Taiwan Today

The Kaohsiung incident saw the people declare themselves for law, order and their government. National unity will fulfill that wish

Problems of major concern in the Republic of China today include the internal political situation of the nation following the U.S. switch of diplomatic recognition to the Chinese Communists, the government's measures to cope with this situation, communication between the ruling party and other political groups, and the recent Kaohsiung incident. The Government Information Office has the responsibility of assuring communication between the government and the people, and between the Republic of China and the rest of the world. I have the responsibility for directing the operations of the Government Information Office and have carefully observed how the Kaohsiung incident was reported abroad. This case illustrates some of the difficulties faced by the Republic of China in communicating with the international community.

The Kaohsiung incident of December 10 was a big story both domestically and internationally. On December 11, the heads of two law enforcement agencies gave a background briefing at the request of domestic and foreign journalists. They presented a detailed factual account of what happened, carefully avoiding statements of opinion on the case so as not to prejudice the legal pro­cesses. Many foreign correspondents were present, and all of them filed stories afterward. One story by the correspondent of an international news agency was lengthy and detailed. It included not only the facts released by law enforcement agencies but also the independently obtained reports of a number of eyewitnesses. The reporter's head office was dubious and asked how more than 100 policemen could be injured without injury to any of the rioters. In its messages to the Taipei bureau, the agency implied that the correspondent was reporting only the side of the story released by the Kuomintang government. The government subscribes to this agency's service, so we saw the exchange of messages between the head office and the correspondent. In the story filed by this 2gency, the incident was incorrectly described as a "battle" between policemen and rioters. This reflected the view of agency editors that based on their understanding of similar incidents in the United States, members of a mob may be beaten by the police and there may be injuries on both sides, but it is not possible to conceive of the police being beaten up by rioters and failing to retaliate. Because it had never happened in the United States, the Kaohsiung incident became a "battle." The agency's head office asked the Taipei correspondent to file a story from the opposite point of view. This is an example of how easily an international news agency can misrepresent what is happening in the Republic of China.

The same problem was apparent in the report of a European news agency on Premier Y.S. Sun's Kaohsiung incident comments at a Cabinet meeting December 20. Premier Sun said "the government has been handling the case in line with normal legal procedures and guarding against prejudice and the miscarriage of justice. The government will not involve the innocent, nor allow anyone to create new disturbances on a basis of the Kaohsiung incident." The Premier added that the Republic of China "has always been firmly and wholeheartedly committed to democratic govern­ment and the protection of human rights. We shall continue to devote all our efforts to fulfill these commitments and allow no slightest retreat as a result of the Kaohsiung incident." The European agency reported only that the Premier had "bluntly warned political dissidents," and said nothing about the far more important matter of the government's promises and assurances. A Hongkong newspaper published this story with a headline which said: "Warning to Taiwan Rebels." When an important news story is treated and publicized in this way, it is easy to understand how foreigners receive a twisted picture of the Republic of China.

Another example may be cited involving an American citizen, Miss Ai Lin Da (Linda Arrigo), an active participant in the Kaohsiung incident. After she was expelled from the Republic of China December 15, she went to Tokyo and then Hongkong, where she made false reports to the press. An English-language news­ paper in Hongkong published an interview with her under the headline "Taiwan Clenches the Iron Fist." The interview consisted of rumors, misin­formation and downright lies. She was quoted as saying: "Up to 100 other supporters of the Democratic Movement are believed to have been arrested in a police purge a week ago — three days after the riot. The arrests came days before the promised National Assembly elections scheduled for Sunday. The Government has now announced an indefinite postpone of the elections." This is an absurdity. As a Taipei newspaper commented, "No election was scheduled either before or after the arrests. Parliamentary elections were scheduled a year ago and then postponed because of the U.S. recognition of the Chinese Communists and the breaking of diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. Elections were not confined to the National Assembly. The government has announced these elections will be rescheduled but has not set a date. Neither the elections nor their anticipated rescheduling has anything to do with the Kaohsiung incident. With such Free World reporting, who needs propaganda?"

In this same interview, Ai Lin Da said arrests would have taken place "even if the 15,000-strong rally had not been staged on World Human Rights Day." Why should she make up such a lie and why should it be reported as a fact? In other in­terviews at Hongkong and Tokyo, she said repeatedly that "we fell into a trap; we could not control our own people." Her implication is that the government planned the Kaohsiung incident so as to have an excuse to arrest so-called oppositionist leaders for breaking the law. To the con­trary, the government did everything in its power to prevent the Kaohsiung incident. It is regrettable that such lies should have been given currency even by highly reputable papers, including the Christian Science Monitor. which ordinarily checks its facts and publishes with prudence.

Why should we want to cause trouble for ourselves at a time the important Fourth Plenary Session of the Kuomintang's 11th Central Commit­ tee was in progress? How could we have talked the rioters into obtaining wooden clubs, iron bars and axes with which to attack us? We didn't wield these weapons. They were in the hands of the rioters and were used against peace officers. Would we have ordered this? The Kaohsiung mob carried loudspeakers through which they shouted: "Hit them! Beat them to death!" Could we have put such words into the rioters' mouths? How is it that newspapers and news agencies could report the words of Ai Lin Da instead of the facts? She also said: "Opposition forces were gradually becoming bolder and more confident of their ability to avoid arrest. People were losing their fear of the police." These remarks reveal the real purpose behind her lies.

For some time, foreign elements have been attempting to instigate disturbances under the cover of freedom and human rights and subvert the Republic of China. They have hoped to use the pretext of freedom and human rights to create a legally privileged class that can commit crimes, break the law and get away with it. The so-called Wu Che-long case was an example of this. Wu was accused of physical assault, found guilty by a criminal court and sentenced to seven months in jail. This was a criminal case, pure and simple. But it was distorted as political persecution by anti-government people at home and abroad. From such examples, we can easily under­stand that the dedication of many people to democracy, freedom and human rights may be distorted and misused by a small number of trou­blemakers.

Amnesty International, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978, is an organization dedicated to democracy, freedom and human rights the world over. It does not approve of the disruption of social order through violence, does not support activities intended to sow discord in any country and would not think of engaging in subversion. Unfortunately, Amnesty International can and has been wrongly used as a tool by others, including some who would promote subversion and other illegal activities against sovereign and legitimate governments. An American professor of political science at a New York university has made frequent visits to the Republic of China to look into the human rights situation. After the Kaohsiung incident, he did not come to Taiwan, nor did he check with any agency of the Republic of China to determine the facts. However, he did turn up in an "Anti-KMT Dictatorship" demonstration at New York December 22 and made a speech. During this meeting, participants shouted slogans along the lines of "Oppose KMT Political Persecution!" Can such conduct be regarded as consistent with the objective gathering of facts in the name of scholarship?

Organizers of the New York rally also perpetrated violent incidents in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Tokyo. Time bombs were placed in the Republic of China's offices in the United States. Our offices were harassed even in broad daylight and staffers were beaten up. Windows of the office of the World Journal, a privately owned Chinese newspaper in New York, were smashed. Is this a demonstration of free speech and human rights? Elements of the so-called Taiwan independence movement have been widely using such illicit means to advertise their supposed cause of freedom and human rights in the United States. Recently they have distributed leaflets claiming that the Kaohsiung incident was the result of an attempt "to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights." They asserted that 100,000 persons attended their human rights rally. In fact, fewer than 30,000 were in the area, and nearly all of these were bystanders. The number of active participants was around 350.

These leaflets also asserted that "more than 150 prominent opposition leaders were arrested because they protested the arrest and beating of two human rights advocates (Yao Kuo-chien and Chiu Sheng-hsiung) by police the previous evening." The two were said to have had their teeth knocked out and to be bleeding internally. Yao and Chiu were hoodlums with police records, not human rights advocates. They were not arrested for advocating human rights and they were not seriously injured.

The true story is that on the evening of December 9, Yao, Chiu and about a dozen others had embarked upon a noisy propaganda parade in two sedans, a taxicab and two loudspeaker vans to attract attention to the rally planned for the next day. These activities were undertaken without a permit. When police were called to the scene, they tried to talk these demonstrators into desisting and departing the scene peacefully. In­stead, Yao, Chiu and the rest surrounded the police car. Some of them jumped on the hood, broke off the wipers and smashed the windshield. Others attacked the policemen. No one was seriously hurt. No one had his teeth knocked out. No one was bleeding internally. Yao and Chiu were taken to the police station and had been released on bail by midnight.

These troublemakers have often instigated in­cidents and then complained that they were victims of police brutality. The Kaohsiung incident is a typical case. According to a December 21 broad­cast of the so-called Voice of Taiwan in New York, independence elements claimed that all of the police injured at Kaohsiung were suffering from self-inflicted wounds. They maintained that the incident was staged by the Kuomintang to win public sympathy and acquire an excuse for cracking down on the independence movement. From all of this trickery and deception, we can see that the conspirators are trying to provoke and defame the government.

Ai Lin Da has been an active conspirator and participant. Upon arriving in Taiwan several years ago, she claimed to be a representative of Amnesty International. Rather, she was continuously engaged in spreading rumors and lies intended to damage the government in­ternationally. After the arrest of the Kaohsiung instigators, she tried to incite the people to anti­-Americanism by making speeches of incitement at the American Institute in Taiwan and in front of National Taiwan University. She charged that the government was "suppressing the human rights of the people by arresting all the human rights leaders" and asserted that this would "hurt relations between the Republic of China and the United States." She hoped that the people would be angry and would even assault her, thereby creating a new incident to divert public attention from the Kaohsiung incident. She failed completely. The people who heard her words simply didn't believe her.

Ai Lin Da was aware that the Government Information Office invites foreign journalists to visit the Republic of China and tries to assist them. She made an effort to get in touch with these visitors and show them the slums and seamy side of Taiwan. As any other land, we have areas and people who have not progressed as rapidly as the average. New York City in the richest country of the world has slums. These do not represent the United States. Ai Lin Da's purpose in showing our isolated low-income areas was to persuade visitors that this was typical and, through the resulting stories, to hurt the government's image abroad. Several weeks ago, a visiting foreign writer favorably impressed with the Republic of China wanted to visit the Formosa magazine offices and interview Huang Hsin-chieh, the publisher, so as to make sure of a balanced report. Ai Lin Da told him: "Huang is only a front man; you don't need to see him." Ai Lin Da reminds me of Borodin, the Russian adviser sent to China when the Chinese Communist movement was in its infancy. She seems to aspire to become the Borodin of today, serving anti­-government elements. While here, she proclaimed that on her return to the United States she would appeal to President Carter and Amnesty Interna­tional. In Taiwan, she sowed seeds of public discord and tried to persuade our people to hate each other. She helped instigate riots in the name of human rights and freedom. Her methods resemble those of the Chinese Communists.

Among those arrested for instigating the Kao­hsiung incident, many styled themselves intellec­tuals. They considered themselves as being involved with the editing of Formosa magazine. The question we must ask is whether they had any real interest in putting out a publication of, by and for intellectuals.

I want to call attention to a case involving Formosa magazine which has not been publicized before. In its second issue, the magazine had an article "Exposing the Myth of the Korean Economic Miracle — Part I." The article was supposedly translated and edited by Yeh Ta­hsiung. It charged that the Republic of Korea had suppressed democracy and installed a slave system to develop its economy. The Korean people should rise and win back their freedom, the article said. The people of Taiwan were called upon to do likewise. Understandably, the Korean Embassy in Taipei was dismayed by the appearance of this article, which amounted to a vicious attack on the Korean government. There was no presentation of facts but only of rumors and distortions similar to those used by the North Korean Communists in attacking the Republic of Korea. On October 15, the Korean Embassy expressed its concern to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and also its hope that the second half of the article would not be published. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded that freedom of press is respected in the Republic of China. The Government Information Office was informed but no action was suggested or requested.

When the magazine personnel heard of this, they spread rumors to the effect that the Korean Embassy had applied political pressure and de­manded that the Chinese government suspend Formosa for a year. They wanted to create a diplomatic incident, persuade the people that the Korean government had interfered in our affairs and put both countries in a bad light. At the same time, they complicated the case by urging other foreign elements to intervene. Many inquiries were received by GIO.

At the same time, the magazine expressed fear of government suspension. On October 17, Chang Chun-hung and Yao Chia-wen, who were leading members of the Formosa staff, visited Kuan Chung, deputy secretary general of the Policy Coordination Committee of the Kuomintang, and expressed deep regret over the "misunderstanding" caused by the article. They said the magazine would apologize to the Korean Embassy and that the second part of the article would not be published. They asked Kuan to explain to the government and express their hope that no action would be taken. Kuan said he would help if the magazine's promises were kept. Chang and Yao expressed gratitude.

On the very next day, Shih Ming-teh, general manager of the magazine, con­sulted with a foreign element and then presented a rude and misleading protest to the Korean Embassy in lieu of the promised apology. Shih threatened to stage a demonstration in front of the Korean Embassy. Minister Min Young Soo again expressed the embassy's concern to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The magazine not only disseminated false information about the Republic of Korea but also attempted to under­mine good relations between the Republics of China and Korea.

On October 19, Kuang Chung invited Huang Hsin-chieh, Yao Chia-wen, Chang Chung-hung and Shih Ming-teh to his office for a discussion. Only Yao and Shih came. Kuan urged them to keep their promises and asked them not to publish a protest in the magazine, because it erroneously claimed that the Korean Embassy had asked the Chinese government to suspend Formosa for a year. Kuan said such a report would result in serious misunderstandings and have repercussions abroad. The government might have to take action against the magazine for libeling a friendly government. Yao and Shih agreed to Kuan's counsel. But in the third issue of Formosa, the protest appeared in full. Furthermore, this page was inked out of some copies to give the impression that the government had suppressed freedom of the press.

As I have said, the Korean article was supposed to be a translation; that implied an original. The Taipei City Information Department requested the magazine to make available the original copy to determine whether the article had originated in North Korea. Despite repeated urgings and the magazine's agreement to supply the original, no such article was ever produced.

Even after all this, the incident continued. On November 10, the magazine sent a letter to the Korean Embassy demanding a formal response to the magazine's protest. If such an answer was not received, the magazine said, it would publish the second half of the Korean article in the fourth issue of Formosa.

This case is clear evidence that the magazine had no concern for the national interest, did not keep its word and resorted to misrepresentations, lies and libels. Formosa was not a maga­zine for intellectuals but a propaganda organ intended to disseminate rumors, incite popular discontent and spur an anti-government movement. Formosa had only four issues. During this same period, the magazine sponsored 14 political rallies, each of which advanced divisive and destructive programs intended to drive a wedge between people and government. Aside from such conspiracies and deceptions, the magazine established 11 branches throughout Taiwan and employed ex-convicts and habitual criminals to stage dis­turbances.

In the last year, Formosa magazine and other similar publications have carried articles comparing the Kuomintang government to those of the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua and Park Chung Hee of South Korea. The claim is that no matter what the government of the Republic of China may do, it will fall as surely as did the governments of these countries. Such comparisons are born of vicious intention and erroneous perception. As a newspaper headline said of the Kaohsiung incident, it resulted from the perpetrators' over-estimation of themselves, underestimation of the people's intelligence and miscalculation of the government's strength and popularity. The Formosa magazine people did not comprehend that social conditions in the Republic of China are quite different from those of other countries.

Comparing the Republic of China with many other developing countries, we have unique char­acteristics assuring social harmony and stability. These are some of them:

First is economic progress based on equitable distribution of wealth and the formation and rise of the middle class. In 30 years we have achieved what is widely recognized as an economic miracle. I remember that in 1950, when I was still an elementary school pupil in Taipei, we were getting ready for the municipal games. The sponsors wanted us all to wear the same kind of shoes. That was impossible. Most of us could not afford to buy a new pair of shoes just for the games. To have shoes all the same, we would have had to go barefoot; to have shirts all the same, we would have had to strip to the waist. Thirty years later we are the world's biggest exporter of shoes. We have so many garments to sell that other countries set quotas on our exports. Our people can afford to buy both and everything else we make. We have a huge and highly stable middle class. Per capita income has increased from US$37.40 in 1949 to US$1,720 in 1979. Thirty per cent of the people's earnings go into savings accounts. The income gap between the top 20 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent of the people has narrowed from the 15 to 1 of the 1950s to 4.1 to 1. With no excessively rich and no excessively poor, society is stable. This still growing middle class doesn't want violence, which robs the people of all they have gained. Those lawless ele­ments who appeared in the Kaohsiung incident have failed to win any following among the people who treasure what they have won and know that they will acquire still more. Nothing is perfect, but the people want only step-by-step reform and the continuation of steady progress. They like what they have been getting and want more of the same. Public opinion holds that change should be evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Second is the raising of the level of edu­cation. All of the people are now able to consider, evaluate and analyze all kinds of problems in the light of reason. They can no longer be stirred emotionally by propaganda or fooled by tricks. Our investment in education has extended compulsory schooling from six to nine years, reduced illiteracy to zero except among the oldest generation and assured that the people are well informed. This is reflected in the life and conduct of the people. At Kaohsiung, many people turned out to see what was going on. They had heard the sound trucks and the rumors. But they kept cool and had no appetite for violence or the lying claims that the government was oppressing them. They could not be incited. They showed their thoughtfulness and maturity. Some of the rioters hoped to extend the violence, and shouted: "Taiwanese don't hit Taiwanese." They urged policemen from Taiwan Province to kneel down so they wouldn't be hurt. No one paid any attention. Of the 183 peace officers who were injured, only 13 came from provinces other than Taiwan. The people of Taiwan are too educated and too sophisticated to be deceived by propaganda and emotional incitement.

Third is the elimination of provincial differences through education, intermarriage and recognition that people are the same no matter where they are born. Most families of today pay little attention to where a new mem­ber was born. Kinship has put provincialism to rout. People simply don't care about the strong provincialism of old. According to a recent survey of the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission of the Executive Yuan, more than 75 per cent of the people have no objection to marriage regardless of the place of birth. After all, the people of Taiwan and other provinces be­long to the same race, share the same cultural background and follow the same customs. All originated on the Chinese mainland. No racial problem is involved. Independence elements have sought to use provincialism in dividing the people. A few foreigners have willfully misinterpreted the Taiwan independence movement as resembling racial conflicts in other countries. Many of us in Taiwan watched the "Roots" series on television. We saw that black Americans had once been enslaved and had endured many oppressions and cruelties on their way back to freedom. In the Republic of China, no one is or ever has been anyone's slave. No one is inferior to anyone else, regardless of place of origin. Any comparison of provincialism in Taiwan with the conflict between blacks and whites is absurd and malicious.

Fourth is the equal opportunity provided for individual fulfillment. Regardless of sex, creed or place of birth, anyone in this country has the same opportunity to be educated, to seek employment, to participate in politics and to enter into other forms of social activity. According to a recent voting study con­ ducted by the RDEC, the self-identification of social class by the people of Taiwan demonstrates a distinct trend toward upward mobility. Thirty-two per cent of the people in the sample regard their fathers' social standing as middle class but 51.7 per cent regard themselves as middle class. As for their children's social status, 37.5 per cent believe their offspring will be middle class, 31.4 per cent expect them to be upper-middle class and 8.7 per cent expect them to be upper class. In other words, the lower-middle class is growing smaller and smaller, and a new economic vista is opening to all. These expectations and this con­fidence provide powerful impetus for social progress, economic prosperity and augmented stability. Nearly everyone expects to do better and his children to do better than he did.

Fifth, and probably most important is the steady progress and improvement of the government and the ruling party. The government is not perfect. But neither is it a "high-handed despotic dictatorship" pictured by those who conspire against it. The government of the Republic of China is responsible and responsive. It has not only assumed responsibility for delivering what was promised to the people, but has responded to the demands of the people. Nor is the ruling Kuomintang the model of all that a political party should be. But it is an open party and together with the government seeks continuous and steadily improving reforms and progress.

In November-December of last year, the Executive Yuan convened six meetings of Taiwan local governmental administrators. Premier Sun personally presided at each one. More than 1,000 questions and problems were raised. The Premier provided answers or made decisions in each case. Subsequently, Premier Sun summoned all of his cabinet ministers, the governor of Taiwan the mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung and many middle-level local executives to review and consider the problems that local governments are facing. Im­plementation of these recommendations and decisions is being evaluated by AREC.

Conspirators at home and abroad have spread false stories to the effect that Taiwan has a "regime of military and secret police." In actuality, these anti-government elements have been brainwashed by their own leaders and deceived by their own propaganda. They have failed to understand the people and what they want. They have under­-estimated the capability and good intentions of the government. They have exaggerated their own abilities and support. They have totally mis­construed the position and potential of the nation. Consequently, these oppositionists have consistently chosen the wrong way and repeated the same mistakes over and over.

Looking back on the Kaohsiung incident, we feel deep pain that such a thing could have happened. For years, the government has been trying in every possible way to develop a spirit of unity and cooperation. All kinds of differences have been tolerated; a wide variety of misleading opinions have been allowed to circulate. The hope has been that differences would coalesce and produce a consensus of social harmony and togetherness. Since the United States broke diplomatic relations with the Republic of China a year ago, this country has been confronted by challenges of unprecedented severity. At such a time, the ruling party and the government have worked tirelessly and without pause for unity and have communicated with political extremists in an attempt to achieve accommo­dation and transform them into a constructive and contributing force rather than a destructive one. We face today a clever and vicious enemy intent upon dividing us within and then destroying everything we have worked for and everything our people want and expect.

The Government Information Office is charged with the responsibility of supervising the nation's publications. During the brief period of Formosa magazine's existence, GIO received many letters and telephone calls urging us to terminate what the people considered to be illegal and highly dangerous advocacies. I would like to ask for the people's forgiveness and also for their under­standing. Though the Government Information Office is responsible for implementing the Publications Law, we must act only under the law and with the overall situation and interest of the nation in view. In the past, every GIO action against offending publications has been distorted by troublemaking elements. We have been accused of infringing on freedom of press and speech, although nothing could have been farther from our intentions. These charges have constituted a big problem for us in carrying out what we believe to be our duty. We hope that the public will consider and come to understand these problems. The goal is freedom but not license under the law.

The Kaohsiung incident brought on by the Formosa magazine has entered upon its legal phase; those involved will go before the courts for the trials which our law and our Constitution guarantee them. This is a time for looking to the future and not concentrating our attention on the pain of the past. We should not harbor any doubts about democracy because a few people have misused and misrepresented democracy. We should not move away from the pro­tection of human rights because a few people have hidden behind human rights and abused their liberties. We must persist in walking our chosen road: the road of freedom, democracy, human rights and a good and prosperous life for all.

While learning a lesson from the Kaoshiung incident, we should hold grudges against no one. Those who have erred will be punished by the law and by their own conscience. It is time for us to heal the wounds that were inflicted and put hate out of our minds. No matter what has happen­ed, we all share the same roots, we are all striving for the same goals and we all have the same destiny. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us join together, each with the other, undertake a common effort and usher in the brighter future which we all want and deserve.