By Taiwan and Hong Kong Lawyers

Editor’s Note: The following joint statement, edited here, was endorsed by the Taiwan Bar Association, the Taipei Bar Association, the Judicial Reform Foundation (Taiwan) and the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group (Hong Kong).

TAIPEI, Taiwan – Two years ago, Ma Ying-jeou, now the president of Taiwan, wrote a newspaper article saying that freedom and democracy form the basis for cross-strait dialogue with the Chinese mainland.

Earlier this month, large crowds of Chinese people outside the Chinese mainland held vigils to remember the many innocent people killed or injured in Beijing on June 4, 1989, when soldiers attacked pro-democracy protesters.

In the newspaper article, President Ma said the Chinese Communist regime had initiated its bloody crackdown by arms and that the mainland’s “opening-up reforms” were limited to livelihood issues. Not only has democratic reform halted, but controls on dissidents, on freedom of the press and on human rights still haven’t been loosened.

President Ma stressed that “freedom and democracy should be the common language for both sides across the strait because they are the only basis for building authentic and effective cross-strait dialogue and trust".

Now there are many cross-strait exchanges. But has Beijing really changed its attitudes about suppressing freedom and human rights? Is the cross-strait dialogue led by Ma really based on freedom and democracy?

Everywhere, lawyers must monitor the legality of government actions while seeking political and judicial reforms. On the Chinese mainland, few lawyers are brave enough to battle for human rights. Those who do must face government retaliation.

Mainland Chinese lawyers need to pass a so-called “annual assessment” by judicial authorities to maintain their qualification for legal practice. Recently, the government stripped this qualification from dozens of lawyers, saying they failed the assessment. Many law firms received instructions and warnings from the judicial authorities to dismiss certain lawyers.

Reasons given for the lawyers’ assessment failure include: taking up mass-incidents cases without reporting to the authorities, taking up Falun Gong cases and other politically sensitive cases, and demanding direct elections in the Lawyers Association. Such justifications boggle the minds of people in societies that respect human rights and the rule of law.

If lawyers lose their legal-practice licenses for defending human rights, how can they take up human-rights cases? How can ordinary people fight for their rights through legal channels? This shows a society ruled by men. Nothing in China upholds concepts basic to the rule of law.

Even worse, the lawyers endure attacks and physical oppression. Prominent Beijing lawyer Gao Zhisheng vanished after being taken away by police in his Shaanxi hometown on February 4. Two weeks later, the Beijing Yitong Law Frim received orders to close for six months, so human-rights lawyers Li Jinsong and Li Subin couldn’t continue.

On February 26, Beijing lawyers Cheng Hai, Tang Jitian, Zhang Lihui and Yang Huiwen, who campaigned for direct elections in the Beijing Lawyers Association, received the support of many members in a preliminary election, but suddenly their candidacy was removed for a second round of elections on March 4. Beijing lawyer Wen Haibo, who also joined the direct-election campaign, failed the annual assessment of his legal practice.

On February 28, Heilongjiang lawyer Wei Liangyue, who handled many Falun Gong cases, was detained unreasonably by public-security officers. On April 10, Guangxi lawyer Yang Zaixin took a brutal beating by unidentified thugs thanks to a farmland-eviction case. Two days later, Beijing lawyer Cheng Hai endured a beating from local officials over a case in Sichuan province.

In mid April, Guangdong lawyer Liu Yao was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, for criminal damage thanks to a farmland-eviction case. On May 13, Beijing lawyers Zhang Kai and Li Chunfu were taken away, beaten and interrogated by public-security officers when handling a case about a Falun Gong practitioner who died in a re-education-through-labor camp. Public-security officers illegally and forcibly took away all the documents and significant evidence.

Obviously, China continues to suppress democracy and human rights just as in 1989. Although the Chinese government continues its reforms on livelihood issues, judicial reforms have halted or even reversed.

Since Ma took charge in Taiwan, cross-strait exchanges have increased. But the dialogue covers only economic co-operation, not human-rights protection.

If Ma loses his nerve on human-rights issues, he abandons his promise of freedom and democracy as the basis for dialogue and betrays the Taiwanese people’s beliefs. Failing to push for democratization of the Chinese mainland and focusing only on economics and trade means joining the mainland regime to exploit ordinary people.

If the Taiwan government stays silent as its Chinese counterpart continues to suppress dissidents and violate human rights, it’s like working with the mainland regime and may even surrender the accumulated assets of Taiwan’s democracy.

As a former legal academic, Ma should know the significant role that lawyers and legal academics play to defend human rights. If he fails to object as abuses rain down on the mainland’s human-rights lawyers, then how can Taiwanese people trust any dialogue with Beijing?



ARCHIVES