen my son for so long. I have not heard his voice for so long,” she said, crying. “I feel deep sadness and pain every day. I am more than 80 years old, but I have to live with that pain every day.”

Today marks the former president’s 551st day in custody over money laundering and graft charges.

“My son has been wronged. He is innocent,” his mother told the crowd.

Chen Lee Shen was accompanied by her two daughters and Chen Shui-bian’s son, Chen Chih-chung (陳致中).

An estimated 5,000 people joined the rally. Hundreds of Chen and Taiwanese independence supporters were bused in from all over the country to join the protest.

The Taiwan High Court last month prolonged Chen’s detention until June 23.

“The justice system is dead, but A-Bian [Chen Shui-bian] is not lonely. A-Bian’s mother is not lonely. We are always with them and will always support them,” Central Taiwan Society president Chen Wan-te (陳萬得) told the crowd.

A few blocks away on Ketagalan Boulevard, a second protest took place. Unlike the rambunctious crowd on Jinan Road, however, this protest offered something far more sober: silence. Under the watchful eye of a dozen police officers, more than 1,000 plastic stools were arranged, each anchoring a balloon. When viewed from above, they formed the character “Ma,” or horse — President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) surname — with a large yellow arrow pointing at the Presidential Office a few hundred meters away. At one point, a Buddhist monk walked among the chairs and stood there for a few moments in contemplation.

“Justice is dead,” read signs posted around the venue. A picture of a plaque from Green Island, which served as a prison for political prisoners during the White Terror era, also graced the area.

The former president was first detained on Nov. 12, 2008, and released on Dec. 13, 2008, following his indictment. He was detained again on Dec. 30, 2008, after the Taipei District Court approved a request by prosecutors to take him back into custody. He has remained in detention ever since.

This article, which I co-wrote with Rich Chang, appeared today in the Taipei Times.

Initially, I wasn't supposed to be at the event, let alone covering it. This is why I didn't have a camera with me, which is a shame, as the protest on Jinan Road was, as most protests in Taiwan are, colorful and very entertaining. The silent protest, which no one else seems to have bothered writing about, was also very moving, and sadly no good pictures of it were taken. I chatted there for a while with the chairman of Taiwan Society North, who played no small role in organizing the whole thing, and a few other demonstrators. Rich's assessment of the number of people in the crowd was far higher than mine, which explains why the final article put it at 5,000; it should be said, however, that unlike a parade, this event was more of the kind that people come over for a while, walk around, chat with people, and leave. So the total number of participants may indeed have been higher.

Media exemption on Data Protection Act: a myth?

In passing a controversial amendment to the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (電腦保護個人資料處理法) on April 27, the legislature announced that media would be exempt from provisions making it obligatory to inform and seek consent from individuals before collecting and reporting personal information.

It was not my intention, as a member of the media, to test whether that exemption would apply when, on April 23, I sent a request for information to the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) seeking information on a top triad organization in Taiwan after being commissioned by a reputable British publication to write an article about it. Four days later, the CIB replied with the following:

答覆內容：
先生（小姐）您好：
您於99年4月23日寄給本局的電子郵件，茲回復如下：

有關請求提供 [...] 相關資料1案，因本案涉及個人資料保護，依據「電腦處理個人資料保護法」第8條之規定「公務機關對個人資料之利用，應於法令職掌必要範圍內為之，並與蒐集之特定目的相符。」及「政府資訊公開法」第18條第4款規定：「政府機關為實施監督、管理、檢（調）查、取締等業務，而取得或製作監督、管理、檢（調）查、取締對象之相關資料，應限制公開或不予提供之。」，故無法提供 [...] 相關資料，尚請見諒!謝謝來信，敬祝安康!

Roughly translated, the CIB’s response reads as follows:

Hi,

This is in reply to your message, dated April 23, 2010, sent to the Criminal Investigation Bureau:

As this case involves the protection of personal data, in accordance with Article 8 of the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (電腦保護個人資料處理法), we are unable to provide you with information on the [deleted by me] … Article 18, paragraph 4, states: “Unless for a specific purpose and satisfying any of the following requirements,* a non-government organization should not collect or process by computer personal data.”

* Exceptions as stipulated in the Act:
1. Upon written consent from the party concerned;
2. Having a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship with the party concerned and
having no potential harm to be done to the party concerned;
3. Such personal data is already in public domain and having no harm to the major
interest of the party concerned;
4. For purpose of academic research and having no harm to the major interest of the
party concerned; or
5. Specifically provided by the relevant laws in Article 3(7) ii and other laws.

The fact that, in my query, I clearly identified myself as a member of the media, both as a reporter for the Taipei Times and for the British organization (which I named in my e-mail), and provided my address and phone number at work was insufficient for the CIB to give me the information that I sought. Now, the amendment that cleared the legislative floor on April 27 stipulates that non-governmental organizations or individuals are allowed to search and collect generally accessible data about individuals when acting in the “public interest.” In other words, Netizens who launch a campaign to identify individuals involved in violations such as animal abuse would not be considered violators.

I find it difficult to understand how a report on a major criminal syndicate operating in Taiwan, China, Hong Kong and the Western coast of the United States would not be in the ill-defined “public interest,” or how it would be permissible to collect information on someone who abuses animals, but not so about individuals who engage in drug and human trafficking, among other crimes.

Clearly, the media exemptions do not apply, or someone is trying to protect the triads, which wouldn’t be surprising, given the close relationship between government officials and crime syndicates in Taiwan.

China Times Group slams criticism of CCP official’s visit

The Want Want China Times Group went on the offensive on Tuesday after the Chinese- language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) carried a story about Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators criticizing a visit by a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official to CtiTV and the “supplicant” manner in which the group’s chairman welcomed the official.

CtiTV, part of the China Times Group acquired by food conglomerate Want Want in November 2008, dedicated an entire hour-long program on Tuesday night, with special guests including Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元), attacking the Liberty Times and its president, and alleging that the Liberty Times’ poll center had faked a poll following Sunday’s debate between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China.

The Chinese-language China Times continued the offensive with six articles targeting the Liberty Times yesterday, including a front-page story and an editorial.

On its front page on Monday, the China Times quoted Want Want chairman Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明) as saying during the visit on Sunday: “On behalf of all colleagues at Want Want Group, I welcome CCP Hubei Provincial Committee Secretary Luo Qing quan (羅清泉).”

Luo’s tour included a visit to the CtiTV newsroom.

“After its initial investments in Hubei Province, Want Want Group is confident that investments in Hubei will expand in the future,” Tsai Eng-meng said. “We welcome Luo’s visit here to give us his guidance [蒞臨指導, lilin zhidao] and thank you for your support,” he said.

Luo is leading a 1,000-strong delegation from Hubei to enhance exchanges between his province and Taiwan. The delegation is expected to make more than US$500 million in purchases during the visit, organizers say.

DPP Legislator William Lai (賴清德) said Tsai Eng-meng seemed oblivious to the constitutional status of independent media, adding that the tendency in China to “seek the wisdom” of Chinese officials had no place in Taiwanese media or in a democratic society.

The executive deputy editor at the China Times played down the accusation on Monday night, saying the “seeking the wisdom” reference was polite language. He added that only “bored people” would make a fuss over this.

DPP Legislator Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃), however, said the language made it very clear that the Chinese were the main objects of dependence, adding that using such vocabulary to welcome Chinese officials was not accidental.

The China Times Group also owns the Commercial Times, the China Times Weekly magazine, Want Daily and China Television Co, which was formerly controlled by the KMT. All have a pro-China editorial line.

In February last year, Want Want signed a preliminary deal to acquire a 47.58 percent stake in Asia Television (ATV) in Hong Kong, which in recent years has been accused of adopting a pro-Beijing line. Tsai Eng-meng is currently locked in a court battle over control of the broadcaster.

The Liberty Times said yesterday it planned to take legal action against the Want Want China Times Group over “groundless accusations.”

The following was cut from the printed version of the article, which appeared today in the Taipei Times.

Want Want also operates hotels in Shanghai, Nanjing, Huaian and Xining.

The Hong-Kong-listed Want Want, whose main market is China but also sells in Taiwan and Hong Kong, has a 51 percent controlling stake in China Times Group.

* * *

What I find worrying about this development is not so much Tsai’s — and his group’s — warm welcome of Secretary Luo. After all, Want Want is heavily invested in China and prostrating themselves before the CCP envoy can only increase their chances of expanding their business there. While fault can be found in this act alone, and while this raises questions about the impact of business interests on the media (a global problem), what really matters is that a senior CCP official is allowed to physically visit a media outlet in Taiwan. Around the same time, a cultural delegation from Hebei, including the province’s top propaganda official, was also visiting Want Want China Times Group media outlets. As Christine Loh pointed out in her magnificent book Underground Front, Tsai’s involvement in Taiwanese and Hong Kong media could be a sign that Beijing’s United Front campaign is now gaining adherents in Taiwan. Add such media to China’s growing global media campaign and the rest of the world can be excused for being misinformed about the realities in Taiwan, given that the voices that dare tell a different side to the story — Taiwan’s side — are becoming weaker and are constantly under assault, as was the Liberty Times in my story. That assault, furthermore, comes both from pro-Beijing media and, as KMT Legislator Alex Tsai’s participation in the televised assault shows us, the government. It may not be a coincidence that the Liberty Times, which as a rule always chose not to fight back or launch lawsuits, is this time around considering doing just that.

Ma promotes ECFA to foreign press

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continued his campaign to explain his rationale for signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China yesterday when he addressed the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Taipei.

In his brief introduction, Ma said that Sunday’s debate on an ECFA with Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had helped increase the number of people who understood the trade pact, as well as public support for it, without providing sources.

“In the last 10 years, we have seen tremendous change in Asia. In year 2000, we had only three free-trade agreements,” Ma said in English. “By last year, the number went up to 58. Taiwan should not be isolated in this reform.”

“I’ve always said that we can handle diplomatic isolation, but economic isolation is fatal,” the president said. “We have to do something about it.”

This story, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here. (Foreground, right, hand raised, is me.)

One question I wanted to ask Ma, but couldn’t because my raised hand kept being ignored, was this: President Ma, you and your administration have repeatedly said that Taiwan must sign an ECFA with China because of regional economic integration. You claim that Taiwan does not have a choice. But the reason Taiwan does not have a choice is because China has now allowed other countries in the region to sign free-trade agreements with Taiwan. Granted, some of those countries, as you just said, told Taiwan they’d rather it sign an ECFA with China before they can consider negotiating an FTA with Taiwan, comments that nevertheless are an extension of Beijing’s diplomatic bullying. Taiwan should have a choice, but it doesn’t, and this is because of Chinese interference.

Now, how can we expect that Beijing will show “goodwill” toward Taiwan through an ECFA this time around? How do we know this is not a trap?

I intended to underscore my question with the following analogy, which though crude, in my view perfectly describes the situation: Beijing is like the village’s serial rapist who sees a poor young lady outside in the rain. First, it goes to the other villagers and tells them ‘You leave her alone and you do not allow her into your houses, or I’ll beat you up.’ He then goes over to the young lady and tells her ‘You are welcome to seek shelter into my house. Only after you’ve spent the night will I perhaps allow you to visit some neighbors.’

There is no doubt that Ma is a consummate dissembler and deflector, with an uncanny ability to take no position or to provide answers that can be interpreted in a number of ways to please everybody. Unfortunately, one glaring contradiction he made in one of his answers on Tuesday was not seized upon by the audience. After repeating that there is absolutely nothing political in an ECFA, he said that free-trade agreements not only concern matters of economics, but have “lots of political” aspects. How can an ECFA be apolitical when FTAs have “lots” of politics?

RSF inaugurates own ‘pavilion’ at Shanghai Expo

The Expo 2010 Shanghai slogan “Better city — Better life” is meaningless when a government imposes so many curbs on freedom of expression, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in a press release on Monday.

“‘City under surveillance — Lives under surveillance’ would be a better slogan for this World Expo in China,” the organization said.

Ahead of the official opening of the World Expo on Saturday, RSF has launched its own virtual pavilion named Garden of Freedoms.

The online “Garden of Freedoms” (en.rsf.org/shanghai _en.html), available in Simplified Chinese, French and English, is dedicated to freedom of expression and has a cyber-police pavilion, a Tibet pavilion and a “prisoners of conscience enclosure,” where visitors can sign petitions for their release.

“The ‘Garden of Freedoms’ will be the only place in the Shanghai World Expo where you will be able to discover the realities that the Chinese authorities go out of their way to hush up. Several dozen Shanghai human rights activists are currently under close police surveillance to prevent them from meeting the foreign journalists who will be covering the inauguration,” RSF said.

“A World Expo is meant to bring people together around such values as progress, humanism and culture,” it said. “What kind of universal values is China offering us when it jails such advocates of democracy as the intellectual Liu Xiaobo [劉曉波]? Why do the representatives of the democratic countries, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who will be at the inauguration, say nothing about China’s dark side?”

Two representatives of RSF — including secretary-general Jean-Francois Julliard — have been denied visas to visit Shanghai.

An official at the Chinese embassy in Paris told RSF that Beijing had instructed them to refuse the visas.

Asked by the Taipei Times if RSF expected Chinese hacker attacks on the site, Vincent Brossel, head of RSF’s Asia- Pacific desk, said that while they feared this was a possibility, nothing had happened since the “Garden of Freedoms” campaign was launched.

“The last hacking attack on the RSF Web site dates back to August 2008 and the site remains blocked [in China],” he said. “If an attack occurs, we hope our host will be able to assist us.”

This story was published today in the Taipei Times.

Book Review: The hidden hand of the CCP in Hong Kong

Ever since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was founded in 1921, Hong Kong has consistently been regarded as a threat and opportunity by party leaders. First as a British colony until retrocession in 1997 and then as part of the “one country, two systems,” the CCP views the territory as a potential springboard from which foreign powers could undermine the authorities on the mainland.

Simultaneously, Hong Kong was the main platform where both the British and Chinese governments could conduct dialogue and, as 1997 approached, a source of much-needed capital and an instrument to test special administrative rule.

This, and much more, is the focus of former Hong Kong legislator Christine Loh’s (陸恭蕙) fascinating Underground Front: The Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. The amount of information contained in her well-researched book makes it an extremely useful tool to understand the CCP’s policies in Hong Kong.

Loh walks us through what she sees as the six main phases of CCP relations with Hong Kong: early Marxism in Hong Kong; the early years of CCP rule in China; the Cultural Revolution; the Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) era; the post-Tiananmen Square Massacre era; and the first decade after retrocession.

Throughout this time — and even after Hong Kong became a special administrative region — we see the CCP acting as if it were a criminal organization forced to remain underground. Part of this, we learn, is the result of Maoism’s lack of mass appeal in Hong Kong, which since the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842 had been ideologically shaped by the British.

My review, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Tung, Ma, Article 23 and an ECFA

In its strategy for the unification of Taiwan and China, Beijing has not only been transparent about its intentions, it has also relied upon tactics that proved effective in the past.

After a lull in such efforts for the greater part of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, Beijing reignited its drive following the election of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as Taiwanese president.

Despite a series of agreements signed since Ma came into office in May 2008, by far the most consequential item in Beijing’s instruments of unification is the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), which could be signed as early as late next month or in June.

In its approach for the trade deal, Beijing has acted in ways that are strikingly reminiscent of the process surrounding attempts to pass Article 23 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong. Both the content and the manner in which Beijing and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) authorities attempted to pass the bill were controversial. Among others, the bill contained provisions on national security that threatened to blur the lines between Hong Kong’s special semiautonomous status and that of China, and Beijing’s Liaison Office in the territory seriously underestimated the level of opposition to the proposed legislation.

This op-ed, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Activist accuses judiciary of perjury, wants investigation

Alliance of Referendum for Taiwan convener Tsay Ting-kuei (蔡丁貴) and his counsels on Thursday accused the judiciary of perjury and called for an investigation.

The allegation came in the wake of charges against Tsay following a protest at the Legislative Yuan on Sept. 8 last year, when he was alleged by police to have obstructed their work and thrown himself onto a vehicle.

In a police video, Tsay is seen being blocked by five police officers in front of the legislative building. At 4:08pm Tsay briefly collides with a vehicle driving through the legislature gates. Off balance as he seeks to avoid contact with police, his back and hand come into contact with the vehicle for less than a second, whereupon two officers pull him away.

Tsay and about 20 other people continued the protest and at 4:20pm he was bumped by another vehicle leaving the legislature, after which he was manhandled by police and a melee ensued. He was eventually taken away.

Tsay told a press conference on Tuesday that his intention that day was to petition the legislature to lower the threshold for referendums, but that dozens of police officers blocked his access to the building. The video corroborates his claim.

“They didn’t have a warrant and had no cause to take him in,” Tsay’s counsel Billy Chen Da-cheng (陳達成) told the Taipei Times on Thursday. “This is the Legislative Yuan. There’s no need to apply for a permit to be there.”

Chen said that while footage shot by police, as well as 64 pictures, was submitted to the court, the judge relied solely on witnesses — police officers, as well as the driver of the vehicle with which Tsay collided at 4:08pm — to support the charges.

This story, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Part I of the video can be viewed here.

Part II can be viewed here.

From American Scientist online: “Ting-Kuei Tsay received his Ph.D. from Cornell University and taught at Syracuse University before returning to Taiwan to teach at NTU. He holds a joint appointment as professor in the civil engineering department and senior research fellow at the Hydrotech Research Institute. He specializes in waterway, estuarine, embayment and coastal hydrodynamics.” Hardly the uneducated, troublemaking supporter of Taiwanese independence often portrayed by the KMT or Beijing ...

Group unveils pressure strategy to counter ECFA

Participants at a meeting of groups that oppose signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China on Monday night agreed to follow an initiative to hold a rally against the proposed trade pact.

“For the time being, we will continue to support the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s [TSU] signature drive for an ECFA referendum,” Tsay Ting-kuei (蔡丁貴), convener of the Taiwan Referendum Alliance, told the Taipei Times yesterday.

“However, we think the first stage of the TSU to submit the petition signatures will come too late, as the date [for doing so] has been set for April 25,” he said.

Although Tsay said it would be nice to see the TSU petition for a referendum passed by the Central Election Committee and for the second stage of the petition process to begin, “we do not anticipate this will happen under the current atmosphere created by [President] Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration.”

“We are prepared to convey a proposal to the Democratic Progressive Party, which is expected to hold a rally against an ECFA on May 20, the second anniversary of Ma’s inauguration,” Tsay said. “Our proposal is that the rally request the Legislative Yuan and/or Ma to respond to a resolution for an ECFA referendum in accordance with the Referendum Act [公民投票法], rather than just dismiss the rally at the end of the day.”

Tsay said his group was prepared to apply continuous pressure on the legislature and the Ma administration by holding rallies of between 5,000 and 10,000 protesters a day around the legislature.

This article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Attack helicopters’ delivery to Taiwan reportedly ‘on track’

A US$2.5 billion contract to sell 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters to the Taiwanese Army, sent to US Congress in October 2008 for approval, is on schedule, Defense News reported on Monday.

Since the notification, and especially in the wake of the announcement of a US$6.4 billion US arms sale to Taiwan earlier this year, there had been speculation that Beijing would pressure Boeing Co, the manufacturer of the AH-64, into canceling the deal.

Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, was among the US firms singled out by Beijing as facing potential retaliatory sanctions for participating in the deal. It also sold Taiwan US$37 million in Harpoon training missiles.

A letter of offer and acceptance was signed last year between Taipei and Washington and a joint US government- Boeing team is expected to visit Taipei in the middle of next month to finalize the deal, the magazine reported, citing sources in the Taiwanese and US defense industries.

The helicopters are armed with Stinger air-to-air missiles and AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles and are part of efforts by the Taiwanese Army to modernize its aviation capabilities.

US-Taiwan Business Council president Rupert Hammond-Chambers told Defense News there was no reason to “believe that the first of the Apaches won’t start arriving [in] late 2012 [or] early 2013 as ordered.”

“While China’s position on arms sales [to Taiwan] is well-known, the position of all contracting parties is this is a government-to-government sale ... [and] therefore there is no reason to believe that Boeing would not follow through on a transaction/order from the US Army irrespective of any pressure China may try to bring,” he said.

While Hammond-Chambers said he was unaware of pressure from Beijing regarding the helicopter sale, a local US defense industry source told Defense News that “I can ... guarantee that Boeing is getting heat in Beijing.”

In September last year, Boeing said China would require 3,770 new airplanes valued at about US$400 billion over the next 20 years. Boeing and its European rival Airbus are vying for a share of that market.

This story appreared today in the Taipei Times.

SFC confirms Nan Shan bidder irregularities

Information found on the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) Web site yesterday confirmed that three individuals who own shares in a Hong Kong-based investment company bidding for Nan Shan Life Insurance Co (南山人壽) have committed irregularities in recent years.

In a March 31 story, the Taipei Times quoted a report from the office of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Pan Meng-an (潘孟安) that alleged current shareholders at China Strategic Holdings Ltd (中策集團) — part of a consortium bidding for Nan Shan — included two Hong Kong stock traders who were fined by the SFC for “rampant speculation” and another who was indicted by the commission, also for speculation.

The three individuals are:

Ren Dezhang (任德章, Cantonese: Yam Tak Cheung), a Hong Kong stock trader who was fined by the SFC for speculation. He holds HK$400 million (US$51.5 million) in bonds and a 5.1 percent share of China Strategic.

In the “Successful prosecutions — disclosure of interests” of its annual 2007-2008 report, the SFC lists Ren as being convicted on April 26, 2007, and fined HK$1,500 plus HK$6,000 for investigation costs.

Zhen Zhiping (甄志平, Cantonese: Yan Chi Ping ) a Hong Kong stock trader, was sanctioned by the SFC for speculation in 2002. He holds HK$120 million in bonds and a 1.5 percent share of China Strategic.

Documents provided by the SFC show that Zhen was suspended for four months from Nov. 18, 2005, to March 17, 2006, for deceiving his employer, Get Nice Investment Ltd (結好投資).

“An SFC investigation found that Yan [Zhen] had acted dishonestly in conducting his own securities trading, without his employer knowing, through an account opened in the name of his friend, and in the process, earning bonuses from his employer to which he was not entitled,” the document says.

Through trading in his friend’s account between January 2002 and March 2003, Zhen received about HK$260,000 in bonuses.

The SFC said Zhen was guilty of misconduct and his fitness and probity were called into question.

Gu Baoshun (谷保順, Cantonese: Kuk Po Shun), a Hong Kong stock speculator, was indicted by the SFC for speculation in 2004 and later confessed. He holds HK$107 million in bonds and a 1.4 percent share of China Strategic.

In a Nov. 25, 2004, press release entitled “Failure to disclose interests results in prosecution,” the SFC reported that “Kuk Po Shun [Gu] pleaded guilty to breaching Part XV of the Securities and Futures Ordinance by failing to disclose, to HKEx and FT Holdings International Ltd (星采控股), his interests in shares in FT Holdings and his subsequent reduction in those interests.” Gu was fined HK$10,000 and ordered to pay the SFC’s investigation costs.

In October, a consortium formed by China Strategic and Primus Financial Holdings Ltd (博智金控) reached an agreement with American International Group Inc to acquire the US company’s 97.57 percent stake in Nan Shan for USS$2.15 billion.

However, concerns have since mounted in Taiwan over whether the consortium is backed by Chinese money and if major shareholders in the consortium are qualified to own shares in a Taiwanese insurance firm, given the above list of activities, including forgery, perjury, embezzlement and breach of trust.

This recently became a subject of dispute as the Insurance Act (保險法) does not specify criteria for reviewing shareholder eligibility or define the term “major shareholders.” Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission said in February that it was working on amendments to the Act, which it hoped the Cabinet would approve in time for the review of the Nan Shan case.

Meanwhile, checks with Canadian intelligence could not confirm speculation, reported in the China Times on Oct. 21 last year, that Shandong-born Xiao Jianhua (肖建華), a Chinese stock trader who is allegedly leading the bid for Nan Shan, is in Canada. In its report, Pan’s office alleged that Xiao is on the run following involvement in two cases of stock speculation and insider trading, including Zhejiang Financial Holdings and Pacific Security.

This article was published today in the Taipei Times.

In terms of the investors/shareholders being eligible to take over Nan Shan, the information in this story has no direct bearing on the case, as there is nothing in the legal system that bars investors with a shady record from doing so. Only board members at a company established here in Taiwan — e.g., the Primus Nan Shan Holdings that would rear it ugly head should the deal be approved — with a criminal record would be disqualified. What Taiwan is now trying to change, as a direct consequence of the Nan Shan bid, is to make it more difficult for investors with no experience in insurance to acquire insurance companies. Whether this will be approved by Cabinet remains to be seen, but I am told the motion is getting support from both sides of the aisle.

The above piece was meant more as a follow-up to my initial lead on the matter, as well as to show the kind of people (not exactly kosher) who are involved in the deal. In my view, this should weigh on a decision whether to allow the takeover to materialize or not — especially when well-known underworld figures like Xiao Jianhua are involved.

Yahoo e-mail accounts hacked

Reporters operating in Taiwan were among a number of journalists and rights activists whose e-mail accounts were compromised in what appears to have been a coordinated series of attacks uncovered this week. The development comes on the heels of an announcement by Google that it was moving its Chinese-language search service out of China over censorship concerns.

The problems began last Thursday, when some journalists in Taiwan and China found they were unable to access their Yahoo e-mail accounts.

One Taiwan-based target of the apparent attack told the Taipei Times on Monday that his e-mail account had been “hacked” the previous Wednesday or Thursday, adding that his passwords were changed.

The Taipei Times has since learned that two of its former employees, who still work in the news industry, were among those targeted.

“When I first tried to log onto my account and was denied I got a message that said: ‘Important Message About Your Yahoo! Account. We have detected an issue with your account. To access your account, you must contact Yahoo! Customer Care,’” the journalist told the Taipei Times on condition of anonymity for fear of being the target of renewed attacks.

“They then misspelled the US as ‘Unites States,’ which concerned me because I know that Chinese hackers sometimes send fake messages like this and often misspell words,” he said.

“It was Yahoo that decided to shut down accounts that were being targeted. They [hackers] were poking around Yahoo looking at our account information. Someone in Yahoo raised the red flag and they locked the accounts down,” the reporter said.

“Despite the fact that Yahoo is getting some criticism for not being secure enough ... I think it’s fair to say they were wise enough to protect their customers from an attack. But they should explain it further. There were too many of us who were hit to write it off as a coincidence,” he said.

“It is evident that whomever was behind the attacks, whether government or individuals, it originated most likely in China,” he said.

A current employee at the Taipei Times received a similar warning last Friday, informing her that there were signs of “unauthorized access” in her account, which could only be reactivated on Tuesday after a verification telephone call and change of passwords. Yahoo apologized to the user for the delay, saying it had received “unusually high volumes” of alerts.

Continues here.