Sat, Nov 27, 1999 page8

• Life of Lei Chen reflects on Soong

  • Lee Shiao-feng
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  James Soong's (宋楚瑜) recent expulsion from the KMT reminds me of a man who similarly had a KMT background and was expelled from the party 44 years ago -- Lei Chen (1p震). Readers who know Lei's aspirations and character may have objections -- saying that comparing him to James Soong is simply an insult to Lei's personality.

  But such readers may relax as this article is not intended to be a comparison, but a contrast. I hope to use Lei as a mirror to reflect a demon for what he is.

  I am doing this because I know that Soong will soon present himself in the pose of a "victim."

  We can also expect Soong to blame the KMT in the guise of being a "reformer." Therefore, I would like to use Lei's deeds to remind those naive members of the public who support Soong of what makes a person a real victim and a real reformer.

  In late 1949, Lei and Hu Shih (-J適) established the Free China Fortnightly (|菪??國) to promote democracy and liberty. In June 1951, the journal published an editorial headlined "The government should not lure people into crime." The article was a critique of a corruption case among intelligence officers that resulted from the government's financial restrictions.

  The journal began to feel pressure from the KMT, the government and the military. In January 1955, the journal published a letter to the editor titled "Salvage education from crisis," which criticized the KMT's China Youth Corps (救國1?/CHINESE>) for damaging the school system, and another letter discussing the KMT's party discipline.

  The two letters finally cost Lei -- a man from the KMT power center -- his party membership. The editorial board of the Free China Fortnightly then began to turn up the heat, launching a "Birthday Congratulations" column (祝1堭M?) -- a series of candid suggestions and remonstrances to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣?階?/CHINESE>) -- in October 1956. It was followed by a series of editorials titled "Today's Issues" (???妍Y棺D), which unabashedly pointed out problems in the KMT government. Apart from voicing the concerns of the intelligentsia through the Free China Fortnightly, Lei also began to unite Taiwan's local elite and prepared to establish a new opposition party in 1960. Lei's move offended the authorities, who indicted him under fabricated charges and put him in jail for 10 years.

  A man from the KMT power center, Lei could have climbed up rapidly on the ladder of officialdom if he had toadied to Chiang Kai-shek. However, he chose to stand by his principles.

  An outspoken and upright person, Lei was a true reformer. After his expulsion from the KMT, Lei was followed, his phones were tapped, his letters were opened and then he was given a 10 year jail sentence.

  He was a true victim.

  In contrast, if we look at Soong, he served in important positions during Chiang Kai-shek's martial law era and under the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion (動-?`亂時期臨時條款). He did not take any action or say anything to promote democratic reforms. On the contrary, he played an anti-reform role, suppressing pro-democracy movements.

  During his tenure as director general of the Government Information Office from Jan. 4, 1979 to Aug. 8, 1984, Soong ordered the closure of more than 40 publications featuring political commentaries.

  Those who advocated democracy and legal reforms were all suppressed by Soong. A hatchetman specializing in news and opinion censorship, Soong did not feel the least bit that he was oppressing other people. He also did not feel that wiretaps and mail checks were human rights violations. We have never heard him say a word about these things.

  Now, without any concrete evidence, he is suddenly playing the role of a "victim," claiming his telephones have been tapped. Soong's expulsion from the KMT is purely a matter of party discipline. At most, it is the result of a power struggle within the KMT.

  In this respect, Soong's expulsion simply cannot be compared with Lei's. It also pales in the face of his past suppression of other people.

  Now back to Lei. He finished serving 10 years as a political prisoner and was released at a time when Taiwan was experiencing diplomatic failures. In 1971, the representative of the Chiang Kai-shek regime was hounded out of the UN.

  Lei did not give up after getting out of prison, as he submitted a 10,000-character petition to Chiang Kai-shek in January 1972, outlining 10 areas for political reform.

  The first among them was to "quickly announce the establishment of the `China Taiwan Democratic State' for self-protection, to bring solace to the Taiwanese people, and to create a new milieu." Lei also said in his petition, "The land we rule today was originally called `Taiwan'. If we put `Taiwan' in the name of our country, then it will no longer be a myth. Today we have 14 million people (Taiwan's population at the time). It is only right and proper that we establish the Taiwan area as a state."

  Lei had the foresight and vision to see that to make a breakout from its predicament, Taiwan must make a new start as an independent state. Unfortunately, his advice was not accepted by Chiang Kai-shek, who was steeped in the belief that "heroes do not coexist with thieves" (漢賊?ㄗ漭?/CHINESE>).

  A relic from the Chiang regime, Soong opposes Taiwan independence. But he calls himself a reformer and wants to chip away votes from pro-independence groups. So he can only adopt an empty slogan like "fighting for Taiwan's future" ( 打拼為台灣), but he does not dare to clarify his stance on Taiwan's status.

  However, he did reveal something about himself when he opposed Taiwan's entry into the UN. Compared to Lei Chen, who was from China's Zhejiang province, the self-proclaimed "New Taiwanese" Soong is but a stubborn paltry individual.

  It is also worth noting that Lei, in his petition to Chiang Kai-shek, suggested that "the provincial level (government) be abolished, so that the administrative structure can be compatible with reality."

  Lei wrote: "In the past, the vast land of China required a provincial level to facilitate governance. Today, in Taiwan, we only have 20-plus counties, including Kinmen and Matsu ... yet there is still a superfluous `provincial level' between the central and county levels. The difference between the jurisdictions of the central and provincial governments is rather limited. The functions of the departments under these two governments are also quite similar, except for foreign, overseas Chinese and Mongolian-Tibetan affairs. Therefore, the (provincial government's) Department of Education has become a virtual transit station for official documents from the Ministry of Education ... Apart from wasting human, material, and financial resources, it also lowers efficiency and causes delays."

  Now, 27 years after Lei advocated abolishing the provincial government, Soong vigorously opposed the mere "downsizing" of it, calling the move a political ploy. What kind of a reformer is he who has obstructed a reform long advocated by a democrat from an earlier generation?

  Forgetful and lacking a sense of history, the Taiwanese people are forgetting the example set by Lei as well as Soong's past track record.

  I have therefore no choice but to use Lei's heroic deeds as a mirror to show this pretentious politician for what he is.

  If the Taiwanese people still do not see through him, I can only write with a deep sigh about the difficulty of trying to save those who do not have the inner strength to save themselves.

  Lee Shiao-feng is a professor at Shih Hsin University.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    Taiwan draws attention at World Expo

  • 5

    China turns on the charm for Taiwan businesses: study