[轉載] Press Freedom Index 2009:Authoritarianism prevents press freedom progress in much of Asia(2009新聞自由指標:政府干預媒體顯見於亞洲各處)

The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and privately-owned media while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom.).

(新的執政黨-指國民黨-執政後試圖干預公營與其他由企業經營的媒體,此外,示威者攻擊記者也進一步戕害台灣的媒體自由)


這是無國界記者組織（ＲＳＦ）公布的二○○九年新聞自由指標,繼美國自由之家之後,RSF公佈的指標有同樣的結果:台灣媒體自由大副下降,主因是政治干預與示威者攻擊記者所致(The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and privately-owned media while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom.).台灣從36退步到59名.

以下原文轉載:

Asia


Authoritarianism prevents press freedom progress in much of AsiaFiji falls furthest, but big advance by Maldives


---------------------------------------------------------

Political power grabs dealt press freedom a great disservice again this year. A military coup caused Fiji (152nd) to fall 73 places. Soldiers moved into Fijian news rooms for several weeks and censored articles before they were published, while foreign journalists were deported. In Thailand, the endless clashes between “yellow shirts” and “red shirts” had a very negative impact on the press’s ability to work. As a result, the kingdom is now 130th.

The authoritarianism of existing governments, for example in Sri Lanka (162nd) and Malaysia (131st), prevented journalists from properly covering sensitive subjects such as corruption or human rights abuses. The Sri Lankan government had a journalist sentenced to 20 years in prison and forced dozens of others to flee the country. In Malaysia, the interior ministry imposed censorship or self-censorship by threatening media with the withdrawal of their licence or threatening journalists with a spell in prison.

War and terrorism wrought havoc and exposed journalists to great danger. Afghanistan (149th) is sapped not only by Taliban violence and death threats, but also by unjustified arrests by the security forces. Despite having dynamic news media, Pakistan (159th) is crippled by murders of journalists and the aggressiveness of both the Taliban and sectors of the military. It shared (with Somalia) the world record for journalists killed during the period under review.

The Asian countries that least respected press freedom were, predictably, North Korea, one of the “infernal trio” at the bottom of the rankings, Burma, which still suffers from prior censorship and imprisonment, and Laos, an unchanging dictatorship where no privately-owned media are permitted.

The media in China (168th) are evolving rapidly along with the rest of the country but it continues to have a very poor ranking because of the frequency of imprisonment, especially in Tibet, Internet censorship and the nepotism of the central and provincial authorities. Similarly in Vietnam (166th), the ruling Communist Party targets journalists, bloggers and press freedom activists over what they write about its concessions to China.

In the good news section, Maldives (51st) climbed 53 places thanks to a successful democratic transition while Bhutan (70th) rose another four places thanks to further efforts in favour of media diversity.

Asia’s few democracies are well placed in the rankings. New Zealand (13th), Australia (16th) and Japan (17th) are all in the top 20. Respect for press freedom and the lack of targeted violence against journalists enable these three countries to be regional leaders.

South Korea (69th) and Taiwan (59th) fell far this year. South Korea plummeted 22 places because of the arrests of several journalists and bloggers and the conservative government’s attempts to control critical media. The new ruling party in Taiwan tried to interfere in state and privately-owned media while violence by certain activists further undermined press freedom.

Two Asian countries were included in the index for the first time: Papua New Guinea (56th), which obtained a very respectable ranking for a developing country, and the Sultanate of Brunei (155th), which came in the bottom third because of the absence of an independent press.

轉載: Is Foreign Criticism Helpful? (國外的批評有幫助嗎?)

[版主按] 這篇在中時其實有完整中譯,我在下面的英文連結裡也有提供. 但是,台灣一些媒體過去有多次誤譯的現象(蓄意否不清),我寧可中英對照讓讀者自己去評斷. 又,致於特定媒體亂凹,之前稍微討論過,但不是本文重點,就不重複了,有興趣者見下面的延伸閱讀.

What I had actually criticized was not the Taiwan government’s decision to ban Ms.Kadeer’s visit but the explanation offered by Interior Minister Jiang Yi-Huah. ...............It had simply noted that the timing of the visit was “inappropriate,” the unspoken but understood premise being that the visit would strain the sensitive new effort at cross-strait reconciliation. Whether or not one agreed with that decision, the explanation given was honest, respectful of audiences in both Taiwan and abroad, and not harmful to anyone.


Minister Jiang’s explanation, by contrast, linked Ms. Kadeer to terrorism. At least at this juncture, that accusation seems inaccurate and unfair. It echoed Beijing’s as yet unproven claims rather than the conclusions of many democratic governments

(Cohen)

我批評的是內政部長禁止熱比婭訪台所提出的解釋. 台灣政府大可以援用前例(指達賴於去年底欲訪台一事),簡單表示"目前時機不宜". 不管你喜歡這個緣由,時機不宜的理由是誠實的,且尊重台灣與國外人士, 也不會傷害到任何人.

然而江宜樺的說詞,相反的把熱比婭與恐怖份子扯上關連. 至少在這個節骨眼,這個指控不實且不公平--他只是呼應了北京未經求證的說法,而不是其他許多民主國家的共識. (孔傑榮)



------
IS FOREIGN CRITICISM HELPFUL?
Oct 14th, 2009 | By USAsialawNYU | Category: Jerome A. Cohen's Blog

An edited version of this text appeared in Chinese in the China Times(Taiwan) on October 15, 2009 (繁体中文)(简体中文)，and in English, under the title “Viewed From Afar,” in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong).

by Jerome A. Cohen

When told I had criticized the Taiwan government’s recent decision to bar Rebiya Kadeer from visiting the island, Taiwan’s new Prime Minister, Wu Den-Yih, remarked:”People who do not live in our land may not understand…and need not take any responsibility. We respect their comments but do not necessarily adopt all of them.” This polite “putdown” deserves our reflection.

當被告知我(孔傑榮)對台灣政府拒絕熱比婭訪台所做出的批評後,吳敦義院長表示: 不是生長在這塊土地上的人不會了解, 也不用負責任. 我們尊重那些評論但卻不需要逐一採納. 這個禮貌的拒絕值得探討.

Of course, a foreign observer rarely appreciates the interests of a country in the same way as the country’s leaders and citizens do. But should that preclude foreign criticism or exempt the target government from giving a well-reasoned explanation of its actions? The standing of the United States in world opinion — confirmed by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama — has been immeasurably improved thanks to Obama’s reaction to the hail of foreign criticisms of his predecessor’s policies. George W. Bush’s administration had frequently condemned such criticisms as the irresponsible carping of outsiders who did not understand or support American interests.

當然,國外觀察者或評論家很少用關心自己國家的熱忱來關心自己以外的國家. 但這不該作為拒絕國外評論的理由.

Politicians and commentators frequently stoke nationalistic feelings in brushing off foreigners and sometimes dismiss foreign critics as sinister or condescending. China’s Foreign Ministry, in particular, often describes foreign criticism as “rude interference into China’s domestic affairs,” made with “ulterior motives”, that “hurts the Chinese people’s feelings.” But is such rhetoric really in the interest of its government and people?

政客或是評論家常操作民族主義來駁斥國外的評論...中國最常以"傷害中國人民感情"來駁斥西方的評論

Foreign critics are useful precisely because their distance gives them a different perspective. Also, although perhaps insufficiently informed, they are not burdened with the distractions of daily decision-making. Especially if they are “wrong”, it may be wiser to offer them what Chinese Communists call “persuasion-education” rather than opaque dismissal. Informative government responses to foreign critics also benefit domestic audiences.

但來自國外的評論通常最為一針見血. 因為旁觀者清,國外的評論往往提供一個不同的觀點. 另外,雖然沒有充分的資訊,國外的評論沒有政治包袱(not burdened with the distractions of daily decision-making). 因此,即使國外評論是"錯誤"的,國外的評論通常比中國共產黨的洗腦教育來得有智慧,而非只是一些難以理解的打發說詞. 政府根據充分的資訊具體回覆國外評論通常可以嘉惠國內大眾.

What I had actually criticized was not the Taiwan government’s decision to ban Ms.Kadeer’s visit but the explanation offered by Interior Minister Jiang Yi-Huah. He might have followed the precedent set by his government last December when temporarily declining a visit by another figure opposed by the Chinese Government, the Dalai Lama. It had simply noted that the timing of the visit was “inappropriate,” the unspoken but understood premise being that the visit would strain the sensitive new effort at cross-strait reconciliation. Whether or not one agreed with that decision, the explanation given was honest, respectful of audiences in both Taiwan and abroad, and not harmful to anyone.

我批評的是內政部長禁止熱比婭訪台所提出的解釋. 台灣政府大可以援用前例(指達賴於去年底欲訪台一事),簡單表示"目前時機不宜". 不管你喜歡這個緣由,時機不宜的理由是誠實的,且尊重台灣與國外人士, 也不會傷害到任何人.

Minister Jiang’s explanation, by contrast, linked Ms. Kadeer to terrorism. At least at this juncture, that accusation seems inaccurate and unfair. It echoed Beijing’s as yet unproven claims rather than the conclusions of many democratic governments — including that of her host, the United States. Worst of all, it appeared to defame a person who enjoys wide respect for her struggle against the Chinese Government’s oppression of her ethnic group.

然而江宜樺的說詞,相反的把熱比婭與恐怖份子扯上關連. 至少在這個節骨眼,這個指控不實且不公平--他只是呼應了北京未經求證的說法,而不是其他許多民主國家的共識

To be sure, every country imposes restrictions on entry. The United States itself maintains an overly broad barrier against Taiwan’s highest leaders, in order not to cast doubt on its recognition of the People’s Republic as China’s only legitimate government. Such barriers restrict domestic audiences’ democratic rights to interact with important speakers and must be frequently challenged.

每個國家都有發許入境許可的一些限制. 例如美國基於一個中國政策, 通常不許可台灣高層訪美

Another recent case of an unfortunate Taiwan reaction to foreign criticism occurred when William Stanton, the new head of the “unofficial” United States mission in Taipei, pointed out that many knowledgeable Americans had expressed concern about the fairness of former president Chen Shui-Bian’s criminal trial. This led some Taiwan legislators and media to label his remarks impermissible foreign interference in the administration of justice. Minister of Justice Wang Ching-Feng, however, rejected this charge. She is more aware than most of the importance to Taiwan of American perceptions of its legal system, since she is attempting to negotiate an agreement that would require the United States to extradite fugitives back to Taiwan. The United States, like any country that is contemplating extradition, has a valid interest in the quality of justice in the country that is requesting it and a right to express reasonable concerns.

台灣政府最近一個拒絕國外評論的反應是關於司徒文與王清峰會面時提及國外對扁案的一些關切. 台灣政府與媒體對此貼了干涉台灣司法的標籤. 而王清峰也拒絕了這些指控. 然而,王部長應該比台灣多數人還要了解美國的司法體系才是,畢竟她正在與美國政府協商與台灣合作引渡罪犯. 美國,如同其他國家,對於要求引渡合作的國家的司法系統有興趣並表達關切是正常的.

More generally, as President Ma Ying-Jeou emphasized last week, despite his efforts to improve relations with China, Taiwan cannot afford to neglect its military defense. That defense relies implicitly on the security guarantees of the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act. They in turn rest on the American people’s continuing belief that the island is worth defending, even at the cost of nuclear war. While Taiwan was once valued mainly for its strategic location, its thriving democracy and developing rule of law are now seen to deserve protection in and of themselves. Its leaders and people should keep this in mind.

---------
延伸閱讀:
孔傑榮vs. 台灣媒體
回應"對外電入返聯公投結果的報導" 與讀”有偏見的媒體不好嗎?”有感
白樂崎教英文, what does it mean by "We have every expectation that...."?
克魯曼說簽ECFA是好事, 真的嗎?

[轉載] Taiwan and China (台灣與中國)

紐約時報的報導(New York Times).

[摘要] 台灣政府昧於台灣實質獨立的事實(de facto independent state)緩步往一國兩制邁進,將自己地區化如同當今之香港(seems to be morphing very slowly toward the “one country, two systems” status of Hong Kong.). 一個最近的例子顯示台灣政府以犧牲自由的代價來諂媚中國--拒絕熱比婭訪台來討好北京當局,還宣稱這是為了國家利益(The most striking evidence of a desire to please Beijing — at the expense of the liberal values which have gained Taiwan much praise in recent years — was the denial of entry to the exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer.)

報導另一段則談到扁案的一審判決. 一個慣於貪污的政黨卻利用貪污罪名判處無期徒刑顯然太過極端, 加上利用對抗貪污之名行剷除政治異己之時來對付一些阿扁時期的政務官,顯然這也是主張統一者(指國民黨)在對北京政府做交代,因為阿扁是台獨支持者.(But given the pervasiveness of money politics and the past reputation of the Nationalists for corruption, the life sentence for Chen is extreme. Now, in the name of fighting corruption, there is talk of a witch-hunt against other members of the Chen administration. To some this smacks of an attempt by pro-unification elements to please Beijing by demonizing Chen, who supported independence and who suffered much in the cause of breaking the KMT’s authoritarian hold on power.)

台灣政府還喜歡擴大台灣對中國的經濟依賴.即使這些依賴有其他替代性--只要中國的成本上升,這些廠商就可以也會移轉到第三地去生產.(Dependence on China is often overstated. While 40 percent of Taiwan’s exports go there, more than half are components for globally traded items like laptops and cellphones made by Taiwanese companies and then re-exported from China. The dependence is self-imposed for profit reasons, which may be shifting as mainland costs rise. There are alternatives)


然而,這些作為不但對於台美關係毫無幫助,而且美國還是台灣最大的支持其實來自於美國(None of this is likely to help Taiwan’s relations with its main supporter, the United States.), 這些做法還將使台灣失去美日的支持(The trend could mean an erosion in the support Taiwan gets, albeit erratically, from the United States and Japan),而且有違台灣本是獨立之事實.

事實是,馬政府忘記台灣(是一個實質獨立國家)的國家利益,而這個自主是熱比婭為其族人所爭取, 但卻是台灣當今,甚至香港所享有的(government of President Ma Ying-jeou may have forgotten that Taiwan’s national interest as an independent state.......The degree of autonomy that Rebiya Kadeer has been seeking for Uighurs is a fraction of that enjoyed by Taiwan or even Hong Kong.)

以下原文轉載:
--------
Taiwan and China


By PHILIP BOWRING
Published: October 6, 2009

HONG KONG — Taiwan’s position as a de facto independent state seems to be morphing very slowly toward the “one country, two systems” status of Hong Kong. The process is not irreversible but the sentiments of those of mainland origin in the governing Nationalist Party, along with the self-interest of business groups and a widespread sense of economic vulnerability are all pushing the island toward accommodation with Beijing.

The trend could mean an erosion in the support Taiwan gets, albeit erratically, from the United States and Japan.

The most striking evidence of a desire to please Beijing — at the expense of the liberal values which have gained Taiwan much praise in recent years — was the denial of entry to the exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer. This was done in the name of “national interest,” apparently linked to the finalization, expected soon, of a memorandum of understanding on cross-strait financial links.

For sure, the memorandum would be a major advance, enabling banks in particular to escape the confines of Taiwan, with its low growth and surplus savings, for the fast-growing mainland. And it would bring more mainland capital to local stocks and property. But the government of President Ma Ying-jeou may have forgotten that Taiwan’s national interest as an independent state, albeit one that may one day merge with the mainland, sometimes requires sacrifices. The degree of autonomy that Rebiya Kadeer has been seeking for Uighurs is a fraction of that enjoyed by Taiwan or even Hong Kong.

There is real benefit in increasing cross-straits financial links. Banks have much to gain by being able to service clients in Taiwan with business on the mainland. Cross-straits links may attract service industries to Taiwan that would otherwise go to Hong Kong. Mainland tourism is also an unqualified plus.

But Taiwan seems to be talking itself into believing that it is even more dependent on the mainland than need be the case. The island would be a more attractive place for foreign business if it removed the many restrictions that exist to protect local businesses, or stem simply from bureaucracy and outdated rules. Tax issues also tend to keep business offshore while not preventing a huge outflow of capital. The Ma government has made progress on these issues, but they get scant attention compared to cross-straits ones.

It is easy to blame a lackluster economy on being unable to take full advantage of the mainland. But in reality, Taiwan is a mature economy with minimal growth in its work force. Like Japan, its problems lie with an inefficient domestic services sector, not with an inventive export-manufacturing one.

Dependence on China is often overstated. While 40 percent of Taiwan’s exports go there, more than half are components for globally traded items like laptops and cellphones made by Taiwanese companies and then re-exported from China. The dependence is self-imposed for profit reasons, which may be shifting as mainland costs rise. There are alternatives.

Worrying too for friends of Taiwan’s liberal democracy is the vengeance being meted out to the opposition by powerful supporters of the governing Nationalist Party, or KMT. Former president Chen Shui-bian was found guilty of corruption and his conduct has left the opposition Democratic Progressive Party demoralized and frustrated. But given the pervasiveness of money politics and the past reputation of the Nationalists for corruption, the life sentence for Chen is extreme. Now, in the name of fighting corruption, there is talk of a witch-hunt against other members of the Chen administration. To some this smacks of an attempt by pro-unification elements to please Beijing by demonizing Chen, who supported independence and who suffered much in the cause of breaking the KMT’s authoritarian hold on power.

None of this is likely to help Taiwan’s relations with its main supporter, the United States. Chen upset a natural ally in George W. Bush by needlessly provoking Beijing in an attempt to score political points at home. Now the KMT seems to have gone to the other extreme. Taiwan has long disappointed Washington with unwillingness to spend money on arms. Now it may sense a lack of willingness to pay an economic price for the principles of independence and liberalism it claims to stand for. President Ma remains well-regarded abroad, but his grip on the KMT is uncertain. Taiwan lacks a strategic view of itself and how to balance relations with the Chinese mainland, the United States and the global economy with liberal democracy and de facto independence.

轉載:(蘇俊賓: 台灣政府捍衛民主)Taiwan Is Safeguarding its Democracy (台灣政府回覆WSJ的報導)

之前我轉載(並翻譯)WSJ針對台灣政府拒絕熱比婭訪台的報導,該文提到台灣的拒絕有愧身為民主國家.
以下是新聞局代表台灣政府回覆給WSJ的文章.

同意與否就看各位囉...


原文如下
---------
LETTERS OCTOBER 6, 2009, 4:53 P.M. ET.
Taiwan Is Safeguarding its Democracy

On behalf of the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I would like to comment on a number of mistaken notions contained in the editorial "Rebiya Kadeer and Taipei" (Review & Outlook, Sept. 29).

First, the decision of not allowing Ms. Kadeer to visit Taiwan has been made in accordance with Article 18 of Chapter 4 of the Immigration Act, "Entry of Aliens and Exit of Aliens." This article stipulates that the National Immigration Agency shall prohibit an alien from entering the ROC if he/she is believed to endanger national interests or public security. This does not mean, however, that the ROC government disrespects freedom of expression. Indeed, the documentary about Ms. Kadeer's life has been shown at many venues in Taiwan.

Further, the editorial states that President Ma Ying-jeou was elected to improve Taiwan's economy through closer links with mainland China, but "is misinterpreting that mandate to include closer ties with [mainland] China's authoritarian politics, too." This is a gross misconception.

The Ma administration, it must be stressed, has turned a new page in relations across the Taiwan Strait. Since taking office in May 2008, cross-Strait tensions have eased, and the prospects for lasting peace in the Asia-Pacific region are improving, a trend affirmed by governments around the world. Our cross-Strait policy is premised on safeguarding our sovereignty and putting Taiwan first for the benefit of its people. That means insisting on freedom and democracy in Taiwan while promoting cross-Strait peace and prosperity.

We believe this is the right course to take and that observers who look closely at Taiwan will concur.

Su Jun-pin

Minister

Government Information Office

Republic of China (Taiwan)

[轉載]Rebiya Kadeer and Taipei: The Ma government missteps (熱比婭與台灣,馬政府錯誤的一步) (含翻譯)

There's no other way to interpret Taipei's decision to refuse an entry visa to Rebiya Kadeer.

除了媚中之外,沒有其他可以解釋台灣政府拒絕熱比婭拜訪台灣的決定

...that's a decision for the individual, not for the government, to make --a choice made possible in a democracy.

選擇的自由在人民,不在政府. 這是任何民主國家賦予人民的

But the real risk is that caving to authoritarian bullying will weaken Taiwan's bargaining power vis-a-vis Beijing while betraying the democratic values Taiwan stands for.

但是,真正的風險是讓中國政府於取與求之後,將來在與北京談判時,台灣將失去籌碼,而且此讓步也有失台灣是民主國家(故允許民眾自由選擇)的真意.

---

之前我在msn的部落格轉貼WSJ的報導Taiwan Won't Allow Visit by Uighur Leader 提到台灣隨中國起舞硬是將熱比婭打入與恐怖份子有關的這種全世界只有中國接受的說法(原文:citing terrorist links that have been claimed by Beijing but not accepted by most Western countries or independent analysts),現在WSJ又更進一步指出,台灣政府這種粗鄙的說詞除了媚中外,別無其他解釋(There's no other way to interpret Taipei's decision to refuse an entry visa to Rebiya Kadeer). 此外,WSJ報導還駁斥內政部長與行政院長的那比婭與恐怖組織有關聯說是站不住腳的(These explanations don't add up. Taiwan doesn't explicitly categorize any Uighur group as a terrorist organization. Ms. Kadeer lives peacefully in Washington, D.C. and her organization)



原文轉載如下.付上我自己的翻譯(意譯,非逐字譯). 如有錯漏歡迎指正.
-------
SEPTEMBER 28, 2009, 5:07 P.M. ET.
Rebiya Kadeer and Taipei
The Ma government missteps.

Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou was elected last year largely to improve the island's economy through closer links with China. His government is misinterpreting that mandate to include closer ties with China's authoritarian politics, too.

台灣總統馬英九去年當選多因為民眾希望藉由與中國更緊密的關係而改善經濟.但馬政府卻將此錯誤解讀,連中國獨裁統治都帶進.

There's no other way to interpret Taipei's decision to refuse an entry visa to Rebiya Kadeer. The Uighur activist was invited by a local rock star Wednesday to visit the island in December. The Ma government shut that idea down fast.

除了媚中外,沒有其他解釋馬政府拒絕熱比婭訪台的決定. 熱比婭是受到閃靈樂團的邀請,希望她於十二月拜訪台灣,但這已迅速被馬政府拒絕.

Interior minister Jiang Yi-huah told parliamentarians Friday that Ms. Kadeer's World Uighur Congress "is related to terrorist groups" and thus couldn't visit the island. Premier Wu Den-yih added Saturday the decision was "based on concerns for national security and public interest."

(上)週五內政部長江宜樺以熱比婭與恐怖份子有關聯為由拒絕,行政院長吳敦義於週六進一步解釋這個決定是基於國家安全與公共利益.

These explanations don't add up. Taiwan doesn't explicitly categorize any Uighur group as a terrorist organization. Ms. Kadeer lives peacefully in Washington, D.C. and her organization,which represents one of China's most oppressed minorities, has renounced violence. Other democracies, including Australia and Japan, have welcomed her to their shores without incident.

然而,內政部長與行政院長的那比婭與恐怖組織有關聯說是站不住腳的.因為台灣既未將維吾爾族歸為恐怖份子,且熱比婭女士又和平的住在華府,代表最受中國政府壓迫的少數民族之一.此外,其他民主國家如澳州日本也都歡迎熱比婭女士拜訪.

As for the claim that it's in "public interest" not to listen to Ms. Kadeer, surely that's a decision for the individual, not for the government, to make --a choice made possible in a democracy. Taiwan is home to a variety of pro- and anti-China groups, whose views are covered extensively in the island's lively media. Why not let Mrs. Kadeer present her evidence of China's campaign against the Uighurs and then let citizens decide what they think?

至於所謂的公共利益,要不要聽熱比婭的演講的選擇權操之在民眾,不在政府,這是任何一個民主政府賦予民眾的. 台灣是個多元的社會,親中與惡中的團體都存在,也都被媒體廣泛報導. 為什麼不讓熱比婭展示中國壓迫維吾爾族的證據,然後讓民眾自由選擇呢?

By refusing Ms. Kadeer a visa -- before she even applied, no less -- the Ma government looks like it is appeasing China. Shortly after Ms. Kadeer's trip was announced, Chinese state-run media threatened to pull Beijing's support for Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization and to halt cross-Strait economic liberalization. Beijing raised a similar fuss when Taipei let the Dalai Lama visit the island earlier this month to comfort victims of Typhoon Morakot.

拒絕熱比婭,甚至在她提出申請之前就拒絕,只是顯示出馬政府媚中的作為.在熱比婭有訪台意願的消息一釋出,中國國營媒體馬上以北京將停止奧援台灣政府明年參與WHO(世衛)與暫停兩岸經貿交流為威脅. 北京在之前颱風過後達賴訪台也有類似的作法.

Mr. Ma may believe that he's doing Taiwan a favor by acceding to threats in the short term to gain more economic integration with China down the road. But the real risk is that caving to authoritarian bullying will weaken Taiwan's bargaining power vis-a-vis Beijing while betraying the democratic values Taiwan stands for.

馬政府以為他在幫台灣的忙,以對短期威脅退讓交換長期經濟利益,但是,真正的風險是讓中國政府於取與求之後,將來在與北京談判時,台灣將失去籌碼,而且此讓步也有失台灣是民主國家(故允許民眾自由選擇)的真意.

轉載:Taiwan stops Uighur activist trip

Despite opposition from China, a documentary about Ms Kadeer was screened this week in Taiwan's second city, Kaohsiung.

[Let me just pay back in the same coin--who cares about what China's opposition! 誰理你啊

簡單講我只有兩個字評論台灣當今政府: 沒種. 小媳婦心態,沒有高度! 可悲!]

－－－－－
Taiwan will not allow exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer to visit the island as she had planned, a government official has said.
Ms Kadeer, a Chinese Muslim from Xinjiang, had been invited by an entertainer close to the opposition.

China has accused Ms Kadeer of orchestrating recent violence in Xinjiang - a charge she denies.

In July about 200 people were killed in riots between Uighurs and Han Chinese in which mostly Han were killed.

Taiwan is self-ruled after breaking away from China at the end of the civil war in 1949. Beijing considers the island part of its territory.
["considers" implies that when, de facto, it is not! 中國視台灣為其領土之一部分.與事實不符時才需要說這種"視為",如果是事實的話就只要說"是"就好了! 腦筋不清的人才會被騙啦!]

"We have decided not to allow Kadeer entry considering that her visit could affect national interest and social order," Interior Minister Jiang Yi-huah was quoted as saying to members of parliament.

Despite opposition from China, a documentary about Ms Kadeer was screened this week in Taiwan's second city, Kaohsiung.

Local tourism officials had spoken out against the move, Taiwanese media reported, fearing it would drive Chinese tourist numbers down.

Rebiya Kadeer heads the World Uighur Congress, which represents the Uighur community in exile.

------
延伸閱讀: [轉載] WSJ: Taiwan Won't Allow Visit by Uighur Leader . 與重點翻譯

關於扁案判決的外電報導 (updated)

最近挺忙的,沒有太多時間. 只好整理一下各家寫手的連結如下

由扁案看台灣司法進步或退步? 你相信哪一個媒體? (比較各家報導,強烈推薦!)

Chen case testing Taiwan's democracy: analysts 陳案正在測試台灣的民主 (AFP報導,提供的是中英對照)

洛杉機時報：扁案判決,很難讓人相信這裡面沒有政治動機 (這聯結也是有中英對照)

最後是華爾街日報的報導: 中譯在此. 還有批評討論WSJ報導有失公允的文章. 值得一讀

Trying Taiwan
Chen Shui-bian's jailing is a pivotal moment for the country. (WSJ)

Former President Chen Shui-bian's conviction Friday of stealing three million dollars from state coffers and accepting bribes worth several times that amount was a shock to Taiwan. The question now is how well the island's political and judicial systems will withstand this verdict.
Taiwan has been a democracy for a mere 14 years, and when Mr. Chen was elected in 2000 he was the first opposition leader to win power after five decades of Kuomintang rule. Now he is the first head of state to be found guilty of corruption (though he says he is innocent and is appealing the verdict). Both of those firsts are, in their own ways, testaments to Taiwan's political maturation.

That's not to say that Mr. Chen's trial was without controversy. His supporters are inflamed by allegations of judicial bias and prosecutorial overreach during the trial, and protests flared up over the weekend. Chief among their grievances are the facts that Mr. Chen was held incommunicado for more than a month (legal under Taiwanese law) and that the initial presiding judge hearing the case was replaced by an unusual, but valid court procedure (Mr. Chen's case was merged with his wife's case).

(後略)


再來是經濟學人的報導: The trail of Ah-Bian. 經濟學人認為此案程序不正義讓台灣司法蒙羞(Bringing Taiwan’s former president to trial is ground-breaking. A shame about the judicial flaws)
. 中文翻譯見此. , 推薦MJ的摘要整理

最後是孔傑榮(J. Cohen)寫的也提出類似的看法,意即扁案彰顯司法瑕疵(highlights shortcoming of a legal system in transition)

------
10/26/2009 updated
an interesting article to read--
Judicial independence: A tale of two countries (SG vs TW)

田園料理之蕃茄篇

如題, 詳情見 (1) 或 (2)

過份!!

可惡鼠類!! 竟然啃成這樣!!

轉載: President Ma's Apology Tour馬總統的道歉之旅

Many here can't help but wonder: Given his mismanagement of the typhoon response, how would Mr. Ma perform in an even more serious crisis—say, a showdown with China?

更多人不禁要問: 如果政府連風災都無法有效處理,面對更大的危機時,如與中國攤牌,他如何能夠做好危機管理?

August 2009
President Ma's Apology Tour
by Jonathan Adams
Posted August 25, 2009

As satire, the YouTube video now circulating in Taiwan may be over the top. But for many here, the real-life spectacle of Taiwan's top government officials on an "apology tour" has been almost as ridiculous.

The YouTube video, which has logged more than 144,000 views, superimposes the heads of President Ma Ying-jeou, his vice president, premier and two Cabinet ministers onto Chippendales models, dancing to the South Korean boy band tune "Sorry, Sorry."

The video mocks Taiwan's government for their repeated, ritual apologies in recent days, for what critics across the political spectrum here say was a slow and disorganized response to Typhoon Morakot—the island's deadliest storm in at least 50 years.

As of Aug. 24, the death count from the storm stood at 292, with 385 more missing and presumed dead. Most were buried alive by mudslides or swept away by torrential rivers. (截至8月24為止,死亡人數為292,但還有385個因為土石流失蹤,而且很可能已經罹難.)

Critics say President Ma's government failed its people by waiting three days to fully mobilize the military, declining to declare a state of emergency, passing the buck in the first few days after the typhoon, and showing a cold attitude toward victims.

I got an earful of such sentiments while spending a few hours last week in Cishan, a small southern Taiwan town that's become a staging area for relief efforts.

"If the government's reaction had been more quick, not so many people would have been lost," said Li Hui-ming, 36, from Minzu Village, where about 25 people were killed in a mudslide.

Displaced villagers credit Taiwan's robust civil society for filling the gap left by the government's poor job mobilizing resources. Buddhist relief organizations took the lead by rapidly opening shelters, feeding, and tending to the displaced. Money and donations streamed in from private citizens all over Taiwan.

And thousands of volunteers—including many students on summer vacation—went to affected areas to help. I met a bar owner from Tainan city, for example, who donated his Jeep to drive supplies in and out of the disaster zone.

Chang Chiung-fang, who's studying for a Masters' in psychological counseling, came from Taipei to volunteer at a Taoist temple outside Cishan that's become a shelter for typhoon refugees. "Actually, the government hasn't done a lot for these people," said Mr. Chang, 29. "This temple and civic organizations have helped them."

Nearby, Dahu Balavi, 58, a representative of the Minzu villagers, was clear about who deserved gratitude. "This temple has given us shelter and food, we thank the temple a lot—but not the government."

Why the government's lackluster performance? The question has been hashed and re-hashed in recent days here.

Preventative measures fell short. A government project is mapping out landslide-prone areas, and the emergency center had the authority to force villagers to evacuate. That didn't happen. "The government should have done better, and I hope they take this as a hard lesson," said Sue Lin, a professor in the department of environment engineering at National Cheng Kung University.

Ms. Lin urged the government to focus on better educating citizens in vulnerable areas about flooding and landslide dangers, and holding regular evacuation drills.

Another problem was organization. The typhoon response was coordinated by an ad-hoc emergency center that's led by a rotating group of Cabinet members from various ministries. That meant fractured leadership at a time when Taiwan most needed unified command.

But many here say the fundamental problem was Mr. Ma's character. His cautious, lawyer-like demeanor may make him a good administrator. But it also makes him a weak, ineffectual leader in a crisis.

"People say he tends to do everything by the book, but doesn't know how to command," said George Tsai, a political scientist at Chinese Culture University who supports Mr. Ma's party. "They wanted to see a quick response, and for him to show his compassion." (馬總是"依法行政",不知如何領導統御)

Mr. Ma could have taken charge of the typhoon response by declaring a national emergency and fully flexing his authority as commander-in-chief. Instead, his school-marmish insistence that disaster laws should be followed to the letter left the Cabinet in charge.

But like Mr. Ma, his Cabinet is seen here as stocked with "goodie-goodie," Confucian-style scholars who are short on communication and leadership skills.

The president added insult to injury by appearing to blame some victims themselves for not heeding warnings to evacuate landslide-prone areas. "He said we didn't listen, but the problem was they didn't tell us anything—there wasn't any warning," said Minzu Village's Mr. Li.


For Mr. Li and others, President Ma's "apology tour" has been too little, too late—a transparent attempt at political damage control long after the real damage has already been done.

Many here can't help but wonder: Given his mismanagement of the typhoon response, how would Mr. Ma perform in an even more serious crisis—say, a showdown with China?

Mr. Adams is a Taiwan-based journalist.

------
延伸閱讀: Taiwan's typhoon

The political stormAug 20th 2009
From The Economist print edition, After its dismal handling of the disaster, the government, too, is covered in mud

馬式投降主義