However, my respect should not be abused without limit. Taiwan's people should strive to protect press freedom. I might have tried to put away someone on the grounds that he or she--to use a phrase most commonly used by the KMT during the martial law era--"has driven a wedge between the people and the government." Is this acceptable? Can the government put people in prison and shut down a TV station for the sake of national security? Everyone knows that if I were to do that, it would be moving toward dictatorship. Is this not how dictatorship comes about? Using this reason today, and that tomorrow? Can I do that? I would rather be a victim than have to bear the sin of suppressing the media. Maybe I was wrong. But I have no regrets.
Some people accused me of obstructing the establishment of the NCC. But it was I who inaugurated the NCC. I personally inaugurated the preparatory office of the NCC. The NCC is a part of the government's re-engineering project. Its establishment was delayed for a long time, as the organic law governing its establishment was not passed in the Legislature. But during the legislative process, and even now, after the bill has been passed, disputes have arisen concerning the constitutionality of the law. A constitutional interpretation should be sought from the Grand Justices, of course. This is completely reasonable. How can the opposition say that the government obstructed the establishment of the NCC? Some people are now worried that the NCC has turned into a "BCC," that is, a "Blue" Communications Commission. This is an issue that should be taken very seriously and deserves our attention. Is it justifiable that the opposition wants to recall me for suppressing press freedom?
The final, tenth accusation is that my administration is not in the least trustworthy, saying that in the case of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant project and in the field of cross-strait policy, my personal integrity and credibility are bankrupt.
I'd like to ask: Have I tricked you all? On the issue of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, the Democratic Progressive Party Platform clearly stipulates that we are an anti-nuclear party, a party that advocates the abolition of nuclear power and is resolved to push for a nuclear-free homeland.
During my term as Taipei City Mayor, on the issue of whether to build the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, over half of Taipei's citizens voted to shut it down and stop construction. That was a decision that I made publicly during my term as mayor, and it was part of my campaign platform as well. After re-evaluating the matter, I felt that construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant should be halted. So after I announced my decision [as president] to do so, and opposition parties launched a recall drive at that time, I had to endure it.
But clearly, in accordance with the Interpretation subsequently handed down by the Grand Justices, we had to respect the decision of the Legislature. Unless a negotiated agreement could be made between the executive and the legislative branches, the Legislature's decision had to be upheld. If the Legislature wanted to proceed with the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, we had to respect it along with the Grand Justices' Interpretation. There was no question of bankruptcy of credibility.
To this day, I haven't changed my ideals and beliefs. I still oppose nuclear power, still advocate banning nuclear power, and still want to move in the direction of establishing a nuclear-free homeland. I have never changed my stance.
As for the claim about my inconsistency in cross-strait policy-making, I cannot agree with it. We cannot accept the so-called "one-China" principle or [the existence of] a "1992 consensus." These are all matters of public record, and I have not deceived anyone. Over the past six years, I have maintained the same stance from beginning to end, nor will I change it in the coming two years.
The "1992 consensus" simply does not exist, and "one China"
means making Taiwan a part of the People's Republic of China, becoming another Hong Kong. This, of course, is something we cannot accept, and that's all. Is it reasonable to recall me because I don't accept "one China" or because I don't accept a "1992 consensus?"
I cannot sell out my country in pursuit of personal benefits. It would be quite easy for me to shake hands with Hu Jintao, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be a simple matter for me to visit Beijing? As long as I accepted the "one-China" principle, I could go to Beijing and shake hands. But what meaning would it have? What value would it have? I could never do anything to betray my country for any personal benefit. This is something I am adamant about. If I am recalled for that reason, I'm ready to bear it!
Some have said that I have maneuvered to rectify the national moniker and enact a new Constitution with the aim of tearing apart the Republic of China, but then made an abrupt about-face and advocated that everyone sing the national anthem out loud. Some say I have declared that Taiwan independence is a fraudulent, self-deceiving proposition, and then move for abolition of the National Unification Council and Guidelines for National Unification. One minute, they said that I was doing the right thing, and the next minute, they disagreed with me over the same thing.
When have I ever said that Taiwan independence is a fraudulent, self-deceiving proposition? Don't take my statements out of the context. Don't take something that I have never said as a reason for recalling me.
Taiwan of course is our best possible name, most forceful name, most beautiful name. I have not changed my opinion about this in the least. In our dealings with countries with which we have formal diplomatic relations, we use the Republic of China, followed by Taiwan in parentheses. All of our joint communiqués denote our country in that way; otherwise, people would really get mixed up.
Therefore, we hope that these issues can be considered. What could be wrong with that? We need a timely relevant, and viable new Constitution for Taiwan. The differing views people have on this matter are all open to discussion. But this is a goal, an ideal. What can be wrong with that?
Of course, I know that changing the name of the nation is a very difficult matter. But inasmuch as some of our people advocate doing so, we should respect their views. Until such time as a change is made, we are still the Republic of China, and we must display the ROC flag internationally. Wherever I go, I take the ROC flag with me and sing the ROC national anthem.
Why do some people refuse to sing the national anthem, some don't sing it loudly enough, and some just pretend? This is a serious issue worth pondering. Why is it that other countries don't have the same problem? Why does Taiwan have such a problem with its own national anthem? Is it possible for us to sing the ROC national anthem in the PRC? Is it possible for us take the ROC national flag to the PRC?
So, please let's not use a double standard. Basically, my intention is to consolidate the entire nation's sense of identity. I encourage people to sing the national anthem out loud not because the anthem cannot be changed, but because before it is changed, we should sing out our national anthem. How can that be wrong? And yet I am accused of having no credibility.
My dear countrymen, elders, brothers and sisters: I have been in politics for 25 years. I have been on the political path precisely a quarter of a century. This was not an easy road to take. A councilor's term is four years but my tenure lasted for only three years, one month, and three days. In striving for 100 percent freedom of speech, and because of the Formosa Magazine Incident, I was sentenced to prison. Moreover, while we were out thanking the voters after Tainan County magistrate election, in which I was a candidate, my wife was hit by a politically motivated "truck accident," which put her in a wheelchair for the last 21 years.
As Taipei City mayor, I worked tirelessly, gaining an approval rating as high as 89 percent during the second year of my tenure. In the fourth year, even though I was not re-elected to a second term, I still garnered an approval rating of 76 percent. As a result, following the election, I could only say "A great city is known for the people's cruelty to their leader."
The people did not give up on me, however, and in 2000 used their love and votes, through democratic process, to support me so that together we could accomplish Taiwan's historic first transfer of political power. Less than half a year after taking office as president on May 20, 2000, some people wanted to initiate a recall. Even a borough chief must have one year in office before a recall, but already, people wanted to recall me as president after less than six months just because of differences over public policies. We wanted to halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant whereas the opposition parties wanted to continue. Just because of this difference of opinion, they wanted to recall me. I suppose such a situation could only occur in Taiwan.
When I campaigned for re-election in 2004, the competition was intense. On March 19, one day before the election, an assassination attempt was made on my life. Fortunately, the heavens were on Taiwan's side, blessing everyone and enabling me to come through the ordeal. Nevertheless, some people said that I fabricated and staged the entire event. Even [US criminologist] Dr. Henry Lee was recently besmirched as having taken bribes to falsify evidence. Is it right to use such humiliating tactics? Would I risk my own life as a joke?
Although the election was decided by a narrow margin, the opposition should not blame their loss on two bullets. Everyone still remembers the scene in front of the Office of the President after the polls opened on March 20, 2004, when people claimed I had rigged the voting. I do not know how to rig votes, nor have I ever had any such experience. It has been said that 200,000 election workers were at my command. It doesn't take so many [to be discovered]. Have 20, or let's say even two, workers come forward to say that the president or the government asked them to falsify ballots? There has not been even one.
On this basis, they said I had rigged the voting, and they refused to accept the election results. More than 16 million ballots had to be reexamined and two months were wasted. Although the election was decided by a narrow margin, I still won the election. Did they apologize to the nation's people? After wrongfully claiming the president and government had rigged the election, and creating such upheaval and social cost, has anyone stepped forward to apologize?
Of course, they have the freedom to take their cases to court. These two cases were in court for more than one year and both cases were dismissed. Nevertheless, they accused the judiciary of being unfair, and now they want to recall me. It is not that I am afraid of a recall; on the contrary I do respect the right of legislators to initiate a recall. Whether I remain in or leave office is up to you all--up to the Legislature, and up to the 23 million people of Taiwan.
What I constantly bear in mind is that you all entrusted to me opportunities [to lead], and whether or not I have failed to fulfill your expectations and have let you down. I know that no matter how hard I have worked to promote localization, a clean government and reforms, there is room for improvement. For this I must listen to your criticisms and guidance, and I must undertake frequent introspection and re-examination of myself. Perhaps there are many areas in which I have made mistakes, many areas for which I should apologize, and many areas in which I should accept reprimands and investigations from different quarters.
There is one thing, however, that I must tell you, since you have given me so many opportunities to serve you over the past quarter of a century, and I must cherish such hard-to-come-by entrustments. I do not know how to repay you, but I know very clearly as a child, my father and mother used to tell me that, even though our family was poor, poverty is not a shameful thing and we should be upright. That is why I collected sweet potatoes as a child but never stole them. Also, I wanted to study and, to enable me to do so, my father borrowed money, but said that when I earned money in the future I should repay the amount, that one should not owe people money. These were the kinds of things my parents told me when I was young.
When I grew up and became a lawyer, I often received checks from my clients that bounced. My wife often told me I should help these unfortunate people even at the cost of being out of pocket or paying the taxes myself, since they must have had problems that made them unable to pay their attorney fees, and that I should serve as defense lawyer for these people pro bono. Throughout my political career, my wife often reminded me that, whether as a city councilor or mayor, I should adhere to the principle of not taking "red envelopes" of money or being involved in real estate speculation, that I should be upright and honest. After I became president, therefore, I voluntarily reduced my salary, there being no need for the president to have such a high salary, just as long as he has enough to meet his needs. I reduced my monthly salary from over NT$800,000 to NT$400,000, which, over a four-year term, represents a reduction of NT$20 million, and over two terms of NT$40 million. Money is just a material possession and not worthy of too much attention.
I recall that during the peaceful transfer of power, I was told that the president had private funds--NT$3 billion for the Fongtian project and NT$600 million for the Dangyang project [secret National Security Bureau slush funds ostensibly used to further Taiwan's diplomatic aims under the KMT government in the 1990s]--and these were available to be spent privately. At the time I did not understand. And later we found that this was absolutely impossible. It might have been possible in the past, but was impossible for me.
This was why the Liu Kuan-chun case happened. We all know that this was before I came into office. Liu's embezzlement of public funds had left a gaping hole, and we knew that a breakthrough was about to be achieved in this case. Yet the related agency deceived me, claiming that nothing was wrong, no money had been embezzled, and no documents had been lost. But things were completely different.
Eventually, I had the NT$3 billion for the Fongtian project, and the NT$600 million for the Dangyang project, turned over to the national treasury. This was what we did.
When my children grew up and got married, we too were concerned about the new members of our family. My wife told [our son-in-law] Chao Chien-ming time and again that, as a doctor, he should be content and uphold the law, and that there were two kinds of money he shouldn't take: money presented as gifts by patients, and money from pharmaceutical companies. It is fate that brings two families together through marriage. And we were delighted that we could be brought together. When we heard rumors, however, we were very concerned and invited them to visit us. We asked them repeatedly not to get us into trouble. Times have changed. This is no longer the era of KMT rule. It is the DPP that is in power and we are subject to microscopic scrutiny. As a Taiwanese saying goes, "even a duck egg, however airtight, has a crack." We asked the in-laws not to act to our detriment or cause us trouble, and they gave us their promise. But then, what happened?
The other day, I said to my wife that we were unable to teach our son-in-law, so now we can only leave it to the legal and judicial system to teach him, to let the prosecutors give him a lesson on our behalf. Of course, there is nothing that causes me more pain, anguish, and shame than the involvement of my son-in-law and his parents in these cases. I have to shoulder the responsibility, and I am willing to accept any criticisms for the considerable damage that has been caused. For this, I am very much ashamed and I am deeply sorry.
In conclusion, I wish to say to you all that I understand that many people hold a grudge against me and many are upset with me. Some people have wondered why the gunshots fired on March 19, 2004 did not take my life. Some people are unwilling to accept that I was not stricken. This is why some people have said recently that the gun has been loaded and all that remains to be done is to pull the trigger and bring me an ugly death. You all know that I did not die two years ago and my life now is a bonus. For Taiwan, I am willing to pay the price. For Taiwan, I am willing to carry the cross. For Taiwan, I am willing to sacrifice myself. If so many people resent me and hate me to the extent that only pulling the trigger and wishing me an ugly death will bring them calm and relief, then I am willing to sacrifice myself for Taiwan. So please pull the trigger.
I realize that we all uphold peace and love, and support freedom, democracy and the rule of law, however. We all love this piece of land called Taiwan, we seek a better future for Taiwan, and we want us all to become more united. Violence only begets violence, and resorting to violence absolutely cannot solve any problem. I realize that subsequent actions will become increasingly intense and protests will inevitably lead to conflicts. I urge you all once again to remain calm. A nation is ruled by law. We have order based on constitutional rule as well as the judicial system. We hope that everyone will be able to face this rationally. I am sure the people of Taiwan have the wisdom and capacity to face this difficult situation and together triumph over adversity.
An individual is not important. I personally am not important. What is important is that Taiwan's 23 million people should not be bullied, that this great country of Taiwan cannot become a local government or a special administrative region of another. Taiwan's national identity, democracy, freedom, human rights, and peace are certainly the right road, which we must continue to travel with resolve and without fear. We must have faith in Taiwan, our people, democracy and the rule of law. As a Taiwanese saying goes, "a sweet potato fears not its decay when dropped in soil, for its branches and leaves will flourish." For Taiwan's national identity, the deepening of its democracy, cross-strait peace, economic prosperity, and social justice, we must become more united than ever.
I will always follow you, the great 23 million people of Taiwan. Please be generous with your advice and comments. Whether I am qualified to continue to serve as your president, I leave to all of you to decide, for you all to make a collective decision. I apologize for having taken up so much of your time and affected your daily routine. Once again let me offer my deepest respect and appreciation to all of you. Thank you and good night.