Peng still silent on escape ...

Taipei Times: Peng Ming-min launches new book, castigates Ma

Former presidential advisor [and Taiwan's first opposition presidential candidate] Peng Ming-min speaks at an event launching his book about how he escaped Taiwan almost 40 years ago.
On Sept. 20, 1964, Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) was arrested for treason for advocating democracy in Taiwan. He was sentenced to eight years in prison in 1965 and put under house arrest later the same year after receiving a special pardon.
On Jan. 2, 1970, Peng left his family and began a 22-year exile. At a book launch in Taipei yesterday, the 86-year-old shared his successful escape from the then-­Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime 39 years ago, which he describes in his book titled "A Perfect Escape."

... With help from various individuals — Peng said he had to be careful with details in the book to protect the privacy of individuals and respect the wish of those who helped him but wanted to remain anonymous — his escape took him through Hong Kong, Bangkok, the Soviet Union and Denmark before he arrived in Stockholm, where he was granted political asylum.

In other words, he still doesn't spill the beans on how he escaped and who helped him do so.
When i interviewed him a few years back, that was ALL people wanted to know about him. Seems he will take it to the grave.

anyway, it gives me a chance to post my previous article:

What Happened Next?
Updates on the TJ Retrospective
TAIWAN Journal
March 25 - 31, 2006

By Mark Caltonhill and Hung Mao-feng
Ten years ago last week, Peng Ming-min and Frank Hsieh ran in Taiwan's first direct election for the president and vice president, receiving in-depth coverage by the Free China Journal, the forerunner of this paper. Representing the Democratic Progressive Party, the Peng-Hsieh ticket got 21 percent of the vote, placing them in second place behind incumbent KMT candidates Lee Teng-hui and Lien Chan, who garnered 54 percent.
Peng Ming-min was born in Taiwan Aug. 15, 1923 and educated in Japan. Returning to Taiwan in 1946, he studied law at National Taiwan University and was drawn toward the ruling clique, even joining the ROC delegation to the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
Arrested in 1964 for preparing a Declaration of Formosan Self-Salvation, which challenged the world to recognize one China and one Formosa, Peng was sentenced to eight years in prison but was put under house arrest after one. He escaped to the West in 1970, only returning to Taiwan in 1992 following a general amnesty for political offenders.
To find out what he has been up to since 1996, the Taiwan Journal met up with Peng on Feb. 27 this year at his office in Taipei. The following interview has been edited for length and style.

Taiwan Journal: What is your overriding memory of March 23, 1996?
Peng Ming-min: As the first time people could elect the president by popular vote, it was, from any point of view, epoch-making. Especially after a half-century of dictatorship. The excitement, shared by all people regardless of their political position. There was a certain idealism, that this was our first step to the process of democracy. People were not so cynical as today.

Q: Did you imagine then, with only 21 percent of the vote, that the DPP could take power as early as 2000?
A: Firstly, you say only 21 percent of the vote. With all due respect and humility, this was a remarkable achievement. It followed 50 years of totalitarianism, of educational, cultural and political brainwashing. Also, personally, I was demonized, and had been under arrest warrant for 23 years. People didn't know me, or had only heard lies. Our idea of Taiwan independence had also been demonized.
I remember, when I was first in the United States, people whispered it. 1996 gave us a chance to present this idea [independence] openly. Many people had never heard of this idea. For 50 years, all civic organizations were all controlled by the KMT. I never had the opportunity to appear on TV. Our 21 percent should be compared to North Korea, Iran or Syria, where the ruling parties get more than 100 percent. I didn't even get good support from the DPP: Some so-called supporters actually tried to pull me down.

Q: So even within the DPP the idea of independence wasn't predominant?
A: The DPP is not a very well-disciplined political party, even now. I always kid them: "Which position can you put forward and say this is our position?" So their people just think and do whatever they like.

Q: What do you feel about your main opponent in 1996, Lee Teng-hui, who is now an outspoken advocate of Taiwan's independence?
A: Actually, people like to say that my 21 percent plus President Lee's 54 percent was really a 75-percent vote for Taiwan independence. I always kid him that he never knew whether he was chairman of the KMT or a citizen of Taiwan. Now he is with the Taiwan Solidarity Union. After the 1996 election, some people urged me to form a new party, but there is no room for a new party.

Q: Do you mean that Taiwan's democracy is best served by two parties?
A: No, I don't say that. I mean that supporters of the DPP and TSU are basically the same people, so they have to fight each other to share the same slice of pie.

Q: You fell out with the DPP, which culminated in your not renewing your party membership in 1998. What has been your role since the 1996 election?
A: Actually, I took the initiative to withdraw. Many of my supporters were angry, I felt frustrated.

Q: But you stayed close to the party?
A: Of course, many are personal friends.

Q: Because he was your running mate in 1996, many people still associate you with Frank Hsieh. Have you followed his political career with special interest?
A: I only knew him just before I came back to Taiwan. He was studying in Japan and came to a speech that I gave. After four years, when I decided to run and was looking for a running mate, there were not so many suitable candidates, for various reasons. He worked very hard at that time. He is the one that proposed that for the main theme of our campaign, that the KMT was an "alien regime." I was really surprised that he would propose it; I thought it was too strong a word for that time. But, to be frank, since he became Kaohsiung mayor and then premier, some of his statements, I cannot agree. I am not really in support of his "reconciliation and co-existence," as well as the idea of the "one China constitution." Everyone likes peace, everyone talks about reconciliation, but it takes two to reconcile. I met him after he resigned, we are good friends, but politically we are not close.

Q: You have devoted much of the last ten years to the Peng Foundation for Culture and Education. What is its role on Taiwan's political landscape?
A: This was set up in 1994 before I ran in the election. This is not political but educational. We have conferences, seminars and summer schools to invite schoolteachers to teach them Taiwan history, strengthen understanding. We sense a lack of understanding of identification with Taiwan.
Given people's lack of understanding about their own country, these changes are not nearly enough. It is natural that people should first understand their own history and culture, then those of others. For us, learning about China? This is really unnatural. People have a natural, biological identification with the place were they are born, where they live. People used to say, "I am Chinese," now the majority will say, "I am Taiwanese." So-called Taiwanese identification is not necessary ideologically, it is a natural thing.

Q: What about the use of the Mandarin language rather than Taiwanese?
A: So many people are easier using Mandarin, so I am not opposed to that. Having more "national languages" doesn't mean we will unite more, but people should talk their own language.

Q: What about aboriginal languages falling into disuse?
A: This is inevitable. Unfortunately, they became a minority. Languages die, disappear. I have read articles about many languages around the world disappearing, I think it is natural: don't force anything, don't forbid anything, just let things develop.

Q: You became Senior Advisor to the President following the 2000 election. What has that position entailed?
A: You know, senior advisor is just a job description: to advise the president about anything from his hairstyle to the purchase of submarines, but basically I don't know much about these other things, such as economics. Mainly I talk about foreign relations, education; those things.

Q: Is there any achievement of President Chen's first six years in office of which you are especially proud?
A: He is in extremely difficult position with the opposition majority in parliament. They have no idea about so-called loyal opposition. Your enemy automatically adopts an opposite position, and harasses you, humiliates you, insults you and makes it impossible for you to operate. That is the reality of the presidency. In the States, for example, defense matters are above party matters. People accuse President Chen of switching positions back and forth. But, compared with other countries, Chen is no worse. So-called peaceful reform is more difficult sometimes than military revolution. In the French revolution, Russian revolution, Chinese revolution, they just killed off the ancient regime and wrote up new laws and a new constitution. But with democratic peaceful reform you have to follow due process of law. Those laws were given by the former regime, and how can you change laws? Otherwise you are violating the rule of law. This kind of problem is everywhere, especially after a 50-year dictatorship.

Q: So is there one achievement of which you are particularly proud?
A: It is hard. Because of the opposition's majority, no legislation could be passed, and reforms of the nation's laws have not been passed. In that sense, I cannot really say what.
Well, at least this government is more transparent, more open; that can't be denied. So the recent charge of corruption, I am not saying there is no corruption, but even New Zealand and Australia have corruption. This government is more open and more transparent, so in that sense, in the long run, it has advanced democracy.

Q: Do you think those changes and the openness of government cannot be turned back now?
A: Oh yes, I don't think it can be turned back now. Democracy is not the ideal system; the problem is that humankind has not thought up a better one. Churchill said that democracy is a terrible system but other systems are worse. With that I agree.

Q: How do you envisage the democratic process continuing?
A: So in spite of our disappointment, in parliament, there is no rush. I always emphasize: How long did it take to get democracy [in Europe], 400 years? In the States, 200 years? And still so many problems are not solved. And I think in the beginning of Western democracies even worse things happened.
If we are left alone, I am not so pessimistic. This is the issue: "if we are left alone." My position is the same as in 1996; we have our own constitution, our own territory. We don't need to declare from today on we are independent. We just quietly are de facto independent. The status quo means independence.
Changing the name of the country is not the top priority. The Republic of China is all right, at least in this transitional period. But we must declare to the world that our territory, our sovereignty is limited to Taiwan, that we are not interested to control mainland China. We have no intention to provoke anyone; we just want to be left alone.