相關中文新聞: 美國國務院評台灣人權
相關英文報導: US cites continued rights abuses in Taiwan, CONCERNS: A State Department report said that foreign spouses were targets of discrimination and that arranging marriages tended to treat women as property
之前轉載的如IFJ譴責政府干預媒體自由,陳雲林來台期間引起的風波,還有扁案有政治力的介入引發國際學者與媒體多次報導,還有野草莓運動都有所提及. 蠻全面的報導.
因為最近發現blogger的copy & paste很難用,分段不會跟著被帶過來, 這麼長的文章,我就懶得手動去幫忙分段了. 詳見此.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
[轉載]台灣民主的試驗仍進行中
台灣的民主試驗還在進行中,雖然很多倒退的事實,但是糾正的機制也存在,不幸中還有值得安慰的一點
以下原文
----------------------------------
Taiwan’s democratic test continues
By Christopher Walker Sarah CookTuesday, Feb 17, 2009, Page 8
Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.
Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.
First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.
In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”
Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.
These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.
The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.
The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public. (按: 好幾個涉嫌暴力的警察在之後湊巧得到晉升也被提出來討論了,之前我就提過了啊)
The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.
Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.
Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.
The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.
Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.
Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.
Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.
以下原文
----------------------------------
Taiwan’s democratic test continues
By Christopher Walker Sarah CookTuesday, Feb 17, 2009, Page 8
Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.
Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.
First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.
In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”
Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.
These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.
The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.
The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public. (按: 好幾個涉嫌暴力的警察在之後湊巧得到晉升也被提出來討論了,之前我就提過了啊)
The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.
Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.
Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.
The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.
Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.
Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.
Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
[轉載] Taiwan, South Korea muzzle pessimistic brokers
以下是經濟學人的報導. 台灣與南韓這下的確很像,政府要干預財經消息,只准報喜不可報憂(accentuate only the positive)
------------------------
Bye bye sell
Feb 5th 2009 HONG KONG AND SEOULFrom The Economist print edition
Tired of bad news about the financial markets? Censor it
Illustration by S. Kambayashi
NOT so many years ago brokers were prosecuted in America for shamelessly plugging the dogs of the dotcom boom. Consider it a sign of the times that governments in South Korea and Taiwan are now quietly encouraging brokers to accentuate only the positive.
The methods may differ, but if you have something critical to say and it somehow becomes public knowledge, you should brace yourself for unpleasant consequences. In December the Taiwan Securities Association, a trade body, reminded brokers, on behalf of the government, that the press must receive the firm’s approval before quoting research.
When critical brokers’ opinions are cited in newspapers, regulators now want “explanations”. On February 4th CLSA, a regional broker, issued a report saying Taiwan’s economy had deteriorated sharply. The press jumped on the report, and the government jumped on CLSA, which quickly issued a statement. The report was intended for clients alone and CLSA had not changed its investment opinions. Regulators have insidiously suggested that investment firms take a harder line by suing media outlets that report on their opinions.
In South Korea, a reluctance to issue sell recommendations has already taken hold. Of the 17,335 reports issued by South Korean brokers in 2008, there were 14,903 “buy” recommendations but not a single “sell”, according to FnGuide, a Seoul-based financial-information company. At best, that reflects poor analysis: the stockmarket tumbled 41% during the year.
But something more sinister may be afoot. JPMorgan, an American investment bank, was the target of an investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service after it suggested that problem loans at South Korea’s Hana Bank may be higher than the bank’s own estimates. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse was denounced by Hyundai Securities, which publicly castigated the firm after it halved its target price for the South Korean broker. One analyst recalls a threatening telephone call from a sushi-restaurant owner after he issued a “sell” recommendation: “I have many sharp knives. Stay away from dark alleys,” the man said.
-------
延伸閱讀:
我們還有言論自由嗎: 從《金融》部落格報明牌，金管會開罰 說起
這就是言論自由
------------------------
Bye bye sell
Feb 5th 2009 HONG KONG AND SEOULFrom The Economist print edition
Tired of bad news about the financial markets? Censor it
Illustration by S. Kambayashi
NOT so many years ago brokers were prosecuted in America for shamelessly plugging the dogs of the dotcom boom. Consider it a sign of the times that governments in South Korea and Taiwan are now quietly encouraging brokers to accentuate only the positive.
The methods may differ, but if you have something critical to say and it somehow becomes public knowledge, you should brace yourself for unpleasant consequences. In December the Taiwan Securities Association, a trade body, reminded brokers, on behalf of the government, that the press must receive the firm’s approval before quoting research.
When critical brokers’ opinions are cited in newspapers, regulators now want “explanations”. On February 4th CLSA, a regional broker, issued a report saying Taiwan’s economy had deteriorated sharply. The press jumped on the report, and the government jumped on CLSA, which quickly issued a statement. The report was intended for clients alone and CLSA had not changed its investment opinions. Regulators have insidiously suggested that investment firms take a harder line by suing media outlets that report on their opinions.
In South Korea, a reluctance to issue sell recommendations has already taken hold. Of the 17,335 reports issued by South Korean brokers in 2008, there were 14,903 “buy” recommendations but not a single “sell”, according to FnGuide, a Seoul-based financial-information company. At best, that reflects poor analysis: the stockmarket tumbled 41% during the year.
But something more sinister may be afoot. JPMorgan, an American investment bank, was the target of an investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service after it suggested that problem loans at South Korea’s Hana Bank may be higher than the bank’s own estimates. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse was denounced by Hyundai Securities, which publicly castigated the firm after it halved its target price for the South Korean broker. One analyst recalls a threatening telephone call from a sushi-restaurant owner after he issued a “sell” recommendation: “I have many sharp knives. Stay away from dark alleys,” the man said.
-------
延伸閱讀:
我們還有言論自由嗎: 從《金融》部落格報明牌，金管會開罰 說起
這就是言論自由
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
轉載: GIO minister answers open letter (馬政府回覆第三封公開信)
先轉載原文如下,有空再候補中譯或感想 .第三封公開信見此
----------------
GIO minister answers open letter
By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China. Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
----------------
GIO minister answers open letter
By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China. Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
Monday, February 2, 2009
[轉載] Political corruption in Taiwan: Trial and error ("審判"與錯誤)
沒想到連經濟學人都要湊一腳啊.
先說一下,這個標題下得很有意思. 有時候就語文的角度來閱讀就有很大的樂趣了. Trial and error通常指的是嘗試錯誤,因為嘗試,而犯錯,再從錯誤中學習. 在這裡trial又正好是"審判"的英文, 一語相關(pun), 我個人因此覺得這標題下得很有意思.
以下原文. 這裡有中文翻譯.
-------------
Jan 22nd 2009 TAIPEI
From The Economist print edition
A former president and the judiciary are both in the dock
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, this week pleaded not guilty at a hearing marking the start of his trial on corruption charges. Mr Chen, who ruled on a confrontational platform of independence from China, looked tired and dispirited, but was as combative as ever. “There is no way I can accept these charges and insults,” he told judges, after arriving at a Taipei court in handcuffs. His supporters are trying to ensure it is not just Mr Chen’s probity but also the integrity of Taiwanese justice that are on trial.
In one case he is alleged to have influenced the government to buy land from a company that bribed his wife, Wu Shu-chen. The couple is also charged with embezzlement from special presidential accounts, with forgery and with laundering ill-gotten money through Switzerland.
Mr Chen, who might face a life sentence, insists he is innocent and faces what amounts to political persecution. This week prosecutors produced two new charges, of extortion and profiteering in connection with the land deal. Mr Chen accused them of making Taiwan’s president seem like a local bully or mafia boss: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
Mr Chen is very unpopular. And his case was dealt a blow later in the week when his son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law all pleaded guilty to laundering large sums of money for the family.
Nevertheless, Mr Chen’s trial is a test for Taiwan’s two-decade-old democracy, which has already managed two peaceful transfers of power to the opposition. Many are heartened that corruption, long endemic in politics, is being attacked and that a former president can stand trial like a common citizen.
Critics, however, say recent judicial proceedings have been marred by sloppy improprieties, and, some allege, bias towards the Nationalist party, the Kuomintang or KMT, which took power last May under President Ma Ying-jeou. Mr Chen was imprisoned incommunicado for a month before he was charged, raising questions about the presumption of innocence. A panel of judges that released Mr Chen from prison without bail last month was mysteriously replaced by a new one that ordered his reimprisonment a fortnight later. Prosecutors had appealed and KMT politicians had complained, leading to suspicions of political interference. The same judges are presiding over his trial. (註: 看這裡用"marred"這個字也是很美啊,相對於用"damaged"言)
Bruce Jacobs, a Taiwan expert at Monash University in Australia, points out that recent corruption investigations have mainly been aimed at opposition politicians; prosecutors seem far less interested in investigating KMT figures. He also points to the “lack of discretion” in a remarkably tasteless recent incident: prosecutors involved in Mr Chen’s case performed a comic skit at a party at the justice ministry. To the glee of the audience, one is said to have mimicked the former president’s arrest by raising handcuffed hands above her head and shouting slogans. Shown on television, this outraged many.
Mr Ma’s spokesman denies any party-political bias among prosecutors, and insists the president respects judicial neutrality. But even it that is true, the judiciary’s lack of professionalism risks creating public cynicism about its independence, undermining both the drive against corruption and respect for the courts’ decisions.
-----------
延伸閱讀
Why Chen Shui-bian Will Not Get a Fair Trial in Taiwan.Monday February 02, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
先說一下,這個標題下得很有意思. 有時候就語文的角度來閱讀就有很大的樂趣了. Trial and error通常指的是嘗試錯誤,因為嘗試,而犯錯,再從錯誤中學習. 在這裡trial又正好是"審判"的英文, 一語相關(pun), 我個人因此覺得這標題下得很有意思.
以下原文. 這裡有中文翻譯.
-------------
Jan 22nd 2009 TAIPEI
From The Economist print edition
A former president and the judiciary are both in the dock
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, this week pleaded not guilty at a hearing marking the start of his trial on corruption charges. Mr Chen, who ruled on a confrontational platform of independence from China, looked tired and dispirited, but was as combative as ever. “There is no way I can accept these charges and insults,” he told judges, after arriving at a Taipei court in handcuffs. His supporters are trying to ensure it is not just Mr Chen’s probity but also the integrity of Taiwanese justice that are on trial.
In one case he is alleged to have influenced the government to buy land from a company that bribed his wife, Wu Shu-chen. The couple is also charged with embezzlement from special presidential accounts, with forgery and with laundering ill-gotten money through Switzerland.
Mr Chen, who might face a life sentence, insists he is innocent and faces what amounts to political persecution. This week prosecutors produced two new charges, of extortion and profiteering in connection with the land deal. Mr Chen accused them of making Taiwan’s president seem like a local bully or mafia boss: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
Mr Chen is very unpopular. And his case was dealt a blow later in the week when his son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law all pleaded guilty to laundering large sums of money for the family.
Nevertheless, Mr Chen’s trial is a test for Taiwan’s two-decade-old democracy, which has already managed two peaceful transfers of power to the opposition. Many are heartened that corruption, long endemic in politics, is being attacked and that a former president can stand trial like a common citizen.
Critics, however, say recent judicial proceedings have been marred by sloppy improprieties, and, some allege, bias towards the Nationalist party, the Kuomintang or KMT, which took power last May under President Ma Ying-jeou. Mr Chen was imprisoned incommunicado for a month before he was charged, raising questions about the presumption of innocence. A panel of judges that released Mr Chen from prison without bail last month was mysteriously replaced by a new one that ordered his reimprisonment a fortnight later. Prosecutors had appealed and KMT politicians had complained, leading to suspicions of political interference. The same judges are presiding over his trial. (註: 看這裡用"marred"這個字也是很美啊,相對於用"damaged"言)
Bruce Jacobs, a Taiwan expert at Monash University in Australia, points out that recent corruption investigations have mainly been aimed at opposition politicians; prosecutors seem far less interested in investigating KMT figures. He also points to the “lack of discretion” in a remarkably tasteless recent incident: prosecutors involved in Mr Chen’s case performed a comic skit at a party at the justice ministry. To the glee of the audience, one is said to have mimicked the former president’s arrest by raising handcuffed hands above her head and shouting slogans. Shown on television, this outraged many.
Mr Ma’s spokesman denies any party-political bias among prosecutors, and insists the president respects judicial neutrality. But even it that is true, the judiciary’s lack of professionalism risks creating public cynicism about its independence, undermining both the drive against corruption and respect for the courts’ decisions.
-----------
延伸閱讀
Why Chen Shui-bian Will Not Get a Fair Trial in Taiwan.Monday February 02, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)