Report to the People
Chen Shui-bian
President
Republic of China (Taiwan)
June 20, 2006
Dear Fellow Countrymen, Most Respected Elders, Brothers, Sisters, and Young Friends:
Thank you all very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to listen to my Report to the People. Everyone should remember that more than two years ago, at this time on the evening of March 27, 2004, I held an international press conference here at this same place. At the time, many people were staging a protest on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Office of the President. It was about a week after the presidential election on March 20, 2004. Some candidates were unable to accept the results of the election as decided by Taiwan's people. They implied that I had rigged the vote and demanded that I step down from office. They occupied Ketagalan Boulevard, where their protests continued for a week.
During that international press conference, I spoke about my feelings, thoughts, and expectations. Little did I expect that two years and three months later, at this same place, I would have to make a report to the people, though now the action has moved from Ketagalan Boulevard to the Legislative Yuan.
I have received an official communication document from the Legislative Yuan asking for a statement of rebuttal to the recall motion by today, June 20. Of course, due respect must be accorded to the recall motion, as it was initiated according to constitutional procedures and pertinent provisions in the Additional Articles of the Constitution by legislators--members of the Legislative Yuan, the highest representative organ of the people. However, it is clearly and specifically stated in the Legislative Yuan's document that a plenary session of the Legislative Yuan may review the case even without receiving a statement of rebuttal.
I have formally explained today to Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jyn-ping that I have decided not to make a rebuttal statement and that I would, instead, report to the people. This is perfectly in accordance with the Constitution and its Additional Articles as well as special regulations of the Legislative Yuan. This by no means indicates contempt for the Legislature and is an action that respects constitutional rule.
I would like to clarify now that this is not a press conference, but rather a report to the people. Even if it were a press conference, you may recall that there was not a question-and-answer session at the international news conference on March 27, 2004, as not every one of my many press conferences includes such a session. This is a report to the people, and we do not wish to lose focus. I would like to note to our journalist friends that we can arrange a press conference or a tea reception in the future where they may raise questions. Your understanding concerning this is greatly appreciated.
Some members of the Legislative Yuan have initiated a motion to recall the president. Why would they want to do that? What are their reasons? At this point, I believe, and I dare say, that 90 percent or even 95 percent of Taiwan's people do not know why the legislators and some legislative caucuses would want to recall the president, or the reasons for such a recall. Do you all know? Even if you do, do you know for certain the actual contents of and reasons for this recall?
In response to an official communication document like this from the Legislative Yuan, containing reasons stated for recalling the president, I believe it is necessary to make a report to all of you. Are the reasons for the recall justified? Are they factual? Is there anything questionable about these reasons? Are there points that should be re-examined? I find it essential to address a report to the people so that you will all know, you will all understand, and you will all be able to deliberate the matter yourselves.
I would like to ask my dear fellow countrymen, most respected elders, brothers, sisters, and young friends, to join together and be the judges on this issue in a rational manner. I will follow the originally listed sequence of reasons for recalling the president.
The first of the ten reasons for recalling the president states that I have "violated the Constitution and caused political disruption, " that I have violated a Constitutional principle of majority rule by appointing a minority-party Cabinet. It says my announcement that I would delegate part of my power to others constituted an admission that I have exceeded the power authorized by the Constitution. Are these allegations justified?
As you all know that, during my six years as president, I have appointed premiers to form new Cabinets. In 2000, I was elected president by receiving 39.3 percent of the vote, less than 40 percent. We had less than one third of the seats in the Legislature. At that time, was there anyone who said that I should let the majority party in the Legislature form the Cabinet? I directly appointed Mr. Tang Fei of the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) to the post of premier without the KMT's endorsement and support. At that time [when virtually all of the other Cabinet ministers were members of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party or independents], did anyone say that I was ruling by minority or violating the Constitution and disrupting the political order?
Thereafter, I appointed a different premier from the Democratic Progressive Party to form a Cabinet each time, including former premier Hsieh Chang-ting, who served last year. I recall that all the legislators, no matter whether they belonged to the governing or opposition parties, and regardless of political affiliation, praised him after he delivered an administrative report to the Legislature last year. That was unprecedented. That was, of course, the result of the then-current atmosphere of reform. Besides, the atmosphere of reconciliation and cooperation resulting from a previous meeting between Chairman James Soong of the opposition People First Party and myself was also a factor. Did anyone at that time say that I was violating a Constitutional principle of majority rule and creating political disruption?
Everyone agrees that we should not disobey the Constitution but should implement it. The fact that the president is directly elected, that the president can appoint a premier without the Legislature's consent, and that the president concurrently serves as chairman of the National Security Council--these are all established systems that existed before I assumed the presidency. They are also stipulated by the amended Constitution, not by me.
There is not a single article in the Constitution which stipulates that the president should appoint a member of the majority party in the Legislature to be the premier and form a Cabinet. This is the fact about the current Constitution. If we think this is not good, the Constitution can be amended. It does not matter to me if the Constitution reverses the current practice by stipulating that the appointment of a premier should be approved by the Legislature, or if it stipulates that the minority party should not form the Cabinet, or that the premier should be recommended by the majority party or the majority in the Legislature. If everyone agrees that these arrangements are right and good, I will certainly act in accordance with them. As the Constitution has not yet been amended, however, can anyone say there is something wrong with what I have done?
Regarding the matter of delegating power, I've previously explained very clearly that nothing has changed regarding presidential power. We have done nothing more than delegate power to coordinate the government and the ruling party. As this does not go against the Constitution, how can it be said that my "delegation of power" has violated it and disrupted the domestic political order? As you all know, during the period of KMT rule, all government affairs were conducted in accordance with party orders. Any critical matter regarding personnel and policies had to be approved by the KMT Central Standing Committee before being sent to the Executive Yuan Council for discussion. That was the practice in the KMT era.
After the DPP came to power, we did not allow the party to direct the government. This is because the party is only a political association. It should not supersede the government. That is why in the past we formed a nine-person group, and why, afterward, the president acted concurrently as the governing party's chairman, to synchronize the government and the party, which served, at most, to facilitate the coordination and cooperation between them. If there were any different views regarding personnel arrangements or policies due to the influence of past habits, experiences, or operational models, it was the Office of the President that would delegate someone, or the president himself would come out, to settle differences. It was a model for synchronizing the government and the ruling party.
Nevertheless, we felt that there were still some problems left. We hoped that all officials could shoulder a greater degree of responsibility. On May 31, I said that the presidential responsibilities and powers could not be transferred or abandoned, but that power to coordinate government and party affairs would be completely transferred. That is to say, henceforth, the president himself would not come out, nor would the Office of the President delegate a representative, to harmonize government-party actions.
This is a good thing, and I hope that all can help shoulder the burden of responsibility. Is it justifiable, then, to use this as a reason to recall me, accusing me of violating the law and eroding discipline in government? Is this right? I herewith beg my dear fellow countrymen for your fair judgment.
In fact, when it comes to violating the Constitution and creating political disorder, we all know that we are a country that operates according to a Constitution which stipulates that the central government be composed of five "yuans," including the Control Yuan. More than a year ago, I nominated the candidates for president, vice president, and members of the Control Yuan. As the Constitution stipulates, the Legislature should exercise its right of consent over their nominations. Of course, the Legislature does not have to accept and approve all of the nominees. It has the right to reject.
But, now, almost one and a half years have passed and the Legislature still does not want to exercise its right of consent for these personnel arrangements. Our five yuans have been decreased to four. As we don't have a Control Yuan, our human rights cannot be protected; many petitions of the people cannot be dealt with and investigated; and the unlawful cannot be censured or impeached. Who is it that is violating the Constitution? Who is it that is creating political disorder? The situation is very clear!
Speaking of unconstitutionality and of disruption of political order, in the past few years I have read a great deal of materials. Everyone knows that the judiciary is independent, but in the past people said, "The Judicial Yuan is run by the Kuomintang." Is that really the case?
According to a de-classified document, on September 8, 1960, the founder of the biweekly Free China, Lei Jhen, was to face sentencing at 5 p.m. This case was handled by a military tribunal. Six hours prior to the announcement, at 11 a.m., President Chiang Kai-shek held a meeting of party, government, and military officials at the Presidential Office. The subject discussed was that afternoon's sentencing and what the punishment should be. President Chiang himself wrote that the sentence was to be no less than 10 years and that Free China was to be shut down. After the sentence was handed down, no appeal would have any chance of success and there would be no chance of overturning the judgment. This was written at 3 p.m. This file has been declassified.
The Judicial Yuan should act independently, but at that time, when the president set his hand to paper, everyone had to follow what had been written, and this practice went on and on. Who dared to challenge this, who dared to say that it was unconstitutional and made for political disorder?
Everyone knows that the president is the chief of state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It is only the commander-in-chief that has the right to hold military consultations.
Does everyone know, however, who it was that was in charge of military consultations from 1972 to 1978? From 1972 to 1975, the president was Chiang Kai-shek. In the three years following that period Yen Chia-kan was president. But during these six years, military consultations were presided over by Premier Chiang Ching-kuo. However capable he was, he was not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In what capacity did he preside over these consultations? He did so for six years, and wasn't it unconstitutional? Didn't it represent a disruption of political order? Who dared challenge him? Who dared say he was wrong? Whoever dared would be put away! But does the current situation allow for unconstitutionality and political disorder? We must do our duties by adhering strictly to the law. I hope this can act as a reference for you all.
The second reason for recalling me is the claim that the economy is sluggish. Some people think that I only focus on politics, without considering the economy and the people's livelihood. They think that, as a result, our economy has declined, our economic performance has fallen to the last place among the four "Little Dragons" and our national competitiveness rating has also fallen.
I would like to tell the people of Taiwan that the government wants to act forcefully to improve the economy. Thus, the government has submitted a number of bills regarding flood control and water management, and related budgets to the Legislative Yuan. Even though the Legislature has already been in extraordinary session a long time, and legislators said those bills would be their first priority to be reviewed and passed, have they honored their pledge?
Many important budget bills have not been reviewed or are still pending approval in the Legislative Yuan. What has happened instead is that some people, only for the sake of partisan political rivalry, prefer to use legislative time to try to recall me. In this situation, who is playing politics rather than helping the economy and promoting the people's livelihood?
Although the government has planned to convene the Conference on Taiwan's Sustainable Economic Development in July, some political parties have declared they will not participate. If our goal is to strive for a better economy, why do they show no support for, and no intention to participate in this conference? This is something we all should ponder.
I would like to present three sets of numbers to the people of Taiwan for their reference. Certainly, I am not very satisfied with Taiwan's economic performance and hope it can do better. But is Taiwan's economy really doing as poorly as some people claim?
The first figures concern our imports and exports, both of which in May surpassed US$18 billion. These numbers registered new historical highs. Just last month, we created together a new peak in the history of Taiwan's trade.
The second set of numbers concerns our foreign reserves. When I started my first term as president in 2000, Taiwan's foreign reserves totaled US$100 billion. As of May of this year, Taiwan's foreign reserves have accumulated more than US$260 billion, of which US$130 billion come from foreign investors. If Taiwan's economy is so bad and its investment environment poor, why do foreign investors have so much confidence in Taiwan? Currently, Taiwan is the third largest holder of foreign reserves in the world, only behind China and Japan.
The third set of figures concerns our per capita gross national product (GNP). In 2005, this number surpassed US$15,000 for the first time, and it might rise above US$16,423 this year. These numbers are also historical records.
According to a survey publicized by International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Laussane, Switzerland, our international competitiveness was rated 20th in the world in 2000 and improved to 11th in 2005, but then dropped to 18th this year. This is a warning signal, and we have to examine what the reasons behind this regression are. Some people think the regression is related to domestic political turmoil. I think that, in addition, there must be other reasons.
Not all of our international competitiveness ratings are discouraging. Some ratings have sent uplifting messages. For example, when I first assumed the presidency in 2000, Taiwan's ranking in the global growth competitiveness survey by the World Economic Forum (WEF) was 10th. Since then, it has improved year after year, to seventh, sixth, fifth and eventually fourth positions. Although Taiwan fell again to fifth last year, it has performed the best among Asian countries over four consecutive years.
Regarding the WEF's rating of Taiwan's information technology competitiveness, it was a joy to see Taiwan appear on the top-ten list for the first time. Taiwan was rated 15th among all countries surveyed in 2005. This year, Taiwan went up eight places to seventh, while Hong Kong dropped four notches to 11th, South Korea was placed 14th, Japan down eight spots to 16th and China down nine places to 50th.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) surveyed the business environments of all economies around the world. The survey showed that for the business environment outlook from 2006 to 2010, Taiwan's ranking rose by three notches to 19th, while South Korea was rated 26th, Japan 28th, and China 50th.
By presenting the public with these survey results, I am not trying to find excuses for complacency or shed responsibilities. We are surely not satisfied with these results. If we had all worked more as a team and had fewer political disputes, our economy would have achieved more than this.
Some people have claimed the suicide rate is soaring and also that many people are enslaved by large unpaid credit card bills. Concerning the latter issue, as you all know, the government has been helping to improve the situation. In fact, our situation is not as serious as South Korea's.
Regarding the problem of suicide, the average number of Taiwanese committing suicide each year is around 4,000, which places suicide ninth among the ten leading causes of death. In China, suicide ranks fifth in the ten leading causes of death. Comparing Taiwan's population of 23 million with China's 1.3 billion, the latter is sixty times more populous than Taiwan. Using Taiwan's suicide ratio to extrapolate the annual number of China's suicides, China should see about 240,000 suicides a year. Actually, according to a report I read, the real number is 290,000. To put it simply, China has more, and even worse problems than Taiwan does.
Because life is precious, no human beings should end their own lives. We all feel sorry for other people's tragic fate. However, some people blame me for the suicide problem and therefore ask me to resign. I think these people need to put some limit on the scope of their accusations.
There has also been a great improvement in the unemployment situation. When the former Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan ran for the president in 2004, he claimed that should he become president, he would bring the unemployment rate down to 4 percent. The fact is, over the last six months, Taiwan's unemployment rate has remained under 4 percent. For example, it was 3.78 percent in April. This figure is not very satisfying, but the unemployment situation has been improving and its rate declining. The government hopes to reduce the unemployment rate to less than 4 percent for the entire year. This is not a "mission impossible."
In spite of this, some people use the unemployment problem and economic slowdown as reasons to ask me to resign or even to recall me. Is this justified? I would hope my fellow citizens can make a fair judgment.
The third reason for recall, it is claimed, is that I am corrupt; that I have broken my promise to maintain clean government; that my family has become untouchable in the government's handling of corruption allegations such as the SOGO Department Store gift certificate case, the Taiwan Development Corporation [insider trading] case, merger of the four largest financial holding companies, [bidding on] the Electronic Toll Collection system, the high-speed rail case, etc. Some even say my wife publicly lied two years ago in response to allegations of having received illegal contributions. My son-in-law has been accused of being involved in insider trading, receiving political contributions and peddling influence.
On these matters, I would like to report to you all: Yes, clean government should be my most fundamental self-demand. It is also the expectation of the people. As to whether I have exerted myself sufficiently, or as effectively as I should, I must reflect on these questions, and the ruling party must likewise examine itself.
But if one says everything that happens is a serious impropriety--that each and every one of them must be a case of corruption, without a single exception, blowing them all out of proportion--can they all be factual?
Here, I wish to tell you all: On the matter of the fight over control of SOGO, for example, I have already said that I, or even my wife, most certainly have not been involved in it. I have also stated in a news release that if my wife has received SOGO gift certificates from Li Heng-lung, Chen Che-nan, Chang Min-chiang or Hsu Hsun-tung, I am willing to step down and bow out. My guarantee, my promise to do so, remains in effect now and in the future.
But I also do not look forward to seeing some people coming out with an exposé every day, or even several times in a single day, with increasingly sensational embroidery. I believe that doing so is very immoral, and is very inappropriate. Of course, my wife has gone shopping at SOGO, and she has used SOGO gift certificates. But it certainly can't be said that those gift certificates were given to her by any of those four people, equating the one with the other.
[Although] I believe there is no truth to any of these accusations, the matter is under investigation by investigative authorities. We must respect the judicial process and cannot interfere. As to whether there is any substance to the allegations, I am sure that the investigative authorities will in the end make things clear to you all, my fellow countrymen. As far as we are concerned, there simply is nothing to it. She has never directly taken SOGO gift certificates from any of the four, and has not intervened in their battle for control.
What we are concerned about in a case like this--where a department store, especially one as famous as SOGO, unexpectedly has troubles--we, as the government, care only about the question of the banks' rights as creditors. As to the questions of whether a privately owned department store is to be sold, and sold to whom, these are their own affairs, having nothing to do with us.
But in cases where someone has thrown around their weight by dropping the names of high-level officials in the Presidential Office--when I heard reports of this, I took the initiative to have [Presidential Office] Secretary Ma Yung-chen clarify to the public that, be it the president or wife of the president, we absolutely have never gotten involved in, and would not pay attention to, such matters. If anyone swindles others by claiming to have a close connection to the "president," "wife of the president" or "high official in the Presidential Office," this is reprehensible, immoral behavior. The matter is now under investigation, and I hope the investigative authorities can get to the bottom of it.
Second, in regard to the Taiwan Development Company (TDC) case, I only learned of it when I read the newspaper after returning from a nine-day visit to Taiwan's allies. Neither my wife nor I have any connection with the case. Before the media reported on it, I did not know what the TDC case was about. Regardless of whether an insider-trading case or any other case involves my son-in-law or his parents, anyone involved must be investigated or taken into custody, and we do not object to that. If someone should be indicted, then so be it. Those who deserve to be sentenced should be sentenced. All are equal before the law. There are absolutely no exceptions. I will never cover up any mistakes or offenses.
On the topic of financial holding company mergers, this has been a goal of the government. The government wanted to lower the ratio of non-performing loans to below 5 percent within two years and increase the capital adequacy ratio (Bank of International Settlements, BIS ratio) to above 8 percent. We have done so. The success of the first-stage financial reforms makes us look forward to the second stage. Last year, therefore, in the first phase of the second stage, we were able to halve the number of government-run banks from 12 to six, including three that command 10 percent of market share each. The government is very pleased with these results.
It is hoped that the number of financial holding companies can be halved this year--of course, this is a difficult task--since many professional institutes have said that there are too many financial holding companies in Taiwan and suggested that it would be better if there were only four, five or six. But the government believes that it is better to halve the number to seven. They cannot be conglomerated and should operate according to market mechanisms. Different opinions can be solicited, reviews can be made, and the pace can be slowed. But this is the right direction because after Asia's financial crisis, Singapore, Malaysia, and South Korea saw great achievements in merging banks and financial holding companies.
For Taiwan to be competitive in the international community, it is of course necessary to consider reducing the number of banks and merging financial holding companies. The government, however, absolutely has not intervened in the previously mentioned mergers of financial holding companies. Related government agencies will coordinate matters and make evaluations concerning mergers, but we are playing only a supporting role.
An "OTC" case is also mentioned [among the reasons for recall]. I don't understand this. Perhaps it is a misspelling of ETC [the Electronic Toll Collection project]. In fact, I'm baffled at the reference to the ETC. I didn't have the slightest understanding about it. I often confused ETC with axle counters, and this case of alleged fraud with another. I do not know the difference between ETC and axle counters. I thought they were the same. Hence, to implicate any member of my family in the ETC case is a mistake.
The Taiwan High Speed Rail (THSR) is one of the country's major construction projects. The construction started before I was elected president in 2000 and has continued ever since. At that time, THSR faced many problems. I need not to say more about this. The THSR has inherent problems. Now the question is how the government can assist in completing the country's largest BOT project. This is not just another transportation construction project. It can make Taiwan become an island that people can move around within a single day. This is especially true for the "western corridor." The government will not countenance failure in this project. So we are very concerned, and whether it is a matter of safety or finances, any premier must help.
This is not only the case with just THSR. The Taipei-Yilan Freeway, just opened on June 16, is also the same. I asked people's help many times, including that of then-Premier Yu Shyi-kun. I said to him that with a native of Yilan County as Premier, if the freeway still could not be opened to vehicular traffic, then there could be no one else to blame.
Just consider, for a moment: Aren't intimate communications needed when problems are encountered? This includes problems with contractors: If they want their workers to speed up, shouldn't they be paid overtime? Because of the government's concern, many problems were solved, and the freeway could finally be opened. For safety reasons, the scheduled opening of the freeway was delayed for half a year, from the end of last year or the beginning of this year. Back when I was a legislator, in order to make sure the freeway continued as one of the country's six major construction projects, I threw the budget proposal at then-Premier Hau Pei-tsun, because he was unwilling to complete the project. I am sorry for doing that to Mr. Hau, but I'm very happy that, because of my pushing the issue at the time, construction of the Taipei-Yilan Freeway went forward and the freeway was opened on June 16, 2006.
From the dredging of the Keelung River, building the Central Taiwan Science Park, and renovations to Chiang Kai-shek International Airport, to the improvement of Kaohsiung's water quality, I have done my best. Although I am president [and not premier], I make strict demands on the executive branch and related agencies. These have been my political priorities, my commitments, as well as the country's major construction projects, which must be seriously dealt with and absolutely must be implemented and completed. As is widely known, the proposal to halve the land value increment tax for a two-year period was not passed by the Economic Development Advisory Conference. It was decided upon by majority opinion without a solid consensus. But I knew that halving the land value increment tax for two years was very important, being conducive to invigorating the real estate market and improving the health of banks. Based on this thinking, I insisted on implementing this proposal, though many believed that this would primarily benefit conglomerates, landowners, and others. Looking at the current situation, I am very gratified. We did the right thing.
Some people have criticized Taiwan Fertilizer Company's (TFC) personnel matters. In fact, TFC's personnel matters and the Nankang Software Park are two different things. As to [recriminations between] the TFC chairman and TFC general manager, in the end, both were fired. It was the decision of the executive branch, and we had to respect it.
The first and second phases of the Nankang Software Park have been very successful, of which we are also proud. Therefore, there should be a phase three and phase four. If local businesses are interested in TFC's land, they can express their views regarding how to acquire the land. Once a consensus is reached, everyone can do their best to make a deal.
This is as far as my concern goes. If a consensus cannot be reached, then so be it. How can I, as president, make things impossible become possible? Therefore, lumping the two things together is going way too far, making an unnecessary association between them. It is totally unwarranted.
Some people said it has been confirmed that my wife publicly lied about getting illegal political contributions two years ago. I am not trying to defend her. Facts are facts. My wife did not lie. Yesterday I asked her again. This is the simple truth. She has never met with Chairman Chen Yu-hao either publicly or privately.
In fact, both Chen and I are from Tainan County, and when I was a lawyer, I also served as a consultant to his company, handling law cases for his Tuntex Distinct Corporation. So I was quite familiar with him. When I was campaigning for Taipei mayor, he made donations, for which I was grateful. I have never denied getting political contributions from him. During the 2000 presidential election, he donated NT$100 million to the Kuomintang and NT$10 million to the DPP. We were grateful for his assistance and we sent him a receipt. Therefore, we admit that we received political contributions from him.
My wife has never met with him. So to go on talking about the matter from 2003 and 2004 up until 2006 is absolutely meaningless. My wife has admitted that Legislator Shen Fu-hsiung's wife wanted to bring Chen Yu-hao's wife to meet her at the presidential residence. At the time, Chen had already become a wanted fugitive abroad. Her request was not refused although she had become the wife of a fugitive. We admit what we have done and deny what we have not done. Is it justifiable to take claims about my wife's lying in the public about receiving illegal political contribution two years ago as a reason to recall me? Is that appropriate?
The fourth reason says I chose the wrong people for their jobs because two of the former deputy secretaries-general to the president have been involved in scandals, and cabinet members such as Tu Cheng-sheng, Kong Jaw-sheng, Lin Ling-san, Joseph J. C. Lyu, Chang Jing-sen, and Hou Sheng-mou, considered as "king's men," are either involved in scandals or controversy.
If there is controversy surrounding a member of a team, he or she might be suspected of being involved in a scandal. Though you may like or dislike a person, however, you cannot claim I chose the wrong person for the job just because you don’t like him or her.
Former Deputy Secretary-General Chen Che-nan is now detained and under investigation. I do not want to discuss his case, but one thing is certain: His case will be handled thoroughly and with the utmost rigor of the legal system.
Former Deputy Secretary-General Ma Yung-chen was summoned by prosecutors twice as a witness, but some have rumored that he was questioned on suspicion of having committed crimes. This is not true.
As far as [Education Minister] Tu Cheng-sheng is concerned, he was once an academician at Academia Sinica as well as a close friend to former President Lee Teng-hui. Every one knows where he stands. We all know that he has very strong "Taiwanese consciousness." There is room for discussion whether he is the right person to be education minister. However, one cannot say I chose the wrong person because Tu is controversial. He is by no means a so-called "king's man."
Kong Jaw-sheng once worked for a foreign company, and I didn't know him then. It was not my idea to transfer him to another position. Some recommended that it is important for talent from foreign companies to join the government workforce. We welcomed and thought highly of this proposal. The idea of appointing Kong as chairperson of the Financial Supervisory Commission came from the former premier. I respected this recommendation and helped convince Kong to accept it. That was all. If there is any problem with him, just put him under investigation. We will not cover up for him.
As for Lin Ling-san, I was introduced to him as at that time we couldn't find anyone to be the head of Taipei City's Department of Rapid Transit Systems, Lin was recommended and accepted. During his tenure of office, five MRT lines were completed one by one in five consecutive years. Can you say it's wrong for such an individual to first be deputy minister and then minister of transportation and communications? Doesn't he deserve any merit for the opening of the Taipei-Yilan Freeway on June 16? Has he been listed as defendant or investigated for any case?
Concerning Joseph J. C. Lyu, I didn't know him, either. His excellent performances as vice chairman of the Commission of National Corporations and vice president of Chunghwa Telecom Company--then under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications--caught my attention after I assumed office as president. He was later chairman of the Bank of Taiwan and now is minister of finance. Can he be considered as a "king's man?" Some seem to classify all the individuals I have hired during my tenure of office as "king's men." But why do they then leave others out?
Chang Jing-sen, former commissioner of Taipei City's Department of Urban Development, is very creative. Without his idea of capacity building and transfer of land ownership, the development of the Sinyi District would not have occurred. Without his cooperation, I believe the world's tallest skyscraper--Taipei 101--would not be gracing Taipei City today. In the transition from commissioner of the Department of Urban Development to deputy minister of the Council for Economic Planning and Development, there have always been rumors about him. But which rumors ever turned out to be true?
When I was running for re-election as Taipei City mayor, the Control Yuan had some suspicions about my administrative team. But what member, including Chang Jing-sen, has been investigated so far?
Hou Sheng-mou is also considered as a "king's man." But one cannot say this just because he was once Chao Chien-ming's professor at the National Taiwan University College of Medicine. Actually, it was not my idea to ask him to be the minister of the Department of Health. He was appointed on the premier's recommendation. Of course, I knew Hou at the time, so I supported this idea. This is the truth, and what case, or even controversy, has he been involved in?
These are all examples of administrative talents claimed to be mere cronies of the leader. In this way, how can these people get anything done? It is a very bad practice in our official circles to associate someone with a group or a faction. I would like to ask your advice on this.
Inevitably, some members of a team might have problems. However, what should be done must be done. We would never ask anyone to assume responsibility or step down simply because former Legislative Yuan Speaker Liu Sung-fan, now a fugitive, was involved in a bank scandal when the KMT was in power.
Former KMT Pingtung County Council Speaker Cheng Tai-chi was sentenced to death for committing murder. Nevertheless, this sentence had not been carried out for a long time because it is unclear how many shots were fired? Who should be responsible for it?
Wu Tse-yuan, former KMT legislator, was sentenced by the court to pay back more than NT$1.6 billion in a single corruption case connected with the construction of the Bali Sewage Treatment Plant. Where is he now? And his younger brother is now the deputy secretary-general of the KMT. Have we ever said anything about this?
In the elections for county magistrates and city mayors last year, more than half of the KMT candidates had highly dubious reputations. In addition, more than 20 officials of the Taipei City Government's Public Works Department were indicted for collective corruption. Furthermore, a gun was found hidden in the safe of the Taipei City Hall basement, and a corpse was discovered on the balcony of the same building after having been dead for more than six months. Did we say anything about the blind spots in the Taipei City Government's management?
In summary, I agree we have to examine ourselves and accept public criticism if we have appointed inappropriate people. But is it justifiable to recall me simply for this reason?
The fifth reason for recall is diplomatic setbacks. I was accused of toying with US confidence on the issue of referendum; making the US government lose patience by juggling words on deciding that the National Unification Council (NUC) should cease to function and the Guidelines for National Unification (GNU) should cease to apply; making a fool of the United States out of spite on the issue of a stopover on US soil; and damaging four decades of friendly relations between Taiwan and the US after being in office for six years. Is all this true?
Everybody knows that referendum is a basic human right and universal value. Our inability to hold a referendum was a discouragement, a loss of face, and an incompleteness of democracy. Why is it that other countries have had centuries of experience in holding referendums, with referendums being held throughout the world, while such practices are considered a taboo or source of conflict in Taiwan? What is wrong with my attempts to gain the right of referendum for Taiwan's people?
Of course, I faced considerable pressure, but it was clear that nothing bad happened as a consequence. Did anything happen after we held a national referendum on March 20, 2004? US President George W. Bush said in Kyoto last November that Taiwan's democracy is a success story that serves as a model for China to follow. Therefore, why was my decision to hold a referendum considered a shame and why has it become an excuse for my recall?
You all know that we had reached an agreement with the United States on the issue of the NUC ceasing to function and the GNU ceasing to apply. Foreign Minster Huang had repeated more than 30 times that we wanted to abolish the NUC and the GNU, but the United States asked us not to use the Chinese wording fei chu (meaning "to abolish" in English). Instead, they suggested that we use dong jie (meaning "to freeze") or jhong jhih (meaning "suspend"). Finally we suggested using jhong jhih (meaning "to cease"). As for its English wording, we told the United States beforehand. It was a consensus and understanding between the two nations. There was no such manipulation of words that caused the United States to lose patience with Taiwan.
From media reports on the recent visit to Taiwan by American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond F. Burghardt, you could clearly see that the issue is closed. Chairman Burghardt expressed satisfaction with my handling of the issue. The right to decide Taiwan's future and cross-strait relations lies with the people of Taiwan. No political party or country can make the decision for Taiwan's people. The free choice and decision of Taiwan's 23 million people must receive due respect. This is democracy. This is the consolidation and deepening of democracy. Is there anything wrong with that?
Concerning the US stopover issue, it was a matter of safeguarding Taiwan's national dignity. We were not creating trouble [literal translation -- We were not shouting hungry when we were full]. I did not take the airplane just for fun, as spending more than 30 hours on the flight to Paraguay was no comfortable journey. As the president of Taiwan, however, I had to stand firm. I could not wear slippers and pajamas in protest, just as former President Lee Teng-hui did 12 years ago during a stopover in Hawaii. Would it have been proper for me to wear slippers and pajamas in protest on the plane when making a stopover in Alaska? The United States would have felt humiliated, and we would have lost face, too.
Therefore, even if I chose not to make a layover in the United States, I could still go abroad for a state visit by taking other routes. We stopped over in Libya and Indonesia, which was what we had expected and were happy about. Can such a diplomatic achievement be considered a setback?
Over the past six years, if the United Stated had not afforded us its support, how could we have become the 144th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on January 1, 2003?
In September 2001, when the whole of Taiwan suffered from widespread flooding, I spent one week inspecting disaster areas. During the day, I engaged in disaster inspection. In the evening, I returned to the Presidential Office, taking off my rain boots and going into the office barefoot to handle official business and make contacts with Washington and Geneva. Why? Because Taiwan wanted to join the WTO. The United States helped us overcome China's blockade and boycott. During that period of time, I took no rest, inspecting disaster areas during the day and striving at night to expand Taiwan's room for international maneuvering. Taiwan's entry into the WTO was a result of US support.
As for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Health Assembly (WHA), the United States voted in favor of Taiwan's participation for the first time at the WHA in May 2004, after my re-election to office and Taiwan's holding of a referendum in March. Therefore, did the referendum influence the US vote in any way? The United States has continued to support Taiwan's participation in the WHA as an observer. We have striven for accession to the WHO for 10 years. Although the first eight years were fraught with hardships, we have gradually made progress in our endeavor. The United States and Japan both voted in support of Taiwan, and we now participate in at least 14 technical international conferences held by the WHO, from which Taiwan had previously been barred.
Presently we are still striving for an opportunity to participate in other conferences. It is great that we were allowed meaningful participation in this year's WHA. Taiwan may have yet to become a formal observer, but in being able to engage in meaningful participation in the WHA--a right that an observer is entitled to, we are now gradually enjoying the immense influence that US support has brought.
Even though many people have criticized my decisions not to pass through US territory on my trip to Paraguay and to have the NUC cease to function and the GNU cease to apply, it had no adverse impact on the United States' decision to send Deputy Trade Representative Karan Bhatia to Taiwan. Representative Bhatia is the highest-ranking US official to have visited Taiwan during my six years in office. His visit was to strengthen bilateral economic and trade relations and promote free trade agreements in hopes of building a closer economic partnership. This was a very meaningful and worthy endeavor.
Taiwan's diplomatic dilemma did not start with me. Wasn't our withdrawal from the United Nations a diplomatic setback? Wasn't the severance of Taiwan-US diplomatic ties a defeat? We have to "be firm with dignity and self-reliant with vigor, and remain composed in times of adverse change." Did anyone ever demand that the ROC president step down because of Taiwan's diplomatic setbacks? Who dared say so?
China makes no distinction between parties in its diplomatic suppression of Taiwan. As you all know, when I was still Taipei mayor, I hosted the World Capitals Forum (WCF) of the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA). Mayors of world capitals, including that of the US capital, Washington D.C., participated in the event held in May 1998. After the WCF was held in Taipei, however, China protested that Taipei was not qualified to hold the conference, as it was only an ordinary city of China, not a capital. Claiming that the capital was Beijing, China demanded that Taipei be stripped of its membership.
What happened when Mayor Ma was in office? Taipei was rejected by the WCF just the same. This indicates that China's suppression of Taiwan is not aimed at any specific party. Taipei was not free from China's suppression because of Mayor Ma.
Likewise, in April of this year, Taipei was to host the plenary meeting of the Asian Network of Major Cities 21, but was forced to cancel the event due to protests by China. Claiming that only one city in a country could host the event, China threatened that Beijing would not host the meeting if Taipei did. As a result, last year's event was cancelled. Did China show courtesy to Taipei because of Mayor Ma? No.
As for the APEC informal leaders' meeting, I had hoped that Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng could serve as my proxy, and he himself was pleased to have this opportunity. But he was unable to attend the meeting, even though he enjoyed great support among the ruling and opposition parties. Why? Because such events as international meetings involve national sovereignty, and China's suppression of Taiwan is not directed against any specific party, be it in the "Pan-Blue" or "Pan-Green" camp. Therefore, we need to unite together in the face of such an adverse diplomatic situation. Is it fair that China's suppression be considered Taiwan's diplomatic failure and a pretext to recall the president?
The sixth reason named is tension in cross-strait relations. I would like to put to everyone this question: No matter how tense the situation is now, is it as strained as it was in the past? During my six years as president, has there been any shelling in the Taiwan Strait? Have any missiles struck near Taiwan's front door? There were artillery battles in Kinmen when Chiang Kai-shek was president, and missiles landed 55 kilometers away from Taiwan's shores when Lee Teng-hui was president.
In the six years of my presidency, no matter how strained the situation has been, such things have never happened. I am not saying that I am capable. It takes the collective effort of everyone to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
If the situation were tense, how could the "mini-three-links" have been launched, and how could they have been expanded, as seen recently? How could there have been direct charter flights during the Lunar New Year, and how could the number of such flights have been increased to four more special occasions, as recently announced?
Some have said that as president, I have used my own ideology to handle cross-strait affairs, and have caused cross-strait relations to stagnate. And yet, new records have been set in personnel and economic exchanges as well as investment by Taiwan in China. Can this be called stagnation? In fact, these exchanges have gone too far, such that Taiwan's economy is now tilting excessively toward China. As a result, the opposition parties say that cross-strait relations are strained, and list this as a reason to recall me.
In response to the accusation that I have handled cross-strait relations with my own ideology, I want to clarify that I uphold four principles concerning cross-strait relations. I told Chairman James Soong of the People First Party these principles before he visited China last year, and he agreed with me on them. These four principles are sovereignty, democracy, peace, and parity. These do not constitute merely my personal ideology, but are also principles that Chairman Soong agreed were important. Is there anything wrong with them?
The government insists upon these four principles. Taiwan must not be downgraded, marginalized, or localized. Taiwan's government must not be bypassed and its sovereignty must not be denied, either. These are all principles that the president of Taiwan should insist upon. Is there anything wrong with this?
It has been said that my announcement that the National Unification Council should cease to function and the Guidelines for National Unification should cease to apply violated my "four noes plus one" pledge. On June 8, I told Raymond Burghardt, Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, that the "four noes" I mentioned in 2000 would remain unchanged as long as China has no intention to use force against Taiwan. I reiterated the "four noes," and the United States welcomed my statement. That is all. Is there any problem with that? The opposition camp would like to recall me for this, saying that my cross-strait economic policy of "proactive management and effective liberalization" is a step backward. Should Taiwan's people go westward to invest boldly without management and with no restrictions? How could I possibly consider such a thing? Is that what the president and the government should do? I have a responsibility. A report published by the US Congress indicated that foreign investment in China had reached US$560 billion, and half of that amount, US$280 billion, had come from Taiwan. If Taiwan has really invested that much, the situation is very grave.
I have reviewed information provided to me by the Mainland Affairs Council, in which it was mentioned that US$150 billion, or 30 percent of all foreign investment in China, came from Taiwan. This is a very high percentage. Forty percent of the orders Taiwan receives is manufactured overseas, and of this, 90 percent is manufactured in China. This shows Taiwan's high degree of dependence on, and excessive tilt toward, China.
If Taiwan's economy loses its autonomy, Taiwan will become subordinate to China, or simply a part of its economy. This is quite dangerous. This is why the government would like to launch the policy of "proactive management and effective liberalization." This is not a dichotomy, but rather aims to emphasize the management of the commercial and political risks.
China is hostile toward Taiwan. It has deployed 820 missiles targeted at Taiwan at present, and this number increases at a rate of 100 to 120 per year. In the face of this, shouldn't we be on high alert? Can Taiwan treat China as a normal country? This is my obligation as the president. Taiwan cannot cut itself off from the world; Taiwan cannot allow China to become its economic lifeline; and Taiwan cannot put all of its resources in China. My belief in this will never change. I also believe that most people in Taiwan can understand my insistence concerning cross-strait issues. However, some say that my policy of "proactive management and effective liberalization" has strained cross-strait relations, and seek to recall me for this.
The seventh reason given for recalling me is the claim that I have instigated confrontation among ethnic groups; the claim that I use terms such as "loving Taiwan" and "betraying Taiwan" and make distinctions between locals and mainlanders to foment confrontation among the ethnic groups in order to promote my personal interest and that of the DPP, destroying harmony between ethnic groups.
Quite apart from questions of winning or losing [political ground], I was a victim of so-called ethnic confrontation. If I was not a victim, why did I fail to be re-elected mayor of Taipei? Even now, I still cannot understand why I could have failed. Why and where did I fail? Was it because I did not do well in my first term, or was there some other reason?
Now, as I look back, it becomes understandable. At that time, KMT leaders claimed that DPP's pressing for the return of the KMT's ill-gotten properties was tantamount to instigating ethnic confrontation. What possible relationship could there be between pressing to recover KMT properties and ethnic confrontation? Some people, however, insisted that this was confrontational and warned us not to do it. They said if we pressed on, it would incite ethnic confrontation.
Before I became Taipei mayor, I had a campaign song, which went, "Taipei is our new hometown. Whether we arrived earlier or later, we are all the new generation of Taipei. To the people of Taiwan, the island is our new homeland. Early arrivals, late arrivals--we are all new-generation Taiwanese."
On the first of the seventh lunar month, I will return to my hometown to pray to my ancestors. Three hundred years ago, the first ancestors of the Chen family came to Taiwan from Shao'an, China. Recently, I have heard that some of my fellow villagers traveled to Shao'an to trace their family roots. Consequently I have learned, from what they say, that newspaper and television reports about the origin of my ancestors and their hometown were incorrect. They wrongly identified my ancestors and the place they came from. So, although we should not forget our roots and should know where we came from, there are still many misunderstandings and incorrect reports.
In today's Taiwan, there are absolutely no problems of provincialism. There is only the problem of national identity. I believe that what gives rise to controversy and prejudice, is the distinction between Taiwan-centric consciousness and Great-China identity.
These days, some people want to unite with China to control Taiwan, while others oppose China in order to protect Taiwan. One cannot say that someone is wrong--or that I am wrong and should be recalled--just because we affirm Taiwan-centric consciousness and want to stand up to China to protect Taiwan, or because we differ from those who advocate a Great-China identity and uniting with China in order to control Taiwan.
If this can be the reason for recalling me, then, there will be excuses for countless recalls. By that logic, all of those who believe, advocate, and insist on protecting Taiwan against China and on Taiwan-centric consciousness should be recalled or driven off the island.
Taiwan is very small. So we should unite and be harmonious. We should all identify with this place. We should no longer draw boundaries between "us" and "them." We cannot treat people with opinions differing from our own in this way, but should be able to respect divergent views and positions.
The eighth reason stated for this recall is an accusation by opposition parties that I have manipulated financial reforms, claiming that the government has helped conglomerates profiteer on the pretext of financial reforms. The opposition stated that members of my family are suspected of being involved in the following cases: the obtaining of management rights over Chang Hwa Bank by Taishin Financial Holding Co. Ltd.; the privatization of Taiwan Business Bank; the purchase of Taiwan International Securities Group by China Development Financial Holding Corporation; and the merger between Yuanta Core Pacific Securities and Fuhwa Financial Holding Co. Ltd.
Their accusations are not true. Just check with Mr. Chang Po-shin, Chairman of Chang Hwa Bank, whether anyone from my family was involved in the case concerning Taishin Financial Holding Co. Ltd. and his institution. Just check around. Privatization of state-run banks is a government policy. What do these have to do with my family? How can state-run banks become competitive if they are not privatized?
Everyone says that state-run enterprises should be privatized so that they can be reborn, like what happened with China Shipbuilding Corporation and Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd. These two enterprises still exist today because of privatization. I remember that in 2000 and 2001, China Shipbuilding recorded a loss of NT$7.6 billion, and Tang Eng recorded a loss of NT$8 billion. But after being reborn through privatization, China Shipbuilding Corporation made a profit of NT$900 million last year, while Tang Eng made NT$1.1 billion. By turning loss into profit, they have transformed themselves from liabilities into assets, and corporations of which Taiwan can be proud. The government is very pleased.
As for China Development Financial Holding Corporation, the Taiwan International Securities Group, and Yuanta Core Pacific Securities, I know nothing about them. What kind of relations could I have had with them, or how could I have interfered in their businesses? Similarly, speaking of Fuhwa Financial Holding Co. Ltd., it is widely known to be affiliated with the Kuomintang. How could my family be involved? Can such farfetched stories so facilely be used to drag me down?
With regard to financial reforms, everyone knows that in the second half of 2000, the year I became president, a global economic slowdown occurred and the dot-com bubble burst. Taiwan was among the first to bear the brunt. I was very worried. Everyone was saying that a financial crisis could occur in Taiwan at some point near the end of 2000 or the beginning of 2001. I was so worried that I couldn't sleep. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of all the people, Taiwan got through this difficult period. Then, I designated 2001 as the year for embarking upon financial reform and promoted the passage of six financial reform bills in an extraordinary session of the Legislature. These include the bills for the establishment of the Financial Restructuring Fund and asset management companies. I also convened the Economic Development Advisory Conference. How could Taiwan have gotten through those hard times without these efforts having been made?
Before the financial reforms, the banking sector had accumulated non-performing loans (NPL) of over NT$1.6 trillion. Were these accumulated during my term of office? While such an NPL load can be written off, was this something that could be done in less than three to five years' time? The whole thing was simply a clean-up after the former governing party.
You may have heard about what Wang Yu-yun had done to Chung Shing Bank, Liu Sung-pan to Taichung Commercial Bank, Chen Guan-lun to the former Central Bills Finance Corporation, Liang Po-hsun to the Bank of Overseas Chinese, and Kuo Ting-tsai to the Tungkang Credit Cooperative. Do you know how much money these five people took from the banking sector? NT$64.1 billion. Did these things happen during my term of office? In all these cases, what I did was simply clean up messes made by others.
Later, my administration launched the "258" financial reform [whose aim was to reduce the NPL ratio to under 5 percent and increase the capital adequacy ratio to 8 percent], which was successfully carried out. The government then began to promote the second stage of financial reforms. This administration has put its all into initiating reforms, but its efforts have been denigrated and smeared by accusations of fraud in every case. I feel that this is unfair. It is unfair to all of our working partners.
The ninth reason cited for trying to recall me was my supposed suppression of freedom of the press. I am accused of manipulating the media and trampling on press freedom, especially in the case of TVBS. They also accused me of obstructing the establishment of the National Communications Commission (NCC). But would I be in such a miserable state if I had suppressed press freedom? Would I be suffering attacks of such intensity?
May 3 is World Press Freedom Day. Every year on this day, the US-based organization Freedom House releases a report of ratings on press freedom throughout the world. Two years ago, Taiwan ranked 49th out of over 190 countries around the globe. Taiwan was rated as "free" in terms of press freedom. Last year, Taiwan climbed five places to 44th. This year, Taiwan jumped up 9 places to 35th.
Among the 190-plus countries in the world, there are countries that are "free" in terms of press freedom and countries that are "partly free." Taiwan was listed among countries that have complete press freedom, like the United States and other European countries. This year, by advancing 9 places to 35th, Taiwan ranked highest in Asia along with Japan.
If I had suppressed press freedom, could Taiwan have tied for first in Asia with Japan? What is China's ranking? China is number 177. It would be faster to see "China" by counting from the bottom of the list than by counting from the top. China has absolutely no press freedom. Instead of cherishing Taiwan's ranking, however, some have accused me of suppressing press freedom.
I was laughed at today by some people who said to me, "Today you finally know that you were wrong? We told you to shut down TVBS but you wouldn't. Now you are faced with the consequences of your own decision." I was speechless. I believe in press freedom, and I have no regrets.
I was sent to prison because of the Formosa Magazine Incident, in which I criticized the government. I was the publisher of the magazine and sought complete press freedom. Press freedom did not exist in Taiwan at the time, and I was a victim of that. I have been there. That is why I cherish the hard-won democracy that came after a time of authoritarian rule. Taiwan's democracy and freedom did not come easily, and Taiwan's people should cherish them. I would rather have excessive democracy and freedom than insufficient democracy and no freedom. That is why when some people suggested that I shut TVBS down, I said to them, "I cannot do that."
I was criticized harshly for not doing so. Some people told me that the opposition parties were "digging deep in the soft dirt" and not stop until they see my demise. But I believe the market mechanism will show that the media has gone too far and should not be like this. The audience--readers, listeners and viewers--will supervise, counteract, and handle the situation. There is no need for me to step in and worry. This is how I respect press freedom.