[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)