[轉載] U.S. Congressman's Support in Question 美議員:如臺不支援自由 美無必要支援臺

U.S. Congressman's Support in Question


(美議員:如臺不支援自由 美無必要支援臺)
By William Lowther, Taipei Times


Washington, May 5 - US Representative Dana Rohrabacher is threatening to end his strong legislative support for Taiwan as a result of Chunghwa Telecom’s (CHT) decision to terminate satellite services for “pro--democracy” channel New Tang Dynasty Television (NTDTV).

“If Taiwan does not support the struggle for freedom of thought within China, I see no need for America to support Taiwan,” Rohrabacher said in a letter sent on Wednesday to President Ma Ying-jeou.

，(美國之音中文網)“作為眾議院台灣連線(Taiwan Caucus)的創始人，我一向認為民主自由是連接我們兩國的紐帶”，“如果台灣不支援在中國爭取思想自由的鬥爭，那麼美國就沒有必要支援台灣。”

自由之家發佈之2011新聞自由 (2011 Freedom of Press by Freedom House)

Asia-Pacific:
A modest decline in the average score for the Asia-Pacific region was driven by negative status changes, as South Korea moved from Free to Partly Free and Thailand from Partly Free to Not Free. Cambodia, Fiji, India, and Vanuatu also saw score declines, while Bangladesh and the Philippines registered modest improvements. This region also continues to be home to two of the survey’s poorest performers, Burma and North Korea, and the world’s largest poor performer, China, where a crackdown on free expression continued in 2010. (Source:Freedom House)

[轉載] Open letter to Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT government (給馬英九國民黨政府的公開信)

這是歐美學者具名連署的公開信. 關於最近前民進黨政府遺失三萬多份公文,受監察院調查的新聞引發歐美學者疑慮,故此信. 馬政府對此反駁,不過目前只先找到新聞(Official hits back at academics’ letter),要是找到反駁的全文再來轉載.

以下 (含重點翻譯).
------
Open letter to Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT government

(刊於Taipei Times) Apr 11, 2011
By Nat Bellocchi, Coen Blaauw, Et Al

轉載: Taiwan’s NCC Refuses Broadcasting License to Next TV, Legislators Threaten Stricter Internet Regulations (NCC拒絕壹傳媒電視台牌照申請,立院威脅更嚴格的網路控管)

壹傳媒申請電視台的牌照兩度被NCC拒絕. 以下是IPI (International Press Institute, 按: 姑且翻成國際新聞組織.如果知道國內慣用翻譯請指教。謝謝！) 的新聞稿, 簡單來說, IPI認為此舉有礙促進新聞自由(press freedom).  IPI 的總部位於奧地利維也納,是個關注國際新聞自由的非營利組織.

這篇新聞稿補充了前陣子無國界記者(Reports Without Borders)發布的2010年的新聞自由指標(press freedom index), 與自由之家(Freedom House)發布的新聞自由指標(附於本文末) 關於台灣媒體自由的隱憂.  自由之家的報導中也提到許多可能危害新聞自由的具體事例, 例如置入行銷,媒體老闆本身的政治傾向等等.  而這篇最有趣的是提到NCC成立的宗旨.

因為忙,就不逐一翻譯了。日後要是有空再回來重點(粗體的那些)翻譯. 

以下.
----------

Taiwan’s NCC Refuses Broadcasting License to Next TV, Legislators Threaten Stricter Internet Regulations

IPI expresses concerns about NCC’s failure to promote press freedom

By Barbara Trionfi, Press Freedom Adviser for Asia and the Pacific (12/15/2010)

More than a year after Taiwan-based Next Media Group requested a broadcasting license from Taiwan's National Communication Committee (NCC), the company has yet to receive permission to broadcast news programs.


Representatives of Next Media Group have informed IPI that in August 2009 the company applied for licenses for a news channel, a general interest channel, an entertainment channel, a sports channel and a movie channel. The NCC reportedly refused the request twice, eventually allowing only the sports and the movie channels to air and withholding the license for the news and the general interest channels.

The reason for the refusal, according to NCC, is that there are “concerns that the channel’s broadcasts would violate the Regulations Governing the Classification of Television Programs.”

兩則新聞(對照兩則舊聞)的雜感(2)

2010-12-13 

糗大！ 美未禁豬血糕 治國週記急刪

〔記者王寓中／台北報導〕馬英九總統在上週六最新一期治國週記中，提到不理解美國為何要禁止吃、賣台灣的豬血糕，但事實上美國並未禁賣豬血糕，總統府發現馬引用資訊錯誤後，前天傍晚主動將這段內容刪除，總統府發言人羅智強昨天表示，馬在治國週記的說法與實際情況確實有落差，府方對此已做修正。

其實很久不想寫關於政治的格文. 就算沾到邊, 大部分是從其他角度去看某事件. 這是12/13的新聞. 看到後我覺得很沒力. 

為什麼沒力? 因為這禁賣台灣豬血糕的舊聞早就被證實有誤. 這是蘋果日報當時的新聞:

新聞, 舊文: [舊文重貼]有偏見的媒體不好嗎? (新聞連結已修正)

電視台報五都新聞　有「深綠」沒「深藍」(2010/11/13 13:28)

          ...........

中華傳播管理學會自11月初發起「電視無偏運動」，由學會理事長、台灣藝術大學廣播電視系主任賴祥蔚、中國文化大學新聞系主任莊伯仲主持，檢視10個電視頻道有關五都選舉報導，抽樣時間為晚間7時至8時，每週發布觀察報告。10家電視台分別為台視、華視、中視、公視、民視、三立、中天、東森、TVBS、年代。

根據觀察報告指出，在11月5日至10日各電視台的晚間新聞中，以三立、民視選舉新聞量最多，佔整體約6成，其他電視台則佔剩餘4成。新聞呈現政黨中立者包括台視、華視、公視、年代和TVBS；政黨「深綠」者為三立、民視；政黨「淺藍」是中視、東森和中天；沒有「深藍」和「淺綠」。

上面是最近在咖啡館看到的轉貼新聞. 看到新聞想到舊文. 先不說這中立與否以及偏頗的程度是怎麼衡量出來的,因為在那新聞中沒有交代, 我倒是想到自己的舊文一篇. 原文的標題是: 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

從標題應該就知道當時的背景. 因為這個新聞, 我再讀一次舊文, 發現當時的討論還是適用於現在. 遂把關於媒體偏見的部份再度引用出來如下. 簡單的講, 所謂的無偏媒體運動是針對以下前提四.

另, 真假新聞的連結在此.

以下摘自原文.
=============

偽 News Rumble (updated x2)

"The judiciary needs to be independent but it cannot be isolated from society or betray public expectations," Ma said.

引述這段話不是我對個案的關注, 而是洞穴奇案裡的法官之ㄧHandy 所持的理由正是司法判決要考慮民意. 司法判決考慮民意還是獨立的司法判決嗎? 這是我閱讀筆記想要討論的重點之ㄧ,也是引述這段話的原因之一. 其二是, 最近(昨天)看了一片和司法有關的電影: Conviction, 當中讓我對日前台灣要不要廢死? 的爭議有了一點反思. 有空再來聊聊洞穴奇案一書和Conviction一片.

才子佳人的故事: 音樂家與他們的夫(情)人 (revised)

霍洛維茲夫婦. 翻攝於Horowitz in Moscow CD內頁.

我不是個會說故事的人. 不過今天倒想來講講一些才子佳人的故事.

一切都起因於日前的馬勒的音樂會(明年三月還有一場). 聽音樂會前照例要先做點功課,於是翻出馬勒資料來讀讀. 而這首馬勒五號完成時正與他和馬勒夫人相遇並共築愛巢同時期.

馬勒的一生,和許多音樂家類似的,充滿苦難與災難. 不過音樂家有著悲慘遭遇並非新鮮事,. 正因如此, 馬勒一生故事裡吸引我的反而是他的老婆艾瑪辛德勒(Alma Schindler). 在我看來,除去他的音樂成就外,他一生唯一的幸福就是娶了個貌美且出生世家的老婆.

艾瑪辛德勒一生結婚三次,都是嫁給藝術工作者,分別是音樂家Gustav Mahler,建築師Walter Gropius,與小說家Franz Werfel. 所以她的名字也愈來愈長,最後變成了 Alma Maria Mahler Gropius Werfel, 但她自稱(go by) Alma Mahler-Werfel. 而三次婚姻外還有多次未經證實的緋聞與或長或短的外遇,當然還有一群仰慕者. 這裡記載了她多采多姿的一生. 另外電影 Bride of the Wind 也是以這個為主題. 可惜我還沒看過這電影.

關於無國界記者與自由之家發布的新聞自由指標 (press freedom index by RWB and Freedom House)

這是幾天前的舊聞了! 無國界記者(Reports Without Borders)發布了2010年的新聞自由指標(press freedom index), 台灣進步了11名來到了第48名. 進步當然是好事,但是台灣媒體還是有個問題,那就是片面性的報導. 在這裡不能說是斷章取義,也許只能算是報喜不報憂吧!

我們看原文是這樣報導的:

Democratic Asian countries gain ground

Asia-Pacific country rankings can be impressive. New Zealand is one of the ten top winners and Japan (11th), Australia (18th) and Hong Kong (34th) occupy favourable positions. Two other Asian democracies, Taiwan and South Korea, rose 11 and 27 places respectively, after noteworthy falls in the 2009 Index. Although some problems persist, such as the issue of the state-owned media’s editorial independence, arrests and violence have ceased.

姑且翻譯重點如下: 兩個亞洲的民主體制,台灣與南韓,繼2009年的大幅滑落之後,(今年)分別進步了11與27名.

紅色的是被眾媒體省略的部份. 請注意,台灣的新聞自由(48)還不及香港(34)!

搭飛機雜記(4): 飛行安全誰之責? (updated on 10/31/2010)

時差中的胡言亂語. 拖了這麼久,現在發文也算是紀念911吧?!
----

我喜歡看的電影種類有二: 一是法庭片,那種有出庭攻防橋段的. 另一是以飛機或飛行航程當做背景所發生的故事. 湊巧的是,最近亂轉電視剛好看到兩片都是和飛行有關的電影,分別是Flightplan與Red Eye. 雖然這兩片有我喜歡的背景,卻也說不上好看. 不過這兩片都和飛行安全沾上邊,也就是這篇雜記的重點.


既然要講飛行安全, 在講自身遭遇前前先問大家一個問題: 以下情況哪個比較危險?

情況1: 不該出現在該班次的旅客因誤通過安檢
情況2: 不符坐在逃生門的旅客因誤被劃在逃生門座位

搭飛機雜記(3): 誰被歧視? (8/8/2010 revised)

這是很久之前某次搭飛機時的感想. 前陣子(6/18/2010)華航因為招募廣告中有身高限制而被台北市勞工局以容貌歧視為由罰款30萬, 讓我又有點動力寫完這篇. 事實上我認為空服人員身高限制有其必要, 至少要能夠輕鬆操作放在頭頂置物艙的各種器材. 不過這不是這篇的重點.

事情發生在2008年底, 我去巴爾的摩參加研討會. 去程時候並沒有被升等, 但是因為是銀卡會員, 有優先登機的好處. 站在門口的空少歡迎我們這些金銀卡會員, 而我習慣性的望向駕駛艙, 發現是女性副機長.

航空業是個特殊的行業. 對年紀歧視, 對容貌(含身高)歧視, 對性別歧視[1].

[轉載] An open letter to Wang Jin-pyng (給王金平院長的公開信) (含中文翻譯)

這是28位關心台灣的國際學者聯名給王金平的公開信,主旨是關於ECFA的談判過程不盡透明,令人擔心.

-------------
An open letter to Wang Jin-pyng

Sunday, May 23, 2010, Page 8
Dear Mr Speaker, Wang Jin-pyng (王金平),

As strong supporters of a free and democratic Taiwan, we would like to call your attention to a number of concerns we have regarding the ongoing negotiations between the Taiwanese and Chinese governments to arrive at an economic cooperation framework agreement.

身為自由與民主台灣的堅定擁護者,我們有一些關於台灣與中國進行中的經濟貿易協定(指ECFA)談判有些顧慮,想對您表達.

While in principle, an economic agreement between the two countries would be laudable, it concerns us that there has been a lack of transparency and legislative checks and balances on the part of the government in Taiwan: Media and civic groups have complained about the secrecy of the negotiations and the fact that there is no clarity on what the agreement would entail or what impact it would have on Taiwan’s economy, in particular its agriculture sector, small and medium-size industries and the labor force.

雖然原則上兩個國家之間的經濟協定是值得肯定的,我們卻對於不透明的談判過程,以及缺乏立院審查與制衡的部份感到擔心:媒體與公民團體不但抱怨談判過程秘密,協定內容以及簽署後對台灣經濟的影響不清楚,特別是對農業部門與中小企業勞動力(的衝擊都缺乏明確的資訊).

Furthermore, the Legislative Yuan appears to be sidelined in the decisionmaking process, which does not bode well for the country’s young democracy. Against this background, we urge you to emphasize that you attach great importance to checks and balances in a democratic system. It is also imperative that the Taiwanese government seeks a democratic consensus on this important decision through a public referendum of all people in Taiwan before the agreement is signed.

此外,立法院顯然被屏除在決策過程外,這對年輕的民主國家並非好事. 在這種背景條件之下,我們極欲強調您(指立法院)在民主體制下身負審查與制衡的重要性. 同樣的,台灣政府面對重要決策時,協約簽訂前以公投,民主的方式尋求人民共識也茲事體大.

Many in Taiwan and abroad are also concerned about the impact of closer economic ties on Taiwan’s de facto independence and sovereignty: They feel that closer economic ties will give the government in Beijing leverage to push Taiwan into further political isolation. This would make it increasingly difficult for the people of Taiwan to maintain their freedom, basic human rights and democracy, as well as to determine their own future. The problem is, of course, that China unjustifiably claims sovereignty over Taiwan and doesn’t recognize its right to exist as a free, democratic and independent nation.

許多台灣與海外人士也非常憂心發展與中國更緊密的經濟關係會對實質獨立的台灣在主權上有不良的影響: 她們擔心更傾中將使得北京政府利用此而進一步在政治上孤立台灣. 這將使得台灣人民要維持自由,人權,與民主更加困難,也勢比使得台灣人自己決定台灣未來的可能性更低(按:我是意譯,因此加入一些連結語句).當然,根本問題是,中國不切當的宣稱對台灣擁有主權,而不承認台灣是個自由民主與獨立的國家.

If Taiwan increasingly moves into the sphere of influence of a still very undemocratic China, this will have a negative impact on democracy and human rights in Taiwan itself and on its role as a beacon for democracy in East Asia. We feel that the present approach by the Ma administration is too much predicated on China having a say in how Taiwan relates to the rest of the world.

如果台灣持續地向不甚民主的中國傾斜,這將不利台灣的民主與人權,也不利台灣在整個東亞扮演的角色. 我們深感目前馬政府採取的方式過份地依賴中國解讀台灣與世界的關係(而非台灣自己積極的扮演一個角色).

In our view, Taiwan should be accepted in its own right and be able to sign free trade agreements with other nations without going through China.

我們認為,台灣應該有(接受)她自己的權利來與其他國家簽訂貿易條約,而非(凡事)透過中國.

We may also refer to recent statements by two of Taiwan’s strongest supporters in the US Congress, who are very critical of the proposed agreement: In a briefing on April 28, Congressman Robert Andrews referred to it as a “cage” for Taiwan from which it will be difficult to escape, while Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen referred to it as a “Trojan Horse,” one gift-horse Taiwan should not allow in because Beijing is using it as a political tool with the ultimate goal of absorbing Taiwan.

我們也認為最近美國兩位友台議員發表的聲明殊關重要: 在4/28日一個簡短聲明中Robert Andrews 議員認為
與中國簽訂ECFA將把台灣囚禁於鳥籠之中,而且再也難以逃脫;而另一位議員Ileana Ros-Lehtinen則指ECFA是特洛伊木馬,是個台灣應該拒絕的禮物因為它將與許北京對台灣施以更多政治干預,已達到併吞台灣的最終目的.

Mr Speaker, we hope you will agree with us that maintaining a free and democratic Taiwan is essential, not only for the people of Taiwan, but also for the cause of freedom and democracy in East Asia as a whole. We thus urge you to take a critical look at the proposed trade agreement and ensure that the economic, political and strategic interests of the Taiwanese people are fully safeguarded.

(敬愛的)講者,我們希望你同意我們的看法,那就是維持台灣民主與自由有其必要性,不但是為了台灣人民,還是為了整個東亞的自由民主. 我們因此敦促您採取具評論性的觀點來檢視(中國提議的)貿易協定,以確保台灣的經濟,政治,與策略性利益.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

期待您的答覆

Sincerely yours,



Nat Bellocchi

Former chairman, American Institute in Taiwan

Coen Blaauw

Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington

Gordon G. Chang

Author, The Coming Collapse of China

Peter Chow

Professor of economics,

City College of New York

Stephane Corcuff

Associate professor of ­political science, China and Taiwan studies,

University of Lyon

Michael Danielsen

Chairman, Taiwan Corner, Copenhagen

June Teufel Dreyer

Professor of political science,

University of Miami

Norman W. Getsinger

US Foreign Service (retired); Graduate program,

The George Washington University

Terri Giles

Executive director, Formosa Foundation, Los Angeles

Michael Rand Hoare

Emeritus reader,

University of London

Thomas G. Hughes

Former chief of staff to the late Senator Claiborne Pell, Washington

Richard C. Kagan

Professor emeritus of history, Hamline University; author, Taiwan’s Statesman: Lee Teng-hui and Democracy in Asia

Jerome F. Keating

Associate professor,

National Taipei University (retired); co-author, Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex History

Hon. David Kilgour

Former member of parliament and secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, Canada

Andre Laliberte

Associate professor, School of Political Studies,

University of Ottawa

Daniel Lynch

Associate professor, School of International Relations,

University of Southern California

Victor H. Mair

Professor of Chinese language and literature,

University of Pennsylvania

Donald Rodgers

Associate professor of ­political science,

Austin College

Terence C. Russell

Associate professor of Chinese, Asian Studies Centre,

University of Manitoba

Christian Schafferer

Associate professor of international trade, Overseas Chinese University; chair of Austrian Association of East Asian Studies; editor, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

Michael Stainton,

York Centre for Asia Research, Toronto

Peter Tague

Professor of law,

Georgetown University

John J. Tkacik Jr

Former senior research fellow, The Heritage Foundation; former officer at the Taiwan Coordination Desk, US Department of State, Washington

Arthur Waldron

Lauder professor of ­international relations,

University of Pennsylvania

Vincent Wei-cheng Wang

Professor of political science,

University of Richmond

Gerrit van der Wees

Editor, Taiwan Communique, Washington

Michael Yahuda

Professor emeritus, London School of Economics

Stephen Yates

President, DC Asia Advisory; former deputy assistant to the US vice president for national security affairs.

轉載: Taiwanese-Americans attack ECFA

因為忙,已經非常久沒有更新部落格,連之前自由之家發佈的新聞自由評比都落掉了! 好不容易怕忘記又開始記了幾篇流水帳. 今天看到這新聞,轉貼如下. 原文在此.
'ONE-WAY TICKET': At an academic conference, one writer warned against Taiwan tying itself to Beijing through an ECFA when economic bubbles in China are set to burst
By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER, WASHINGTON
Saturday, May 22, 2010, Page 1

A large group of Taiwanese-Americans have launched a three-pronged attack on an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China, claiming that it is no more than “a fast track toward annexation of Taiwan by China.”

They have sent a joint statement to US President Barack Obama calling on him to urge Taiwan’s government to conduct a public and democratic referendum on an ECFA; they have organized a Washington conference for prominent academics to condemn an ECFA; and they have released a letter from 28 major US supporters of Taiwan to Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) asking him to make a critical review of the proposed agreement.

The joint statement to Obama, backed by 16 of the largest and most influential Taiwanese-American organizations, also asks the president to negotiate a free-trade agreement with Taiwan.

It says that because China may use an ECFA to take over Taiwan, the agreement would ultimately have a negative impact on the US strategic position in East Asia.

“Annexation of Taiwan by the [People’s Republic of China] would deprive the United States of a heretofore reliable ally in the western Pacific,” the statement says. “Since Taiwan straddles the sea lanes that supply materials and energy to South Korea and Japan, the loss of Taiwan would substantially increase the vulnerability of these US allies to China’s coercion.”

In their letter to the speaker, the Taiwan supporters — including former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan Nat Bellocchi and former deputy assistant to the vice president for National Security Affairs Stephen Yates — say they are concerned by the lack of transparency and legislative checks and balances in ECFA negotiations.

“There is no clarity on what the agreement would entail or what impact it would have on Taiwan’s economy, in particular its agriculture, small and medium-sized industries and the labor force,” the letter says. “Many in Taiwan and abroad are also concerned about the impact of closer economic ties on Taiwan’s de facto independence and sovereignty; they feel that closer economic ties will give the government in Beijing leverage to push Taiwan into further political isolation.”

The letter and the statement to Obama were released at the Washington conference of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA), which featured presentations by Wu Rong-i (吳榮義), former Taiwanese deputy premier and now president of the Taiwan Braintrust; June Teufel Dreyer, a political scientist at the University of Miami; Arthur Waldron, professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania; and Gordon Chang (章家敦), author of The Coming Collapse of China.

Wu warned that Taiwan could be “totally marginalized” by an ECFA and that there was speculation the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wanted to “accelerate” unification with China.

Dreyer said the Ma administration was not telling the truth about all aspects of an ECFA and that it was “doing its very best to obfuscate.”

“While it is saying that [an] ECFA is going to create 100,000 jobs, what it is not telling you is that it may destroy 200,000 jobs,” she said.

Chang said that China’s economy was on a “sugar high” and was full of economic bubbles that were getting ready to burst.

“If Taiwan ties its economy to China through an ECFA, it loses control of its economy,” he said. “If China’s bubbles burst and its economy collapses, as a number of scholars, investors and analysts have said that it might do in the next 12 months, then Taiwan’s economy could crash as well. ECFA is a one-way ticket to economic failure in China.”

Waldron said one problem in dealing with China was that trade and economic relations were not genuinely free — the currency was not convertible, exchange rates were controlled, interest rates were essentially determined.

“If Taiwan signs an agreement in which she places her economic future in the hands of another vast population that is in flux and is ungoverned by any sorts of laws, then she is giving away another piece of her autonomy and her sovereignty,” he said.

“At a minimum, we should call for a full and open discussion of this agreement so that everyone in Taiwan is fully informed of what it says and what it means. But consulting the people of Taiwan is exactly the opposite of what the negotiators want to do,” he said.

Koh Sebo, a spokesman for the Taiwanese-American associations, said that the government in Beijing wanted to use an ECFA as a tool or first step to get Taiwan into the Chinese sphere of influence and put the Taiwanese economy “firmly in the grip of China.”

“If Taiwan becomes an ­unsinkable aircraft carrier for China the whole western Pacific will be threatened,” he said.

The last word came from FAPA president Bob Yang.

“Members of the US Congress have already referred to ECFA as a ‘Trojan Horse,’ a ‘cage’ and a ‘trap.’ We agree,” he said. “The bottom line is that ECFA is a political tool that masquerades as a trade instrument to achieve China’s ultimate goal of annexing Taiwan.”

-----
延伸閱讀: Taiwan at crossroads in relationship with China

[轉載]Taiwan's loss of independence a threat to US: expert

Taiwan's loss of independence a threat to US: expert

By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER , WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010, Page 1
A leading US academic warned that if Taiwan loses its independence and becomes part of China, its impact on US interests would be “complex and dangerous.”

Nancy Tucker, an expert on Taiwan at Georgetown University in Washington, said that the US' place in Asia would “never be the same again.”

Speaking at the “Power in East Asia” conference on Monday organized by the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the professor said that a change in Taiwan's status could strengthen China and weaken the US.

“If things go badly across the [Taiwan] Strait, war could develop and the United States, regardless of its preferences, would be involved. But in the event that cross-strait dialogue breaks the current stalemate, resolves the current situation, it will have an enormous impact on the United States' mission in the region,” Tucker said.

The most important gain to such a development, Tucker said, would be peace and an end to threats of intentional or accidental war in the Taiwan Strait.

It would let the US scrap its policy of strategic ambiguity, the US and China could relax about possible military conflict, the US could minimize planning for a Taiwan contingency, and although Chinese nationalism would not disappear, “the emotional quotient would be significantly reduced,” she said.

Tucker told the conference that a general de-escalation of Chinese threats would mean better overall US-China relations and that the incorporation of Taiwan into some sort of association with China could have a “Trojan horse potential” to promote democracy in China.

But there would simultaneously be important losses.

For while there would be peace in the near term, over the longer term there would be a variety of security threats to the US’ position in the region.

China’s regional influence could be enhanced by being perceived as having solved the Taiwan issue and doing it through diplomacy rather than the use of force, she said.

US credibility with friends and allies across Southeast Asia would be diminished, as Washington would appear to have “walked away” from Taiwan, she said. Japan's sea lanes could also be jeopardized, Tucker said.

“Certainly that is one of the main things they worry about in such a situation. Tokyo might indeed give more serious thought to going nuclear. And the US presence in the region, in bases that are already controversial, could seem less necessary if there was peace in the Taiwan Strait,” she said.

Tucker said China would be free to develop more varied military capabilities, making it a less unpredictable and more flexible adversary.

There would be an end to US-Taiwan security cooperation, interoperability and arms sales.

“All of this would end despite Beijing’s assurances that Taiwan would be allowed to keep its own military — both because there would be a perception that arms sales would no longer be needed and also because the US would be less inclined to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan since military technology is already leaking across the Strait, and that would probably only escalate,” she said.

The result of all of this, Tucker said, would be that Taiwan would find itself at the mercy of Beijing if the relationship soured because Taipei could no longer effectively turn to the US once Washington had physically and psychologically removed itself from the mix.

In addition, she said, there would be an “unavoidable surrender” of US intelligence listening posts on Taiwan and that in turn would have broad implications for the US position in the region.

“China's arrogance would be stimulated with a Taiwan triumph, and an associated victory over the US,” Tucker said.

“There would be a potential blow to democracy in Taiwan. Anger and disillusionment of a large vocal minority opposed to any sort of association with China could damage the political system. As in Hong Kong today, there would likely be self-censorship and other kinds of adjustments to a non-democratic Chinese system,” she added.

China would be strengthened as the Chinese and Taiwanese economies became more integrated, and for the US this would be a problem not just because China would become a more aggressive competitor economically but also because there would be the potential for US commercial interests to be excluded, she said.

“In other words,” Tucker said, “shifting power relationships in East Asia would involve a difficult balancing act for the US even as Washington remains agnostic about the final choices made by Taiwan.”

[轉載]Taiwan’s political liberties not eroded (蘇:台灣政治自由未被侵蝕)

這是新聞局回應1/12Gerrit van der Wees單獨的公開信.新聞局什麼時候變這麼忙了?忙著跟國際友台人士打筆戰?

-------
Taiwan’s political liberties not eroded
By Su Jun-pin 蘇俊賓 Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010, Page 8


In a recent opinion piece (“Democracy and human rights still regressing,” Jan. 12, page 8), Gerrit van der Wees said Taiwan’s freedom and democracy are being eroded. He also predicted that in the Freedom in the World 2010 survey conducted by Freedom House, Taiwan’s rankings would go down.

On the contrary, this year’s survey accords Taiwan the same near-perfect overall score of 1.5 it received in last year’s survey, sharing the same scores in the political rights and civil liberties categories as Japan, for example, and comparable to those of advanced Western democracies.

In Freedom House’s assessment, our average score of 1.5 is the result of an advance in political rights from a score of 2 to the highest score of 1, offset by a decrease in the civil liberties category from 1 to 2.

The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is gratified at the survey’s affirmation of our progress. At the same time, we take seriously the criticisms and recommendations of Freedom House and other organizations and individuals concerning human rights. As we continue our fight against corruption, recognized by Transparency International in its Corruption Perceptions Index 2009, we shall persevere in giving due attention to possible flaws in our judicial system that may violate human rights. (按:關於貪腐指數引用Transparency Int'l,先前Kagan也已經批評過了!沒想到蘇小賓還是不改其故啊)

Without elaborating, Van der Wees recommended that “if the Ma administration is really serious about human rights and democracy it will need to seriously rethink its approach and move toward much-needed judicial reform.”

In this regard, I would like to point out that reform of our judicial system — augmenting its ability to effectively deal with corruption and other crimes while respecting and protecting human rights — is an ongoing project that has been progressing steadily, and by all accounts quite successfully, over the past two decades thanks to cooperative efforts across the political spectrum.
(按:關於司改,請參考孔傑榮的文章)

Consequently, the independence and neutrality of the judiciary and the sanctity of human rights have become deeply rooted values in Taiwan — a reality evident to observers at home and abroad. Nonetheless, this administration is committed to keep pushing forward on these fronts.

Van der Wees said many observers believe that rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of democracy and human rights. On this point, this administration’s pledge to put Taiwan first for the benefit of its people most certainly includes the preservation of Taiwan’s free and democratic way of life and rule of law.

As this applies to cross-strait relations, any new mainland policy involving the law must be approved by the legislature. At the same time, government policies and actions are constantly being scrutinized by Taiwan’s free and highly critical media.

Such processes in themselves are embodiments of freedom and democracy. Furthermore, they render it very difficult for any policy that is not supported by public opinion to be implemented. Hence, regardless of one’s views on this government’s policies, one should have faith that, ultimately, Taiwan’s system of government can and will reflect the popular will.
(按:我是有信心驅政府下台灣會很慘啦:P)

[轉載]Democracy and human rights still regressing(台灣民主與人權依然倒退中)

Many observers both inside and outside Taiwan are concluding that rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of democracy and human rights.

Democracy and human rights still regressing
By Gerrit van der Wees

Tuesday, Jan 12, 2010, Page 8

As one of the signatories of the letter to president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) by a group of international academics and writers (“An open letter to Taiwan’s president,” Nov. 13, page 8), I was perplexed by the tone and content of the response from Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) (“GIO response to Nov. 13 open letter,” Dec. 18, page 8).(第五號公開信的回函見此)

Instead of welcoming the suggestions of such a distinguished group of international academics, Su went into a defensive mode, used quotes from organizations such as Freedom House out of context and tried to make us believe that all is well with judicial independence and the health of Taiwan’s democracy.

Taiwan still ranked among the world’s “free” countries in 2008 and last year because of the hard work of previous governments — the pioneering work of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and the sustained progress made under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).

The point that minister Su seems to fail to understand is that — in the view of many international observers — Taiwan’s democracy and human rights have regressed since Ma came to office.

The “right answer” would have been to say the government would assess any shortcomings and take steps toward judicial reform.

This has also been suggested by other international academics, such as Jerome Cohen, but the only response from Taipei has been to whitewash the obvious flaws in the system and to assert that “everything is all right.”

In the next few days, Freedom House will issue its report for this year and one can bet that Taiwan’s standing in the rankings will go down.
(按:自由之家的報告顯示台灣整體排名未變,但是公民權利下降,政治自由則提升)

So if the Ma administration is really serious about human rights and democracy it will need to seriously rethink its approach and move toward much-needed judicial reform.

On the issue of cross-strait relations, it is obvious that everyone is in favor of improvement. The question is: At what expense?

Many observers both inside and outside Taiwan are concluding that rapprochement with China has occurred at the expense of democracy and human rights.

It should be obvious to Su and his colleagues that this is not the right way to go about it.

In a separate response to another signatory, Richard Kagan, Su states: “The mantra that democracy in Taiwan is less robust than before utterly conflicts with reality.”

He then quotes the results of the recent local elections to prove his point.

What he fails to understand is the significant reduction in the KMT’s support has occurred because many people have doubts about the government’s adherence to basic principles of democracy and human rights.

If the Ma administration really intends to “significantly enhance the quality of our democracy” (Su’s words) it would be highly desirable if these basic principles were adhered too.

The recent beef problem with the US and the ongoing debate about an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China show that the Ma administration is still following a “top-down” approach, instead of listening to public opinion.


Gerrit van der Wees is the editor of Taiwan Communique in Washington.

[轉載]TAIWAN’S CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AND CHINA’S (孔傑榮:限制被告律師辯護,法務部勿走火入魔)==updated==

前陣子看到一些司法改革愈改愈回去的新聞我就一直在等,等孔傑榮會不會對此作文章. 針對制度面提出見解比針對個案重要且全面,不幸的是阿扁這個個案雖然凸顯問題所在,但此個案之特殊性往往模糊焦點. 由其司法系統幾次試圖追殺扁案的被告律師(見此),這問題實在很難讓人相信司法的公正性. 這在幾次國際學者給的公開信裡也都有所提及. 總之,現在終於等到這篇了!

值得觀察的是日後自由之家與人權組織公佈排名時,台灣的整體的排名會不會有所影響(限制辯護會有傷害被告人權之疑).

以下中文翻譯部分取自中國時報(下面有連結).

==updated==
法務部針對此文竟還發布新聞稿,真有愈描愈黑的感覺...

-------
TAIWAN’S CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AND CHINA’S Jan 20th, 2010 | By USAsialawNYU | Category: Jerome A. Cohen's Blog

An edited version of this text appeared in English in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) on January 20, 2010 under the title “Under Threat,” and appeared in Chinese on January 21, in the China Times (Taiwan) (繁體中文).

by Jerome A. Cohen and Yu-Jie Chen

The Chinese government’s continuing attacks on human rights lawyers rarely make foreign headlines these days. Monitoring, intimidating, disbarring and prosecuting activist lawyers have become routine in China. Even the tragic “disappearance” while in police custody of defense lawyer/political reformer Gao Zhisheng–now feared to be dead–hardly attracts attention.

It is also unremarkable for even non-political Chinese defense lawyers to suffer sanctions. The recent conviction of Beijing lawyer Li Zhuang for allegedly counseling his client to lie and bribe witnesses would not have been noted abroad if the case had not involved Chongqing’s extraordinary campaign to suppress organized crime.

By contrast, the Taiwan government’s new interest in curbing vigorous defense lawyers does constitute “news”. Although Taiwan’s president Ma Ying-Jeou recently took the occasion of the island’s Law Day to call for greater government efforts to promote judicial reform and human rights, his Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has been moving in the opposite direction.

相較之下，近來台灣政府開始對限制辯護律師感興趣，這倒是一則「新聞」。雖然馬英九總統上星期在台灣司法節慶祝大會表示，政府將更努力推動司法改革以落實人權保障，但其下法務部的作為卻與此背道而馳。

Last year, the Ministry, concerned about the conduct of ex-president Chen Shui-Bian’s defense lawyers in its ongoing corruption prosecutions against him, failed in its efforts to impose disciplinary sanctions against one of Chen’s lawyers for supposed ethical violations. Now it is trying to introduce legislation to punish “obstructions of justice” that will inevitably restrict defense lawyers’ activities.

The MOJ has proposed to amend the criminal code in several ways that threaten the modified adversarial legal system that Taiwan adopted a decade ago. Instead of supporting the equal contest between prosecutors and defense lawyers on which that system is based, the MOJ proposals, reflecting traditional Chinese distrust of defense lawyers, would subject Taiwan’s lawyers to some of the same dangers confronted by their counterparts in China, including significant prison time.

法務部提出的刑法修正草案，在幾個方面都將危及台灣十年前所採取的「改良式當事人進行主義」。法務部草案反映了中國傳統對辯護律師不信任的態度，草案不但未支持當事人進行主義的基礎｜檢察官與辯護律師的平等對抗，反而將使台灣律師面臨中國大陸律師所遭遇的一些危險，可能包括長期的牢獄生涯。

One amendment would punish anyone, including lawyers, for abetting defendants or others to “fabricate, alter, destroy or conceal” important evidence in criminal cases, even when their advice has been ignored and caused no harm! Further, it would punish anyone for abetting defendants to make false statements concerning important facts in trial or investigation. Thus, if a court rejects the defendant’s claim that his pre-trial confession was coerced by police, his lawyers might be prosecuted for having urged him to repudiate the confession. This “Sword of Damocles” hangs over Mainland lawyers, sometimes intimidating them from giving such advice, despite the prevalence of pre-trial torture.

修正草案其中一條擬處罰「使」被告或他人「偽造、變造、湮滅或隱匿」於刑事案件「有重要關係之證據」之行為，處罰對象包括一般人和律師。草案針對的是唆使行為，即使是被唆使的人沒有著手實施犯罪，也沒有任何實害發生，唆使行為也會成罪！此外，草案也懲罰「使被告」於審判或偵查時「就案情有重要關係之事項為虛偽陳述」之行為。如此一來，如果被告抗辯說審判前的自白是警方刑求而來，但法院不予採信的話，被告律師可能會因為建議被告推翻自白而被起訴。在中國大陸，這樣的風險像「達摩克里斯之劍（Sword of Damocles）」一樣，長期懸在律師的頭上，時刻威脅著律師，因此，即使刑訊逼供在中國相當普遍，律師有時也不敢建議當事人提出刑求抗辯。

Equally troublesome is the proposal to punish “illegitimate use” of important evidence outside of court. But what use is “illegitimate” and what evidence is “important”? The MOJ has stated that the provision is meant, among other things, to prevent documents from public trials being revealed at press conferences. Yet this would prevent freedom of speech and information essential to monitoring of the judicial process by the media and the people. Such restrictions, to the extent they exist in other democratic societies, are generally justified by the need to protect jury deliberations against media pressures, but Taiwan has no juries.

另一條草案條文同樣令人擔心，該條要懲罰將「相關證據資料之重要部分」於訴訟程序外為「不正當之使用」，但甚麼是「不正當之使用」？甚麼又是「相關證據資料之重要部分」？根據法務部的說明，此條文是為了避免例如召開記者會公布卷證資料等行為（即使是公開審判程序）。然而，這將會壓制人民和媒體監督司法程序所不可或缺的言論自由和資訊自由。這些限制，即使在其他民主社會有類似規定，其正當化理由通常是為了避免陪審團的決定受到媒體壓力，可是台灣並無陪審制度。

Even more problematic is the proposal to punish lawyers not only for contempt of court but also for contempt of prosecutors! Legal systems require effective and fair procedures for punishing refusal to heed reasonable court orders. But, in a system where lawyers and prosecutors are supposed to be equal competitors in their efforts to persuade a neutral judge, it is ludicrous to punish lawyers for failing to obey prosecutors.

更加有問題的是，法務部竟然在「藐視法庭罪」加上藐視檢察官罪的規定！誠然，法律制度需要有效、公正的程序來處罰拒絕遵守法院合理命令的人。但是在當事人進行主義下，律師和檢察官透過法庭攻防說服中立的法院採信其主張，雙方是處於平等的地位，如果律師因未能聽從檢察官的命令，便要被科以刑罰，十分荒唐。

MOJ officials do not seem to realize that, under Taiwan’s new adversarial system, for most purposes prosecutors can no longer be regarded as members of the “judiciary”. Their status and functions are very different from those of judges.

法務部官員似乎不瞭解，台灣已改採「改良式當事人進行主義」，檢察官在大多數情形下不能再被視為「司法」的一員，他們的地位和功能與法官大相逕庭。

The proposals–not yet submitted to the legislature–have understandably aroused strong opposition from the legal profession. Although the MOJ has stressed that the proposals are not targeted at lawyers, they will have an adverse impact upon lawyers’ defense work. If they are enacted, Taiwan is sure to be further downgraded in the civil liberties ratings of major non-governmental organizations such as Freedom House, a strong American supporter that last week criticized recent setbacks in the island’s protection of criminal defendants’ rights.

不出所料，法務部的修正草案還沒有送到立法院，就引發律師界強烈的反對。雖然法務部強調草案非針對律師而來，但其事實上會對律師的辯護造成負面的影響。草案若是通過，台灣的公民自由度勢必再被重要的非政府組織降級，例如一直以來支持台灣民主進步的美國人權組織「自由之家」，上周的報告已經指出台灣去年在保障刑事被告權利上的退步。

It is far from clear that additional restrictions on defense lawyers are needed to guard against “obstructions of justice” in Taiwan. The MOJ has cited no empirical studies to show that existing laws and ethical rules are inadequate. Moreover, the vague language of each proposed criminal prohibition is an invitation to abuse and confusion that would inhibit the robust defense lawyering that a fair justice system requires.

目前完全不清楚的是，究竟有沒有必要對辯護律師設下更多限制來防止「妨害司法」行為，法務部未提出任何實證研究，證明目前法令和律師執業倫理均不足以規範相關行為。再者，修正草案中各條文所使用的模糊字眼，容易造成濫用、引起困惑，進而壓制公正刑事程序所需要的有力辯護工作。

Every country needs effective administration of justice. Yet, every country also needs vigorous lawyers to check abuses of the criminal process. If these MOJ proposals are enacted, the plight of Taiwan’s defense lawyers may begin to resemble that of their Chinese counterparts.

兩則新聞的雜感

我一直記得理則學老師說過,以辯論方式證明對方論點錯誤有三:其一,證明假設前提為非.其二證明推論過程錯誤.最後是另闢戰場. 當然第三者是非邏輯的論證.

在之前討論"有偏見的媒體不好嗎?"一文我試圖以檢視假設前提的方式來探討該文的結論是否適用於台灣.在另一文裡我也討論到現代法律下,基本假設應該是"無罪推定原則",也就是說除非證明被告有罪,否則被告無罪. 這是法律應有之基本精神,雖然冤獄難免,此基本精神下卻可以使冤獄降到最少.

可惜台灣法治似乎愈走愈倒退. 司法改革裡的諸多草案若成立,台灣坐實野蠻社會下所假設的"原罪"假設:除非證明清白,否則被告有(原)罪. 詳見下文明確提到之:The draft law also seems to validate the presumption of guilt. For example, one provision states that not-guilty verdicts in long-running cases should be final if the defendant is found innocent at three separate High Court retrials. What critics rightly wonder is why a defendant should have to be found innocent three times to be acquitted.

這種人權之侵害也呼應自由之家日前剛公佈的結果,台灣總體排名雖然不變,公民自由卻下降.

另一則新聞是前一篇白樂崎反駁季禮芬蘭說裏所提及的.季禮至少犯了兩個假設錯誤:第一個錯誤是假設台灣芬蘭化將促使中國民主化(Gilley’s misplaced assumption is that this process will somehow lead to democratization in China.).第二個錯誤是假設芬蘭當初芬蘭化是志願的,但歷史上實為無可奈何之選擇.也就是說,季禮假設芬蘭化是種自由意志的選項而與魁儡政權不同,但其實芬蘭化卻是毫無選擇後成為一個附庸國 (To start with, the perception that “Finlandization” enjoyed “wide support in Finland at the time.” The question is: did the Finnish people have much of a choice, with the Russian gun pointed at their head?).

最後扯到ECFA. 政府雖已拒絕公投,何不在公佈ECFA架構後,來個正反論辯呢? 當然,一切要符合邏輯,如果僅是另闢戰場似的口水戰就免了.

以下是關於台灣司改愈改愈回去的原文.

------
The backsliding of judicial reform
By Celia Llopis-jepsen 游思麗

Tuesday, Jan 19, 2010, Page 8
You’ve probably heard of the Hsichih Trio. What you probably haven’t heard is that this case and others like it helped precipitate one of the most important judicial reforms in Taiwan’s history — amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2002.

As a result, should you now find yourself to be a defendant in a criminal case, you have rights in presenting your side of the story that the three young men arrested in 1991 did not have.

But those rights are not enough.

A case in point: Even now, a defendant in a civil case that goes to the Supreme Court is entitled to a public defender, but a defendant facing more serious criminal charges — even leading to the death penalty — is not.

There is no justification for this, but there is an explanation. Historically, the courts have presumed defendants in criminal cases to be guilty until proven innocent. Their rights, and the risk of wrongful conviction, were not a concern.

Legal reforms in the past 10 years have tried to change that, but this mentality is reflected in parts of the law to this day.

Last week, Freedom House lowered Taiwan’s civil liberties rating in its annual Freedom in the World report, citing in part the inadequate protection of defendants’ rights in criminal cases, and naming as an example a “high-profile murder case” — perhaps a reference to the Chiou Ho-shun (邱和順) or Hsu Tzu-chiang (徐自強) cases, both of which saw fresh convictions in retrials last year.

Let’s flesh this out a little. What we should say, and the reason Freedom House was right to lower its rating, is that despite a momentous overhaul of the courts eight years ago that was designed to address this problem, the institutional capacity to abuse defendants’ rights remains.

Recent proposals to amend the law further indicate that legal reform may take a turn for the worse. If the proposals from the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan proceed, we should no longer be concerned that reform has slowed; we should worry instead that it may be backsliding. The presumption of guilt seems to be gaining legitimacy again, despite years of efforts to root it out.

In 1999, disgust over cases like the Hsichih Trio came to a head. A landmark National Judicial Reform Congress that had been called to outline steps toward a fairer judiciary proposed divesting judges of their investigative powers and strengthening the position of the defendant in court.

Three years later, amendments to Articles 161 and 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were passed, and with that, Taiwan’s courts adopted a modified adversarial system. Before then, they used an inquisitorial system — often associated with continental Europe — rather than the adversarial system of Britain, the US and other places where English law has left its mark. Taiwan’s system now is a version of the latter.

The difference is this: Judges today are expected to listen impartially and passively to two sides of a case — one presented by the defense, one by the prosecution. (Before 2002, judges played the role of prosecutor, investigating the case themselves. Prosecutors indicted suspects, but did not have to attend court hearings.) The defense, meanwhile, is allowed to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses and question interpretations of forensic evidence.

The spirit of the change was that the prosecution and the defense should enjoy the same status in court and have the same opportunities to make their case, while the judge should not be in direct conflict with the defendant.

The inquisitorial system may work well in some countries, but it was not working well in Taiwan 10 years ago, when the country began mulling these changes.

Taiwan was a young democracy, only recently emerged from the world’s longest period of martial law; a country where judges were not required to have law degrees, but were trained by an authoritarian regime.

The shockingly weak case against the Hsichih Trio, among others, said it all: The courts could not be trusted to dispense even-handed justice.

For this reason, the year 2002 was a victory for judicial reform advocates. But it wasn’t a miracle. Changing the law took Taiwan a few years — but what about changing court culture?

Eight years down the line, defense lawyers are not always on an equal footing with prosecutors, while judges at times may slip out of their redefined roles. And as for the presumption of innocence, there is cause to believe that the Hsichih Trio, Chiou and Hsu are still at trial so many years after their cases began not because they have been proven to be guilty, but because they have not been proven to be innocent.

These are some of the obstacles the judiciary is still struggling with — and now the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Yuan risk making the process even harder.

In October, the Judicial Yuan passed the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act (刑事妥速審判法), which, if approved by the legislature, could prevent defendants who have been wrongfully detained for many years from receiving damages under the Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice Act (冤獄賠償法).

The draft law also seems to validate the presumption of guilt. For example, one provision states that not-guilty verdicts in long-running cases should be final if the defendant is found innocent at three separate High Court retrials. What critics rightly wonder is why a defendant should have to be found innocent three times to be acquitted.

The justice ministry, meanwhile, is mulling changes to the Criminal Code that are no better. These include, but are not limited to:

‧ Restrictions on “inappropriately” publicizing details of court cases (likely to have a chilling effect on journalists, civic groups and lawyers).

‧ Barring lawyers and defendants from “disobeying the orders of judges and prosecutors” or “speaking inappropriate words” to them.

‧ Extending the perjury law to encompass defendants, barring them from “concealing evidence” and threatening lawyers with up to seven years’ prison for abetting perjury.

‧ Barring lawyers from “harassing” witnesses.
(These changes are explained in the Taipei Times reports “MOJ proposal sparks concern among lawyers,” Dec. 18, page 1, and “Bar association attacks MOJ plans,” Jan. 5, page 3.)

The proposal has academics and lawyers crying foul, warning that the amendment would infringe on the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, while intimidating lawyers out of putting together the best possible defense for their client.

Can the defense and prosecution enjoy equal footing if defendants and lawyers are bound under penalty of imprisonment to obey prosecutors’ “orders”?

The justice ministry and Judicial Yuan proposals may not threaten the distinct roles for judges and prosecutors set out under the adversarial system, but they could subvert the spirit of the system by validating the presumption of guilt and weakening defendants’ rights.

Articles 154 and 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure state that every defendant shall be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, that guilt can only be proven through evidence and that absent this evidence, the defendant shall be acquitted.

Ask judicial reform experts what it will take for these principles to be applied consistently in Taiwan’s courts and some of them just shake their heads.

“A new generation of judges” is a common answer.

In other words, progress is not just a matter of changing the law — it takes time, too.

But in the meantime, is it too much to ask that the justice ministry and the Judicial Yuan refrain from making things worse?


Celia Llopis-Jepsen is an editor at the Taipei Times.

轉載: Gilley’s ‘Finlandization’ is wrong (白樂崎:季禮的芬蘭化是錯誤的)(全文中英對照) (updated on 1/25)

前陣子季禮的芬蘭化引起討論.前AIT主席白樂崎對該文提出反駁. 我翻譯後對照中英文全文如下.

另:芬蘭化全文

=update on 1/25==
不是我要說嘴, 這篇文章竟然慢了一整個禮拜才刊出(《白樂崎專欄》 誰說「海峽不太危急」),真有爭取時效的事情的話,一個禮拜都不知道演變成怎樣了! 不過我猜遲到總比不到好? 媒體刊載總是比我這種沒人看自己寫爽的小格張貼有影響力多了!


------
Gilley’s ‘Finlandization’ is wrong

白樂崎:季禮的芬蘭化是錯誤的
By Nat Bellocchi

Monday, Jan 18, 2010, Page 8

The relations between Taiwan, the US and China have given rise to many an academic analysis. This is understandable and even laudable: The network of relations is complex and is open to various interpretations and insights. Many past treatises have made valuable contributions to the understanding of developments between the three countries.

台灣,美國與中國之間的關係引發許多學術分析.這不但是可以了解甚至是值得嘉勉的:(國際)關係組成的網路複雜,容許各種解讀與見解. 過去已有許多論文幫助我們了解這三個國家之間關係的發展.

However, once every so often an academic publishes an analysis that is so far removed from reality that it would be dismissed out of hand for its lack of understanding and its outright naivite. Bruce Gilley’s article, titled “Not So Dire Straits” — published in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs (January/February 2010) — is such a work.

然而,偶爾會有或是缺乏對現實的了解,亦或是過於天真而有偏離現實的學術研究發表,我們大可以忽略此類不切實際的發表.季禮發表在國際事務(Foreign Affairs)一二月刊,標題為"不再迫切的台灣海峽"就屬此類.

Gilley’s basic thesis is that the present “rapprochement” between Taiwan and China opens the way for the “Finlandization” of Taiwan, and for the US to allow Taiwan to move from the present US strategic orbit towards China’s sphere of influence. Gilley’s misplaced assumption is that this process will somehow lead to democratization in China.

季禮的根本主張是台灣與中國間的和解打開台灣芬蘭化的這條通路,如此一來美國可允許台灣離開美國戰略軸心繼而往中國靠攏.季禮錯誤的假設台灣芬蘭化的過程將促使中國民主化.

Gilley’s misconceptions are multiple, so in a brief essay like this one can only touch on a few major points.

季禮的錯誤認知不僅於此,本文將簡短談論幾個重點.

To start with, the perception that “Finlandization” enjoyed “wide support in Finland at the time.” The question is: did the Finnish people have much of a choice, with the Russian gun pointed at their head?

首先是關於"芬蘭化"受到"當時多數芬蘭人的廣泛支持"的觀點,問題是:當俄羅斯以槍桿對準他們(芬蘭人)的頭,芬蘭人能有多少選擇?

A second general point is one of historical accuracy: Gilley writes that in 1949 “Taiwan and mainland China became separate political entities.” The truth of the matter is that Taiwan — as a Japanese colony — had been a separate entity for some 50 years, while before that period the influence of the Chinese imperial governments on the island was minimal at best.

第二(個錯誤)是關於歷史正確性:季禮寫到,在1949年"台灣和中國成為兩個獨立的政治實體". 事實是台灣,一個日本殖民地,中國清朝對台灣的影響即使在日本殖民那五十年前也非常小,如果真有任何影響可言.

The problem arose when the defeated Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was driven out of China and landed in Taiwan, treating it like occupied territory. It is also incorrect to say “most of the international community came to accept Beijing’s claim to territorial sovereignty over Taiwan.” This was only the case for pro-Beijing regimes of the likes of Zimbabwe and the Sudan. The US and other Western nations only “noted” or “acknowledged” Beijing’s claims, but took the position that it remained an unresolved issue, and that the island’s future needed to be determined in accordance with the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty.

問題在於戰敗的國民黨撤退到台灣,把台灣是為自己的土地進而佔領. (季禮)所謂的"國際社會大致上已接受北京政府宣稱對台擁有主權"的說法也不正確. 這僅對親中政權如辛巴威與蘇丹而言.美國與其他西方國家僅僅"注意"或是"承認"北京有此宣稱,但對此採取"有待解決"的立場,而且台灣的未來也必須以符合1952年舊金山合約的方式解決.

But the most serious fallacy of the article is that it posits that a Chamberlain-like appeasement of China on the Taiwan issue will somehow democratize and pacify a rising China rather than embolden it. That is a fundamental misconception: Repressive regimes are never mollified by concessions; it only increases their appetite.

但最嚴重的謬誤在於該文裡提議在台灣議題上對中國採取一種類似內務,姑息靖綏主義的方將或多或少促進民主,安撫興起中的中國而不會促使北京更加大膽妄為. 這是個根本的錯誤: 退讓從不會安撫高壓政權,相反的,(姑息)只會讓中國食髓知味(它胃口更大). (按:在季禮芬蘭化一文中提到:Finlandization posed a direct challenge to the dominant realist logic of the Cold War, which held that concessions to Soviet power were likely to feed Moscow's appetite for expansion."芬蘭化對冷戰實務派提出一種直接的挑戰:該派認為對蘇聯的妥協只會讓莫斯科的胃口更大").

It would be a fundamental error to sacrifice the hard-won achievements of a vibrant and democratic Taiwan and let it drift into an uncertain, fuzzy “principled neutrality.”

犧牲得來不易的民主台灣,讓它向不確定地,含糊的原則性中立靠攏將是個根本的錯誤.

Gilley wants us to believe that there is a distinction between this “Finland-style” status and “cowering acquiescence” as he calls it. An authoritarian power like China is hardly likely to be bothered by such finessing, and will remove any opposition to its rule; Tibet and East Turkestan are rather illustrative examples.

季禮要我們相信(志願性的)芬蘭化(Finland-style status)與(非志願性的)魁儡政權之間有所不同.極權國家如中國才懶得區分這種不同,並且會移除不利其政權的任何異議.圖博(西藏)與東土耳其斯坦(新疆)就是最好的例證.
(按:關於芬蘭化與魁儡政權之不同,見原文:Mouritzen stressed the fundamental difference between a Finlandized regime and a client, or "puppet," state, explaining that the former makes some concessions to a larger neighbor in order to guarantee important elements of its independence -- voluntary choices that the latter could never make.Mouritzen強調芬蘭化(Finalized)的政權與魁儡政權之間根本的差異在於:前者志願性的選擇對一個強大的鄰國讓步以換取獨立,後者則是毫無自主選擇權.)

Gilley also argues that China’s claims to Taiwan may be less motivated “nationalism and … a broader national discourse of humiliation and weakness,” and more by a geostrategic rationale: By virtue of its location, Taiwan has strategic importance, and by bringing it into its sphere of influence it could enhance its ability to project its naval power, and thereby exert its influence in the Western Pacific.

季禮還宣稱,中國宣稱擁有台灣並不是出自於民族主義的理由,而是基於地理位置鄰近使然: 就地理位置來看,台灣具戰略重要性,將台灣納入將強化中國在西太平洋的海軍與影響力.

On this point he is correct: Taiwan has tremendous strategic importance, not only for Japan and South Korea, but also for US interests in the East Asia and Pacific region. And this is precisely the reason why it was most wise for the US to stand by Taiwan in recently offering it anti-missile technology.

在這點上季禮是正確的:台灣在戰略上非常重要,不只是對日韓而言,對美國在東亞與太平洋利益而言亦然. 正因此,美國更應該固守立場,美國最近提供台灣飛彈防禦系統最為明智之舉.

From the perspective of the Taiwanese, a drift in China’s direction would mean a loss of the freedom and democracy they worked so hard to achieve. US credibility around the world — and particularly in East Asia — does depend on its adherence to the basic principles for which we stand. Allowing a free and democratic Taiwan to slide into the sphere of influence of an authoritarian China is not acceptable.

從台灣的角度還看,傾中意味著喪失得來不易的自由與民主.美國在世界,特別在東亞的信譽在於堅守基本立場.允許台灣向集權中國靠攏是不可接受的.

Thus, instead of “Finlandization” of Taiwan, the US should pursue a policy of stronger engagement with Taiwan by helping the country defend itself against a belligerent neighbor, and by signing a free-trade agreement to strengthen US economic and political ties with that democratic nation. Only by bringing Taiwan into the international family of nations, can real stability in East Asia be achieved.

因此,與其讓台灣芬蘭化,美國應該更積極介入,以幫助台灣防衛以對抗它的好戰的鄰近強國(指中國)的方式,以簽署自由貿易協定的方式來加強台灣與美國的政經關係.為有讓台灣參予國際社會才能讓東亞地區情勢穩固.

Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.

==update on 1/20==
這裡有其他反駁芬蘭說意見的幾個連結.
Taking path of Finland could leave Taiwan cold By Chen Yi-nan 陳逸南
Forget Finland, think Hong Kong By Huang Chih-ta 黃致達 Wednesday, Jan 13, 2010, Page 8
THE LIBERTY TIMES EDITORIAL: Taiwan must uphold sovereignty Monday, Jan 04, 2010, Page 8

[轉載]Move to Replace Taiwan Editor Spurs Talk(中時撤換總編引發討論) (updated)

前一陣子中國C咖與台灣A咖說相關的報導,影響所及是旺旺報的總編夏珍被撤換. 本來我對這新聞沒什麼太大興趣的,不過另外兩則新聞讓(Google威脅退出中國市場,與自由之家公佈世界年度報告)我決定把WSJ這篇文章貼出來.本來台灣一個小報(以市佔率來看)換總編沒什麼大不了的,但因為和中國這個強權國家關聯下,這種新聞還引起WSJ專文報導.

更進一步講,姑且不論真相為何,Google因為厭倦於中國政府審查或其他要求,或其他壓力,揚言退出中國市場.這其他壓力,據悉是中國政府要求Google提供維權人士的帳號等,Google表示這與他們堅持的理念不和,表示不惜退出. 同樣是言論自由,旺旺報和Google的作法有天壤之別.

其次,前一天自由之家才剛公佈年度報告.台灣的縱和評比不變,依然是自由國家.中國也還是不自由國家. 不過一月份公佈的只是全世界的排名,接下來五月份要公佈的是媒體自由的部份,值得關注.去年的報告在此. 另一個值得觀察的是最近公視的變化. 這裡有一些最近事件演化的文章.

再則,在Richard Kagan的公開信裡也提到,台灣急於和中國和解,但卻忽略了中國這個是個最不自由的國家會帶給台灣怎樣的影響,而只是片面地引用有利數據來辯白而已. 詳見第四段.

其實旺旺報引起的關注早在去年易手之際就開始,IFJ也曾報導關切. 因此,除了五月份自由之家即將公佈的媒體自由外,七月份各國的報告也值得關切.

以下.

------
Move to Replace Taiwan Editor Spurs Talk, January 11, 2010

About two weeks after one of Taiwan’s leading newspapers, the China Times, published a front-page story that called China’s envoy to Taiwan a “C-list politician,” the paper’s editor-in-chief was replaced.

The newspaper said the replacement was a routine rotation. However, it fueled talk at the paper and at the island’s other publications that the move was spurred by anger in China over the story and that it was another sign of China’s increasing clout in Taiwan.

Hsia Chen, former editor in chief of the China Times, had been running the newspaper since early 2008. Later that year, a Hong Kong-listed rice-cracker manufacturer, Want Want China Holding Ltd., acquired it. Tsai Eng-meng, chairman of Want Want, decided to replace Ms. Hsia late last week, according to the paper’s staff.

Tsai, a Taiwanese businessman who has been running business in China for two decades, is well-known for his pro-China position. Since he took the China Times reins, he has publicly reiterated that his newspapers are not supposed to criticize Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou, his administration and the Chinese government. Last August, he further founded a tabloid, the Want Daily, in Taiwan to promote China to the island’s readers.

Since the summer of 2009, Tsai has been complaining that the paper’s news pages are not supportive enough of the governments of Taiwan and China, according to some employees at the paper. In September, the paper’s front-page coverage of the visit of Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama, whom China considers an enemy, specifically sparked Tsai’s anger, according to some of the paper’s reporters, who declined to be identified. The paper eventually decreased the quantity of reports about the spiritual leader’s visit and moved such coverage to inside pages.
“Our main guideline is about promoting the cross-Strait [Taiwan-China] peaceful development,” said Wang Chuo-chong, editor of the China’s Times China page.

Rumors about Hsia’s replacement had been circulating internally for months, the paper’s reporters and editors said. On Dec 26, a report on the paper’s front page quoted an anonymous official of Taiwan’s semiofficial negotiation organization, Strait Exchange Foundation, as saying that the scenario of three Taiwan political heavyweights trying to meet with China’s visiting negotiation envoy, Chen Yunlin, was like “the A-list politician versus the C-list,” with Chen representing the “C-list.” Beijing’s anger over the news story led to Tsai’s decision to replace Hsia, other local publications reported.

The newspaper denied the speculation. Hsia said in an email to staff last week, “There have been lots of speculation about this replacement. It is difficult for me to comment on why this happened.”

Hsia is exchanging her position with Wang Mei-yu, chief editor of China Times’ subsidiary weekly magazine, the China Times Weekly. After the shift , some of the daily newspaper’s reporters said they would censor themselves when they write about China.

“From now on, I believe everyone would be extra careful about China coverage,” said a staff reporter of the paper, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

–Ting-I Tsai