No such thing as the ‘1992 consensus’: Lee Teng-hui

MA’S MANTRA:The former president said the 1992 cross-strait delegates had told him there had been no such consensus, and that Ma only invited ridicule by ‘chanting’ it

By Alison Hsiao  /  Staff reporter

Former president Lee Teng-hui yesterday addresses the 2015 Convention on the Action Plan for Constitutional Reform in Taipei.

Photo: George Tsorng, Taipei Times

Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) yesterday said that there is no such thing as the so-called “1992 consensus” and it “only incurs ridicule” when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) keeps “chanting” it.

The 92-year-old former president attended the 2015 Convention on the Action Plan for Constitutional Reform, co-hosted by several civic groups, including Civil Alliance to Promote Constitutional Reform (CAPCR) and the Lee Teng-hui Foundation, as the “honorary convener” yesterday.

Asked how he views the visit by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) to Beijing and Chu’s scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) tomorrow, Lee said Chu went to China “to represent the KMT, [so] it has nothing to do with me nor with Taiwanese; it’s the KMT’s own business.”

“[Chu] is the KMT chairman, and he might want to run for president in the future. As a country’s leader, what is most important is to answer to the needs of Taiwan and Taiwanese,” Lee said. “Don’t follow Mr Ma’s steps in reciting the ‘1992 consensus,’ which he has been unnecessarily repeating for almost 10 years; it’s embarrassing. The attitude of a leader is lacking in his chanting.”

Lee denied that a consensus was reached in 1992 between Taiwan and China, saying Ma’s claim that the “1992 consensus” was the most significant consensus made across the Taiwan Strait was “simply talking nonsense.”

“There is no such consensus,” Lee said, adding that he had asked then-Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) legal bureau head Shi Hwei-yow (許惠祐), then-SEF deputy secretary-general Chen Rong-jye (陳榮傑) and then-SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) — who were the delegates to the cross-strait meeting in 1992 — about the meeting and was told there had been no such consensus.

“Why chant something that does not exist? Apparently it is in order to sing the same tune with China,” Lee said. “Taiwan is Taiwan; China is China; the idea of ‘one China’ is an ancient concept. The whole world is talking about ‘one China,’ but Taiwan, as a free, democratic society, should not handle the issue like this.”

Lee called the consensus “something that former Mainland Affairs Council minister Su Chi (蘇起) fabricated to placate the KMT in 2000.”

The “1992 consensus” refers to a supposed understanding reached during the cross-strait talks in 1992 that both Taiwan and China acknowledge that there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what that means.

In 2006, Su admitted he made up the term “1992 consensus” in 2000, before the KMT handed power to the Democratic Progressive Party.

Local media polarized: watchdog

By William Lowther  /  Staff reporter, In WASHINGTON

Fri, May 01, 2015 - Page 3

Political polarization, self-censorship and indirect Chinese influence limit the diversity of opinions represented in Taiwan’s mainstream media, a US watchdog group said on Wednesday in Washington.

Taiwan’s vulnerabilities were highlighted last year by rare violence against journalists covering protests and by cyberattacks against an important media outlet that had been critical of Beijing, Freedom House said in its latest report on press freedom, Freedom in the World 2015.

Freedom House issued a general report, coverage of which was carried by the Taipei Times yesterday, and only later released individual country reports.

Despite the reservations caused by perceived Chinese interference, Taiwan was given generally high marks for freedom of the press.

“Taiwan’s media environment is one of the freest in Asia, and the vigorous and diverse press reports aggressively on government policies and alleged official wrongdoing,” the section of the report dealing with Taiwan said.

The nation’s Constitution provides for freedoms of speech and of the press and the government and independent courts generally respect these rights in practice, Freedom House said.

However, it warned that media freedom advocates have urged the government to decriminalize defamation — publication of defamatory words or pictures can still be punished with a maximum of two years in prison.

According to the report, the media is politically polarized and some reporters have complained of being pressured by editors to take sides in national political controversies.

“Journalists also occasionally face pressure to self-censor on topics of importance to the Chinese government,” it says.

The report points out that many Taiwanese media owners have business interests in China or draw advertising revenue from Chinese companies, “making them wary of upsetting Beijing.”

Several journalists encountered violence when covering the Sunflower movement protests last year and “accused police of pushing, dragging and attacking them,” the report said.

The report says that cyberattacks pose a “significant threat” to press freedom in Taiwan because of constant attacks by Chinese cyberwarfare units.

Freedom House said that China continues to have one of the world’s “most restrictive” media environments, and the situation has worsened since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) came to power.

Nevertheless, as Internet access via mobile devices continued to climb, China’s censorship system was “unable to completely stop the circulation of unfavorable news,” it said.

The report said that in the last year, “for the first time in years,” mainstream professional journalists in China were formally arrested or sentenced to prison, as well as freelancers, online activists and reporters from ethnic minorities.