Teachers in Taiwan may be banned from being involved in politics

Under the Ma regime, the KMT has now made their move on restricting teachers’ freedom of being involved in political activities and public discussions. This month, the Judicial and Statues Committees of the Parliament passed the Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials, which stipulates that all teaching staff with management or central admin responsibilities in national universities have to remain ‘politically neutral’.

When the Act was passed, a resolution attached to it also went through. This resolution obliges the Ministry of Education to explore general opinions and draft the Educational Fundamental Act, which extends the above restrictions to teaching staff without management or central admin responsibilities as well. If this becomes a law, teachers will still be allowed to join political parties or groups BUT cannot take on any official positions within the party/group. They will NOT be allowed to be part of a campaign team for a political candidate. They will be banned from organising/joining rallies and protests, initiating petitions or publically campaigning for any candidates even outside of working hours. They cannot put their names and affiliations on any media adverts or promotions. Those who regularly appear on political talk shows offering expert comments will NOT be allowed to do so.

The MoE sent out a survey, gauging teachers’ views and reactions on the above ideas and has met with heavy criticisms and strong resistance from teachers and their union. Prof. Lin at Department of Social Work, National Taiwan University wrote an article to discuss this issue. He pointed that the MoE had already explained in the parliament that those without admin and/or management responsibilities do not have power and authority and therefore should not be treated the same as those in the management or central admin. This indicates that the MoE was quite clear about their stance on this and Prof. Lin questioned why it is necessary to do the survey?

I believe that while teachers should not use their authority to impose their own political views on their students in the classroom, they should be allowed to facilitate discussions on national issues and social policies and leave the students to decide for themselves. Prof. Lin brought up a few examples:

1) Can senior high school civics teachers discuss with students whether the president should take over the party chair?

2) Can a professor of politics comment on whether the DPP Kaohsiung Mayer should visit China?

3) Can a teacher set the following exam question: discuss the pros and cons of ECFA?

Furthermore, teachers should not be restricted in their involvement in or comments on politics outside of their working hours. What they do in their own time has nothing to do with the neutral stance they take in the classroom.

It looks like the Ma administration is quite determined in advancing their control over every segment of the society, ignoring principles of human rights and freedom despite people’s anger and resistance. One of the reasons why Ma doesn’t care very much about people’s views is their control over the media. They can cover up their incompetence and human rights suppression by buying the media off. For a while by now, those blue friendly media, which is the majority in Taiwan, have often conveniently forgotton, skipped or toned down news related to government screw ups or human rights violations. This article in Taipei Times explains how the government pays the media to have their journalists write ‘adverts and promotions’ for them as news articles (placement marketing) to show the government in a favourable light when their policies have clearly failed. From GIO Minister’s response, I don’t think they will really stop because he said he told other cabinet ministers not to be so ‘obviously embarrassing’ (難看). The connotation can be translated as ‘obvious’. So in other words, it will be OK if they do it in a more delicate and subtle way and are not so obvious?

Being unified with China or not, the once free and democratic Taiwan may become a distant memory under the Ma administration if the opposition party cannot pull itself together and send stronger messages across right now.

References:

http://blog.udn.com/jjoin5555/3008765

http://www.lihpao.com/news/in_p1.php?art_id=31088

Taiwan’s Presidential Office Spokesperson praises former South Korean president’s suicide?

Following the former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun’s suicide, there were a lot of discussions on the similarities between Roh and the former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan. However, pro-KMT and pro-China media immediately started another cycle of humiliation towards Chen and one went as far as asking ‘Roh killed himself. How about Chen?’ There were a number of commentaries calling Chen ‘shameless’.

The Presidential Office Spokesperson, Wang Yu-chih, who represents Ma Ying-jeou and the Presidential Office, told the press that they were sorry about this tragedy BUT as Roh chose to preserve his dignity [by committing suicide], we can only praise/applaud (肯定) this.

Wang was heavily criticised by both the DPP and the KMT legislators for showing approval for suicide and being insensitive to Roh’s family and South Korean people’s feelings. A lot of people also questioned what Wang or Ma Ying-jeou was trying to imply. So on the following day, he argued that he was not expressing approval for the suicide but people like Roh taking his honour and dignity so seriously.

Please see the following clip for what Wang said.

Wang’s response and what it may have tried to imply indicates a lack of human decency. Even if his explanation the next day stands, he still seemed to be glorifying suicide. It is unbelievable that it came from the spokesperson for a president. Was it simply Wang’s blunder or actually reflecting Ma’s real stance? This is not the first time Wang got criticised for his announcments and remarks. If there have only been a couple of mistakes, Wang is the problem. If Wang got to keep his job after making nemerous major mistakes, then his boss is probably the real problem.

If this is not White Terror, I don’t know what is: student in Taiwan harassed by police for attending 517 rally

A 3^rd year Taiwanese university student said in a press conference that when he was rallying in Taipei, Taiwan on 17^th May, the police telephoned his university and contacted his parents. The police told the student’s parents to ask him not to join the rally. The dean also contacted his parents and said the same thing. 

The student said that he felt scared by the police harassment. Some DPP legislators enquired about this. It turned out that the National Security Bureau was behind it and asked the police to investigate the student’s whereabouts on that day.

There are a few points:

1. Who told the police that the student was attending the rally? Are there student spieson campus again? Did the military instructors have a role to play in this?
2. Who gave the police his parents’ contact details?
3. What authority did the police have to tell his parents to stop him protesting?
4. What authority did the university have to tell his parents to stop him protesting?

It is puzzling why NSB did not make any attempt to hide it this time. Is the government actually trying to send a message that everyone is being watched now?

Related to this case, the 5 students who got attacked while protesting in front of Ma are said to be under ‘surveillance’ as well. Yang Hui-ju, the Taiwanese woman who was refused entry in Beijing during the Olympics, said on her radio show that prior to 17^th May, the military instructors in those students’ university talked to some of them and asked them whether they were attending the 517 rally and whether they were going to throw petrol bombs on that day. Those students have been calm and collected with no record of violence. In fact, they’ve been victims in a violent attack and inadequate treatment by the police. What was the military instructors’ questioning for?

Follow up on protesters run down by police car in 517 rally in Taiwan

I blogged about two elderly protesters run down by a police car within the guarded area during the big rally on 17^th May in Taipei, Taiwan. Taipei Times reported a follow up of this incident. Following the incident and Mayor Hao’s apologies, the authority failed to answer crucial questions but blamed the two elderly protesters for jaywalking! The fact that they are made responsible for their own injuries would have a major implication on whether they can claim compensation from the government. The two police officers in the car each received a major demerit and two minor demerits while their supervisors each received a minor demerit.

The family members of these two elderly men and about 100 residents from Taoyuan staged a protest outside Taipei City Hall as they felt the punishment on the police officers were too light and another disciplinary hearing should take place.

The protesters anger and disdain is understandable. Last October, the Chinese envoy, Zhang Ming-qin fell over when faced with angry protesters in Taiwan. Chang did not sustain any serious injuries and certainly did not require any surgery. However, Tainan City Councillor, Wang Dingyu, who was present during the protest and helped Zhang to his feet after the fall, was prosecuted for affray and assault within 8 days. The prosecutor requested a minimum of 1 year 2 months sentence to be passed on Wang. The police chief of Tainan was immediately transferred (demoted) as punishment.

Another good contrast will be that when Su An-sheng kicked former President Chen Shui-bian and elbowed former ambassador to Japan, Hsu, it took the prosecution over a month to investigate and prosecute and the prosecutor only requested a minimum of 4 months sentence.

It is quite obvious that under the Ma regime, the police and the authority treat those who support the Ma regime and those who don’t very differently.

Two protesters run down by police car in yesterday’s protest in Taiwan

During the protest on 17^th May (Tim did an excellent job blogging about the big rally and collecting all the relevant posts and information), two elderly protesters (aged 67 and 68) were run down by a police car and got gravely injured. One of them had to have a foot or leg amputated and the other one is suffering from a severe brain haemorrhage and pneumothorax. The police car must have been way over the normal speed to cause this level of injuries.

Jerome Keating succinctly summarised the incident and the issues surrounding this incident:

“… After the anti-Ma Ying-jeou protests on May 17, two elderly protesters were run down by a speeding police car. The two were crossing the street in a guarded area where no cars should have been. The officer driving the car made no effort to stop (CJ: there were no tyre marks to suggest that the driver use the brake) and probably would have kept going if the nearby crowds had not surrounded the car. This was no grazing of a pedestrian; it was an out and out hit. One of the men was flipped into the air and came down breaking the windshield of the car. Both men are in critical condition and if they die, a case could be made for manslaughter. Is Ma trying to re-establish a KMT police state? Taiwan citizens wait to see how the Ma and KMT stalwart, Mayor Hau of Taipei, will try to explain away this one.”

Taipei city councillor, Huang Hsiang-chun, went to the scene and the police station and said on a radio programme that Police chiefs and higher ranking officers were very quick at pushing the driver, a young police officer, to take all the blame rather than taking a more objective and measured approach. The DPP has demanded that they also participate in the investigation as many doubt the independence, objectivity and integrity of the police authority.

Mayor Hau apologised to the public three times and emphasised that this was negligence rather than an intentional act. Frank Hsieh told the press while visiting the two protesters and their families in the hospitals that Hau should promise and ensure a proper investigation before drawing any conclusions. Otherwise, it would give the impression that he was trying to minimise responsibilities and displace the blame. A radio presenter, who knows Taipei well, pointed out that the scene was actually outside of those 2 officers’ petrol area. Even if they were on their way back to their own area, they should have driven through another route. The road where it happened was actually the long way round. He also raised more questions. For example, the driver was not alone in the car. He had a senior partner in the car and why didn’t the senior partner tell him to slow him down? Why didn’t the two officers call an ambulance, look at the victims and secure the scene first instead of hiding in their car while waiting for backup? Some said that they were scared of the protesters around. Well, were they not trained police officers who know how to handle critical situations? What were they told when they called for backup?

The Talking Show discussed this case in-depth tonight and some points were made as follows:

Today, Taipei City Councillor, Chien Yuyen questioned the police authority why the police officer did not brake. The police chief said that stopping the car is not the most important thing if the officer was rushing for a duty. The young officer claimed that the two elderly men suddenly stepped out of the curb and ran to the middle of the road so that he didn’t have time to react. If it was negligence, the young officer has not received any penalty or suspended. Instead, he’s taken 2 days leave.

Whichever way we think about it, there are a lot of questions that have to be answered.

UPDATE: DPP also has a post about this incident.

Taiwan Ex-President Chen Shui-bian’s detention

Both Michael and Jerome Keating have written about the injustice in Chen Sui-bian’s detention. Today, the Detention Centre illegally confiscated Chen’s handheld TV and radio as a penalty for quietly going on another hunger strike. He did not make any noise or create any havoc in the detention centre and yet he’s not allowed visitation once and is banned from any outdoor activities for 3 days. During the DPP legislators’ visit yesterday, Chen was not allowed to talk to them face to face.

So under the Ma regime, one’s not even allowed to protest against the injustice in his trial in any way.

Ma Ying-jeou is starting a blog

Ma Ying-jeou is starting a blog and this has generated a lot of discussions online. Apparently, the presidential office is opening an account with one of the most popular host, Wretch, to tap into the younger population. The presidential office budgeted NT$1,600,000 (US$48,800) for the setup and maintenance of that blog alone. Well… how much does it cost to run a blog?

Dr. Billy Pan wrote an article about this and pointed out that Ma already has had a blog from his presidential campaign. It has not been updated since he won the election but it remains online and accessible. So why doesn’t he just keep updating that one? Dr. Pan commented ‘The main disadvantage of using this blog is that it contains a lot of his campaign promises which he has failed to keep. Therefore, he wouldn’t come off too well if he continues to update this blog [and draw people’s attentions to what he promised and failed to deliver]’.

If Ma sets up a blog on Wretch with the highest level of service and upgrade, it would only cost NT$4,000 a year, taking into account maintenance. So with NT$1,600,000, Ma can have 400 blogs on Wretch. Dr. Pan also explored the cost of a self-hosted blog and the total cost for set up and maintenance should not be more than NT$150,000.

The above will NOT apply, of course, if he is not going to use his aides in the presidential office and going to hire a writer specifically for his blog BUT who is he going to hire that will cost over NT$100,000 to write a few articles a month given the going rate in Taiwan? 

Taiwanese taxpayers’ money well spent? What’s he going to do with the under spent?

More on students arrested during protest in Taiwan

The student who wrote about how he was harassed by the police posted a message on 6^th May. He said that six men in black T-shirts were ‘found’ and the students were asked by the police to identify them. It is not clear whether those men were physically ‘apprehended’. The student reckons those men were associated with the temple, carrying sedan chairs for the God statues during ceremonies. The student stated that they still did not press charges because their main focus is to protest against the recognition of Chinese qualifications and acceptance of Chinese students. They do not want to waste time on court battles with local thugs.

There’s a link with photos, clearly showing what those thugs and policemen did to the students on that day. http://www.wretch.cc/blog/xuan741010/4395771

Paying to be brainwashed by China

DPP Legislator, Tsai Trong-rong, had an article in Liberty Times on 30^th April. It says that the Executive Yuan is currently reviewing regulations related to Chinese investments in Taiwan. If this is passed, it does not have to go through the Parliament. The details are not revealed yet but according to the latest news report, the Chinese will be allowed to invest in satellite and cable TV companies in Taiwan.

At the moment, the reception/viewing of satellite and cable TV programmes constitutes 2/3 of all TV reception and 86% of households with TV have subscribed to satellite and cable TV services. Apart from the 20 independent systems, the other 44 were dominated by 5 major corporate groups. If the Chinese can invest the cable systems, they can get to up to 86% of TV viewing public. In other words, by allowing the Chinese investment in satellite and cable TV stations, the Ma government is handing China great access to brainwash the Taiwanese. With the Chinese government’s wealth and foreign reserve, it’s not difficult for China to buy all the satellite and cable TV systems.

Even without relaxing the rules, Chinese monies may have already been in the Taiwanese media for a long time, spreading inaccurate or biased information against Taiwan, idealising China. In 2005, then General Information Office Minister Pasuya Yao was under heavy fire for his handling about the media. One of the main sparkling points was the ownership and shares of TVBS. He said that TVBS was 100% foreign owned (Hong Kong, China).

His action coincided with the TVBS ‘2100’ talk show attacking the DPP with suspected corruption cases if they were all true (NB. In those cases, especially those related to Kaohsiung Underground, the prosecutors failed to find evidence to prosecute and those prosecuted have been cleared of all charges). The blue camp then accused Yao of persecuting those with a different political stance and suppressing ‘freedom of speech’, ignoring the question of TVBS’ foreign ownership. Some defended TVBS by technicality. The loophole was that the law did not restrict indirect ownership, so the Hong Kong Bermuda TVB Co Ltd set up another company, Countless Entertainment, in Taiwan and have this Taiwanese company to buy half of the TVBS shares and the Hong Kong TVB. So in reality, it was 100% owned by Hong Kong money.

Several bloggers argued along the line of freedom of speech. Someone hated Yao so much that he picked on Yao from policy, ideas, public announcements to the choice of his English name (whether you like a name or not, if western parents can name their children with fruits or Arabic/African old tribal names, what’s wrong with a Taiwanese aboriginal name?)

Tim Maddog seemed to be the only one who got the point and quoted Taiwan News. Perhaps Yao’s handling of those issues could be better BUT the real issue was that TVBS was ‘indisputably 100% owned by foreign capital, namely Hong Kong’s Television Broadcasting (TVB)… clearly stated in TVB’s 2004 Annual Report and was acknowledged by TVBS General Manager Lee Tao who said that TVBS is “entirely owned by Hong Kong capital” during his “2100″ nightly talk show.’

Dr. Billy Pan pointed out that the founder and owner of TVB, Shaw, had a good relationship with the Beijing government and the then president, Liang, was the Chair of Hong Kong Broadcasting Authority. This position is appointed by the Hong Kong Governor who is dominated by Beijing. In May 2008, Hong Kong TVB was sold to a Chinese businessman. There is no free press in China and their media outlets serve as government mouthpiece. So what would they do to the Taiwanese audience?

Yao was under more attacks after he refused to approve the transfer of ownerships of BCC, CTV and Chunghwa Telecom’s MOD from KMT to private buyers until they explained on changes in their share structures and the name of the person in charge and whether they have expelled political, government and military figures the media organisations. He asked the Jung Li Investment Company to explain how it had financed the purchase since the company’s registered capital was significantly smaller than those outlets.

If Yao’s actions were really that detrimental to freedom of speech in Taiwan, how did Taiwan’s rating by Freedom House on press freedom get to the top in Asia the following year?

Update on arrest and interrogation of student protesters in Tainan, Taiwan

After the police arrest and interrogation of student protesters, the Tainan police told the press that those people were more likely to be local volunteers for one of the temples than gang members in black shirts  (CJ: how do they know without even questioning them? Or are they all in it together, protecting ‘the Emperor’?). The police also emphasised that they arrested those students with the intention to protect them from those men in black T-shirts (CJ: Really? So in street mugging or pub violence, the police should all arrest the victims for their protection and let the offenders go. We don’t even have to worry about thorough investigations and effective prosecutions anymore).

Both of the temples Ma visited or passed by denied any association with those men in black T-shirt. Given how well trained those men were, some suspect that they might be from the police or national security system and disguise as locals.

The day after the arrest of those students, one of the students wrote on his blog that the police went to where he lived and questioned the receptionist of his building. The police asked personal questions about the student protester and what kind of relationships he had with others in the building. The police officer refused to tell the reception why she was being questioned. The police apparently increased patrol outside of his building and went to talk to the next door neighbour (pro-KMT). The receptionist later found out that the student protested in front of Ma Ying-jeou. The following morning, both the receptionist and the next door neighbour told the student NOT to protest again because there was too much hassle for the neighbours. Frank Hsieh confirmed that he has already asked a human rights lawyer (Kuo?) to help those students. Tainan City Councillor, Chiu Li-li, and DPP Tainan city director, Tsai tung-shi has been a lot of assistance to the students.

Relevant post:

Police arrest and interrogation of non-violent protesters but NOT their violent attackers