As the founder of the Ketagalan Institute, President Chen Shui-bian lectured at the 7th Class of the National Leadership and Development Strategy Program and the 7th Class of the Indigenous Affairs Program this morning. President Chen gave an in-depth exposition on the four main problems Taiwan is now confronting, namely, divisions over national identity, the vicious competition between political parties, problems related to transitional justice, and the choice of constitutional system.
Honorable Chairman Lee Hong-hsi, Chancellor Kenneth S. Lin, respected associates, and students of the institute:
Good morning!
Today, I'm especially appreciative of the opportunity to speak to the students of the Ketagalan Institute's 7th Class of the National Leadership and Development Strategy Program and the 7th Class of the Indigenous Affairs Program. My heart is filled with gratitude and I wish blessings upon you all.
It is widely known that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the 5th anniversary of the establishment of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU). Today, the TSU is celebrating its birthday in Kaohsiung. I would like to congratulate the TSU on this happy occasion. Moreover, I'd like to pay my highest respects to former President Lee Teng-hui for his outstanding achievements in Taiwan's democratization process. I appreciate his support of me and his assistance to my administration during the peaceful transfer of political power in 2000. It is well known that Mr. Lee is styled the father of Taiwan's democracy. I know that most people share my feeling that former President Lee should not limit himself to simply being the spiritual leader of the TSU, but should be an inspiration to all of Taiwan's 23 million people.
The DPP is a party homegrown in Taiwan. As Taiwan's first native political party, it is also Taiwan's first truly democratic political party.
For this, we must thank our predecessors in democratic movements. For it was only with their blood, their sweat, their lives, and even the sacrifice of their own health and happiness, that the formation of the DPP--a democratic party native to Taiwan--was made possible. It is therefore important that we understand that the DPP is not a party that belongs to any particular individual, but a party shared by all. It is a party that the 23 million people of Taiwan love and cherish dearly.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the DPP's formation, and so one could say that the DPP has now officially come of age. The DPP has had to bear the cross of Taiwan's history, a responsibility that has been very heavy indeed.
I believe that a person should always remember his roots and carry a thankful heart. If not for the political inspiration I received from late DPP Chairman Mr. Huang Hsin-chieh, I would most certainly not be standing here as your president today. If not for former DPP Chairman Mr. Shih Ming-teh, I would never have been able to win the election for Taipei City Mayor--the first such election to be held in 30 years--in 1994. Likewise, it was also only under the outstanding leadership of former DPP Chairman Mr. Lin I-hsiung that I was able to fulfill the dream of many people in Taiwan by realizing Taiwan's first-ever peaceful transfer of political power in 2000.
Like other newly emerging democracies, Taiwan has been confronted with a number of problems over the past six years. Some of these issues are common to all such nations, while others are unique to Taiwan. Here I would like to summarize these issues, and I believe that many scholars and experts would take a similar approach. The problems Taiwan currently faces are divisions over national identity, vicious competition between political parties, problems related to transitional justice, and the choice of constitutional system.
I would first like to address divisions over national identity. This issue, in large part unseen in other nations, is most serious in Taiwan, which has no ethnic problems but does have concerns over national identity. A recent publication entitled "Insight City Guide: Taipei" mentions that the expression "Taiwanese" has made some mainlanders who relocated to Taiwan after the Second World War feel uncomfortable. This means that such an expression is unacceptable to these mainlanders. I am quite surprised at such a statement.
I would like to present a similar question to those people from Taiwan who emigrated to the United States after the Second World War: Would you feel uncomfortable should people call you Americans? If such people have stayed in the United States for such a long time, say 30 or 50 years, but still could not identify with the United States and did not regard themselves as Americans, I would find it inconceivable. Likewise, those people who have come to Taiwan from the various provinces of China, whether of their own free will or not, but still do not regard themselves as Taiwanese after living in this island nation for 30 or 50 years, wouldn't you think that there might be something wrong with this nation and this society? This is a very weighty and serious issue. We have to stand together and look squarely at the divisions that exist over national identity.
In the past, in order to gain a higher level of support, some people raised their hands and cried out loud during elections, "We are new Taiwanese who have grown up eating Taiwan's rice and drinking Taiwan's water." Isn't this so-called new Taiwanese the same thing as Taiwanese? We take pride in being Taiwanese, which is an honor, not a shameful thing. We all know that there are a number of reasons for such divisions over national identity. The first is the mistake of withdrawing from the United Nations (UN), and the second is the "One China" myth that entailed the falsehood of the "1992 consensus." I think this issue is as serious as it is important. Why did we withdraw from the UN? Why has the principle of "the legitimate government does not coexist with rebels" become "the legitimate government gives way to rebels" today? All of this happened 35 years ago. We have been absent from the UN now for 35 years. What are we supposed to do?
A result of our withdrawal from the UN is that the name "Republic of China (ROC)" may not be employed as our national moniker in many international occasions, and that alternatives to the official title of this country must be used instead. This led to our discussion with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1982, in which a compromise was reached such that this nation would only be allowed to attend the Olympic Games under the name Chinese Taipei. Similarly, when we became the 144th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the so-called Economic UN, on January 1, 2002, the name we were permitted to enter under was the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu," rather than the ROC or Taiwan. Though long, this is indeed our formal name in the international body. Another example is our bid to join the World Health Organization, a task that has been ongoing for the past decade. Although we use the name "Taiwan Health Entity" instead of ROC or Taiwan, we still haven't been admitted. These are the price we have had to pay for withdrawing from the UN.
Many fishermen complain that their rights have often been infringed upon over the past 35 years owing to this country's withdrawal from the UN, which made it impossible for Taiwan to become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Some have attributed Taiwan's recent severing of diplomatic relations with Chad, as well as our diminishing international space, to the stagnation of cross-Strait relations. Judging from historical documents, it can be seen that Taiwan ended diplomatic relations with some countries during my term of office as president. But under Kuomintang (KMT) rule, did Taiwan only establish, and never once sever, diplomatic relations with other countries?
I remember that during the 12 years Mr. Lee Teng-hui was president, Taiwan terminated formal relations with 13 countries. During this period, Taiwan accorded with the so-called "One-China" policy and had in place the Guidelines for National Unification, which clearly favored ultimate unification with China. Adhering to the "One-China" policy, and with the goal of ultimate unification firmly in place, were Taiwan's efforts in expanding its international space inspired, or did Taiwan no longer face diplomatic obstruction and suppression from China? The answer is quite clear.
Today, I would like to say that identifying with Taiwan, our country, and maintaining Taiwan consciousness is the right path, and is the path that must be taken. Taiwan is Taiwan, and China is China--they are different. As such, regarding our UN bid, is it meaningful for Taiwan to strive for representation for the whole of China and to argue about UN Resolution 2758? Or should we reconsider our UN bid and make an attempt to join under the name "Taiwan"? I feel the time is ripe for a serious discussion of this issue.
The second issue is the vicious competition between political parties. It is widely accepted that democracy means party politics. In party politics, competition between political parties is inevitable. Such competition, however, refers by no means to ferocious conflict between political parties. It is clear that the most important element of democracy is to have regular, democratic elections. Through elections, the public gives its approval to the platforms or performance of a particular political party and gives it an opportunity to govern. If a party fails to deliver and has not lived up to the people's expectations, the time will come when the people decide to give another person or political party the opportunity to govern.
The most important core value in democracy and in democratic elections is to use ballots, not bullets. Our democracy was hard-won. If bloodshed is still needed to achieve revolution, I feel that this means our democracy is not progressing, but rather going backwards.
There is another very important concept in democracy--the rule of law. We should both pursue and implement the rule of law. Hence, we need to have constitutional procedure as well as laws and regulations. How citizens should treat a president who has failed to live up to their expectations is stipulated in the Constitution. Recall, impeachment, and even a vote of no confidence in the Cabinet are all important parts of the constitutional procedure. Unless we abandon constitutional democracy, this procedure should be followed. This is the principle that any citizen and practitioner of law in a modern society should abide by.
Of course, we have a mechanism to handle cases of illegal conduct or malfeasance. This consists of judicial units and includes inquiries by prosecutors and the investigation bureau as well as court trials. These represent the very important core values of the democratic rule of law. Any delinquency or misconduct by a civil servant can bring on impeachment and discipline by the Control Yuan. Members of the Control Yuan perform their duties independently according to the Constitution. Hence, we need to have Control Yuan members in place. We also need independent prosecutors. To our regret, the Legislative Yuan has yet to effectively exercise its right of consent concerning the nomination of the prosecutor general and members of the Control Yuan. We must respect the judiciary. In the same light, before our central government system is transformed into one that is based on the division of power among three branches, the current Constitution, which is based on the division of power among five Yuans, must receive due respect.
I sincerely hope that the Legislative Yuan will review and approve the nominated candidate for prosecutor general as well as those for president, vice president, and members of the Control Yuan. I also hope that such consent will not be held hostage by means of having a requirement for a two-thirds majority be put in place. A year has passed since I put forth my last list of nominees, and much has changed since then. If the Legislative Yuan will not insist on a two-thirds threshold, then I am willing to nominate a new list of candidates for the president, vice president, and members of the Control Yuan. It is our wish that party politics in Taiwan will exhibit characteristics of benign competition, rather than those of vicious conflict.
Next, I would like to talk about the difficulties related to transitional justice. It is inevitable that problems will arise during the transition from authoritarianism to democracy. Seen in a positive light, we could say that these problems are of tradition and customary practices. Seen negatively, they are encumbrances and bad practices. In fact, all such issues, which have recently elicited a good deal of public concern, including the use of the president's discretionary state affairs fund or the hiring of personnel at the presidential residence, are by-products of this transitional period. In the past, these practices were allowed, but have now become unacceptable. This in itself is progress. However, we must not employ double standards in the reform process. What was permissible in the past, though not right, has been forgiven. But those practices that have become unacceptable now should not be taken as employing special privileges or involving corruption. It is therefore appropriate that we take these years to examine our progress from authoritarianism to democracy. We hope to institute a system such that, in the future, every one will have the best system to live under without raising unnecessary concerns.
All of you have heard of the Russian revolutionary base, St. Petersburg, which was renamed Leningrad after the revolution succeeded. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the parliament, with the approval of the city's residents, agreed to change the name back to St. Petersburg. In Taiwan, we have witnessed many changes on our way from authoritarian rule to democracy. These include the renaming of Chieh-shou Road (which means "Long live Chiang Kai-shek") in front of the Presidential Office as Ketagalan Boulevard. The Chieh-shou Building was formally given a proper name--Office of the President. Within the Office, there was a Chieh-shou Hall, the name of which has been changed to Auditorium. Some people have raised questions concerning whether during this period of transitional justice changing the names of Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) International Airport and Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall ought to be considered. Such questions deserve serious contemplation. In fact, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications originally proposed naming the airport "Taoyuan International Airport." Who knows whose idea it was to name it CKS International Airport? Should we change it back to the originally proposed name? Or rename it Taipei International Airport?
Of course, in this period of transitional justice, we are most concerned about reclaiming those assets unfairly and unjustly acquired by the KMT during the authoritarian era in which there was no distinction between party and state and during which time the state was led by the party, as well as those funds from the national treasury that were channeled to party coffers. These assets should be returned to the people and the nation. This is a serious issue requiring no small amount of consideration. Is it right that, with no explanation, such a large amount of unfairly and unjustly acquired party assets can be liquidated? Can the 23 million people of Taiwan tolerate such dealings?
Similarly, we have noted that the most successful example of transitional justice is South Africa, where a commission for truth and reconciliation was established. At the time, the people were told that, "Without truth, there can be no reconciliation; without truth, there can be no forgiveness." Those seeking pardon were obliged to reveal the truth about past events, and it was only when they did so that they could be forgiven and pardoned.
Victims, however, do not put the past behind them so easily. Opinion polls taken at the time of the closing of the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission showed that two-thirds of apartheid victims polled felt angrier after learning the truth than before. Nonetheless, South Africa is still considered as one of the countries where transitional justice has been dealt with with the most success.
With regard to the February 28 Incident in Taiwan, the government has offered its apologies, constructed monuments, provided compensation, and rehabilitated victims' reputations. Not long ago, it even published a report on the incident that identified the real culprits. Also, a museum commemorating the incident will officially open to the public next year.
Nonetheless, for many people, this is still not enough. They want to see the guilty brought to justice, and some even demand that they be exposed and denounced. Is this what this society and the people of Taiwan-- victims' families included--really want?
Often, when dealing with cases of transitional justice, the government is faced with the dilemma of having to decide which cases should be opened and how deeply they should be delved into in order to satisfy the people. However, we feel satisfied that all documents on the February 28 Incident have been released, although, of course, we cannot deny that there are still some points that have still to be dealt with. Documents concerning the Kaohsiung Incident have also been made public, as have those from the Lei Jhen case. I feel particularly pleased that, as a direct result of my personal instructions since I became president in the year 2000, people now know more, and understand more, about previously undisclosed documents from the Lei Jhen case.
Recently, many people have been demanding to know when the murders of Chen Wen-cheng and members of the Lin I-hsiung family will be dealt with and brought into this process of transitional justice. I have heard their demands, and have thus asked the appropriate government agencies to bring forth an answer to this question. If I, in my capacity as Commander of the Armed Forces, am required to give an order to enable the process to start, then I certainly have no objections to doing so. We hope that documents concerning the murders of Chen Wen-cheng and members of the Lin I-hsiung family will be declassified and disclosed in full as soon as possible.
Finally, I would like to talk about the choice of constitutional system.
As we all know, a constitution is a nation's most fundamental law. It is a guarantee protecting the rights of the people, as well as a summary of their collective will. Any constitutional activity--be it the adoption of a new constitution or simply the amending of the current one--can only be carried out with the approval of the people. This is the constitution of a democracy.
Sixty years ago, the Constitution of the Republic of China was enacted without the approval of the people of Taiwan. Former President Lee Teng-hui then worked laboriously and made significant contributions by overseeing six rounds of constitutional amendments over a ten-year period.
It is the people who have the right to the final say on any changes made to the Constitution. The first phase of constitutional reform carried through last year during my own term in office--which saw the number of legislative seats cut by half, the adoption of a "single-constituency, two-ballot" system, the abolishment of the National Assembly in favor of a unicameral legislature, and, most importantly, the addition of a constitutional right to referendum--was no exception to this rule.
However, the people feel that constitutional reforms are still incomplete and, thus, are still unsatisfied. As we all know, the TSU will propose a draft Taiwan Constitution today, while the DPP plans to propose its version of a new constitution next month. I am also aware that some civic groups concerned with constitutional reform, including the Taipei Society, will be coming forth with a third--their definitive--version. This makes for an exciting and encouraging time with everyone sharing a common goal.
The current Constitution must be amended and modified. Former DPP Chairman Shih Ming-teh has, without ceasing, advocated that Taiwan should adopt a cabinet-based system of government, with a cabinet formed by the majority party. I have no objections to these proposals, as everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and his or her own differing political views. As long as everyone is in agreement and as long as the changes are accepted by three-quarters of legislators and at least 50 percent of voters in a referendum, then I have no objections at all. For no matter what amendments are made to the Constitution, they will not be applicable to me. These changes will serve my successors and, therefore, I am most objective when it comes to constitutional reforms. I have no vested interests, and thus it does not matter to me how the Constitution is amended.
As we all know too well, there are a multitude of reasons behind the present chaos in Taiwan's politics and in the parliament. Nonetheless, there is one point on which most people should be able to agree, and that is that confusion regarding the constitutional system is fuelling political and parliamentary chaos.
The current constitutional system is neither a presidential nor a parliamentary system, nor is it a true dual-executive system. What it is, though, is a complete and utter mess. Taiwan needs a new constitution that is timely, relevant, and viable in all respects and one that can ensure lasting political stability, facilitate good governance, and raise national competitiveness.
The most serious problem at present is not as simple as who should step down or who should take power, but rather that of the constitutional system. Doesn't the present mishmash of a system require a comprehensive reevaluation? The reform of our constitutional system must be carried out carefully and our Constitution rewritten. It does not matter whether we choose to adopt a parliamentary or a presidential system, as long as such a decision is made by the people as a whole.
My greatest dream is that during my presidency, I can hasten the birth of a new constitution for Taiwan. If this is made possible, my historical mission will be fulfilled. If not, it is something that I will regret for the rest of my life, for I will feel that I have let down both the nation and our people.
In order to achieve lasting political stability, good governance, and raise national competitiveness, we should abandon our prejudices and concentrate on promoting constitutional reform. Hopefully, the required three-quarters of legislators, and, more importantly, over 50 percent of voters in a national referendum would support such a reform.
I, personally, do not have any steadfast views as to what the reform and rewriting of the Constitution should include. I am willing to work on the new constitution with the Legislative Yuan and the people of Taiwan according to the way they see fit.
No matter what, I will use my life to bear the cross of Taiwan's history throughout my remaining two years in office. I will persist in promoting Taiwan consciousness and upholding fairness and justice. I will do the things I should and take the right paths.
I expect members of my administration to exert themselves in attracting more investment to Taiwan, creating job opportunities, reducing inequalities between urban and rural areas, and narrowing the income gap. This is the government's duty and the expectation of the people.
A multitude of events have taken place recently. I feel as though I am guiding each one of you up a towering mountain--one that has never before been climbed or, at least, one of which no one has ever before reached the summit. It is a difficult mountain to climb, for a huge boulder blocks our way and weeds and brambles obscure our path. Nonetheless, I lead the way. I must blaze a trail for you to follow. I endure cuts and I bleed, but I am willing to suffer for the sake of Taiwan.
I will pray for the people of Taiwan, for your inner peace, good health, and happiness. I must also, once more, thank you all for your hard work.