這篇雖然是從國際關係還講,最後還是扯上民主才是台灣的"軟實力". 可惜馬政府似乎不這麼認為.此外,馬政府鄙夷(trash)的扁政府金錢外交,最後他自己卻還是得用這種自己宣稱鄙夷的方式"威脅"尼國政府才"贏回"尊嚴. 最經典的是,文章最後一段提到,一個自降國格,屈就於中國懷抱,不承認自己是獨立國家,哪來尊嚴?
友台轉載的是台灣,民主,與宏國政變有更直接的措辭,有興趣者請前往.
----------
Ma's Taiwan lords over weak allies
Taiwan News
Page 6
2009-07-06 01:53 AM
President Ma Ying-jeou's just concluded "Lasting Amity" diplomatic mission both displayed the inability of his restored Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) government to grasp the depth of revulsion in democratic Latin America to the military coup in Honduras and the martinet-like arrogance of Taiwan's "professional" diplomats.
Ironically, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega of the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the crisis in Honduras figured in both phenomenon.
It should hardly be surprising that Ortega's Sandinista government is deeply concerned over the worsening political crisis in Honduras since the ouster and exile of democratically elected (if politically inept) President Jose Manuel Zelaya by a military coup June 28.
After all, for a decade after the Sandinista revolution of July 1979 that ended over four decades of the corrupt father and son Somoza dictatorship, the Honduras border area was the staging ground for a bitter covert war launched by pro-Somoza "counter-revolutionaries" or "contras" organized secretly by the United States Reagan administration and financed by many countries, ironically including both Taiwan under the (then) rabidly anti-Communist KMT regime under the late autocrat Chiang Ching-kuo and its then foe, the Chinese Communist Party-ruled People's Republic of China.
Ortega and the FSLN government are especially concerned with the possible restoration of military government in Honduras and the strong likelihood that such a regime would resume a nationalistic position on border issues to divert public attention from internal regressions in civic and political rights and news freedom.
Just before Ma's arrival July 3 after a three-day visit to Panama City for the inaugural of new Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli, Ortega was struck a personal body blow with the apparent suicide of FSLN Managua City Mayor Alexis Arquella and was unable to welcome the Taiwan president upon his arrival at Managua International Airport Friday morning due to Arquella's funeral.
Despite the overarching preoccupations of the Honduran crisis and the death of his close friend and probable political successor, Ortega met with Ma and other Taiwan officials shortly after their arrival at the Presidential House and later personally drove his Taiwan counterpart to an agricultural exhibition in Mastege, southwest of Managua, that showcased the fruits of Taiwan agricultural technical and management assistance in combatting rural poverty.
While Nicaraguan leader brought smiles to Ma's face with lavish praise and undeserved gratitude for projects mostly initiated under previous Taiwan leaders, Ortega committed, in the eyes of Taiwan martinets, an unforgivable slight by failing to appear at the official state banquet that evening.
Flexing the muscles
Before the reasons for this egregious violation of protocol were discerned, Taiwan diplomats demanded that Ortega both explain and apologize or else face the cancellation of an important US$3.7 million "Microfer" commercial training and exhibition facility funded mainly by Taiwan as an incubator of creative "micro-entrepreneurship and sustainable employment.
In the event, Ortega called the Taiwan ambassador to Nicaragua in the wee hours Saturday to explain that his absence was caused by emergency developments in the Honduran crisis and Zelaya's sudden arrival and offered effusive apologies for missing Friday's fete.
The Sandinista leader repeated these explanations and apologies in to Ma privately Saturday morning and publicly at a noon overseas Taiwanese banquet.
Taiwan government sources boasted that such a display of "firmness" in the defense of "dignity" for "maltreatment" at the hands of diplomatic partners was "inconceivable" under the former Democratic Progressive Party administration of Chen Shui-bian because the latter's intense international struggle with Beijing left Taipei at the mercy of its smaller and usually poorer allies.
However, such charges have only partial validity and fall short of "proving" that this diplomatic "triumph" resulted from Ma's truce with the PRC and a resulting "buyer's market" for diplomatic allies.
The gap between the Chen and Ma eras actually lies in the divergent priorities of a grassroots president and party which, for all of its faults, was rooted in the common people and did not define "dignity" in terms of aristocratic protocol but in terms of mutual respect and justice and a restored caste of martinets with a dualistic mentality accustomed to bullying the weak and cravenly kowtows to the strong, now defined as the PRC.
Ortega's regret may have been sincere, but thanks to the decision by Taiwan diplomats to jump on their high horses, it is difficult to be certain whether he apologized out of ordinary courtesy or was forced to do so because of Taipei's implied willingness to trash an assistance project and thus harm his people or even risk a rupture in ties over a missed meal.
We find little for Taiwan to be proud about in this "triumph" while the same KMT government has trashed Taiwan's genuine dignity itself by denying that Taiwan is an independent state and accepting a status as a client state in all but name under PRC suzerainty.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
轉載: Lu tells media in US of the perils Taiwan is facing
Former vice president Annette Lu talks during a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington on Thursday. In her talk, Lu called on US President Barack Obama to stop encouraging Taiwan into leaning further toward China and that he should pay attention to the potential dangers Taiwan faces.
這篇雖然不算外電,但是呂前副總統在美國華府的相關新聞, 原來的活動(Prospects for Taiwan's Future)是FAPA贊助,假The National Press Club所舉行.
轉載如下
-------------
Lu tells media in US of the perils Taiwan is facing
‘STEP BY STEP’:: The former vice president told news outlets in the US that the nation was steadily being turned into Chinese Taipei by Ma’s pro-China policies
By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER , WASHINGTON
Saturday, Jul 04, 2009, Page 3
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) said in Washington on Thursday that “step by step and day by day” Taiwan was being changed into Chinese Taipei.
There was a danger, she said, that Taiwan would lose its democracy and become a province of China.
She said that under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-China policies, the country could be cooked like a frog in gradually heating water until it is eventually “Hong Kong-ized” and eaten up by Beijing.
In a speech entitled “Prospects for Taiwan’s Future: All Options Open,” Lu told a conference at the National Press Club that while foreign observers were delighted by what they perceived as a decrease in tensions across the Taiwan Strait and an increase in stability, Taiwan had made compromises that were too deep and too large.
She said that agreements with China had excited some, but that others saw them as a trap arranged under China’s united front policy.
Lu did not meet with politicians or think tanks during the Washington visit but held talks with a number of leading US newspapers.
She said that she was now concentrating on her role as founder and publisher of the weekly Formosa Post and that while she remained a member of the DPP, she had no plans to run for political office.
Lu said she was confused by the many accusations against former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and that she only hoped he would receive a fair and open trial.
She recalled that she had been a victim of the old political system and did not want to see the courts abused again.
A short biography handed out by her aides read: “In a 1979 rally commemorating International Human Rights Day, she gave a 20-minute speech urging the then-Chinese Nationalist government to embrace democracy and improve human rights. Her speech landed her a 12-year sentence in jail. She was released in 1985 because of intense international pressure.”
Before DPP leaders go to China, she said, there needed to be four vital rules in place: There should be no preconditions set by Beijing; all aspects of the visit should be transparent; there should be no secret deals and those going should have no self interests involved.
Lastly, Lu urged all Americans to pay close attention to what was happening in Taiwan “before it is too late” and before pro-China policies “undermine the stability and strength” of the country.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
轉載: Police accountability on trial (updated)
這篇社論講警察濫權引發的憂慮,特別是在集會遊行法修改後,警察被賦予權力停止任何看來有很能引爆衝突的示威抗議.
集會遊行本為民主社會下人民的一種權利,從陳雲林期間的多場警民衝突以來,到民眾提起自訴但遭警察機關試圖拖延司法偵查等(例如說無法確定是哪位警察涉及傷民,詳見下面原文提到警察機構一直到立委召開記者會後才配合司法偵查),無一不令人擔憂. 這是陳來台期間引起的警民衝突,當時國際特赦組織還發文呼籲警察勿濫用暴力
事實上與此同時令人擔憂的還有檢察官濫權的行為. 從謝清志的案例到郭瑤琪的案例都顯示著
之前我提過了,這種外部性不經濟,最好能夠內部化來解決以提高效率.最近世界銀行公佈得知台灣政府效能大退步,也許這些都是原因之一.
以下原文轉貼.
-----
Police accountability on trialWednesday, Jul 01, 2009, Page 8
When Taipei City police were accused last week of hindering a lawsuit over their response to protests in November, it wasn’t the first indication that there would be difficulties in substantiating police abuse of powers. Still, more than six months after Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan — and the demonstrations that the visit sparked — some of the complaints of protesters have reached court.
Taipei police have been accused of using excessive force against demonstrators and violating their freedom of expression during Chen’s visit.
Following that visit, the Judicial Reform Foundation helped members of the public with complaints against the police to take action, filing several lawsuits on their behalf. More lawsuits have been filed independently. Last week, three criminal cases opened at the Taipei District Court concerning the allegations against the police.
On Wednesday, the foundation expressed concern that the Taipei City Police Department might be shielding officers from court scrutiny. In a case concerning the police force’s response to protests outside the Grand Formosa Regent on Nov. 5, the department told the Taipei District Court it could not identify officers shown in photographs taken during the clash.
The group said that police departments elsewhere in the country had cooperated in similar lawsuits, identifying officers in photographs that had been provided to the court.
The question is whether political pressure or pressure within the police force to protect colleagues is hindering the judicial process. In an unexpected twist, after the foundation held a press conference with Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英), the Taipei Police Department said that it would identify the officers in the photographs.
If the threat of bad publicity is needed to ensure the cooperation of police departments, then there is every reason for concern.
After last week’s complaint by the foundation and the police department’s apparent turnaround on identifying the officers, it should be clear that any obstructions that hamper proceedings will attract attention and be acted on.
However, activists worry that it is easier for the police to seek redress in cases of clashes between officers and protesters. Significantly, the perception that taking legal action against police is exceedingly difficult has been a primary complaint of civic groups who oppose a Cabinet-proposed amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). The amendment would allow police to stop protests that they deem to be a threat to public security — but opponents say there is potential for abuse.
In April, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office said it would not indict former Beitou Precinct chief Lee Han-ching (李漢卿) — now the head of Shilin Precinct — who was in charge during an incident at Sunrise Records on Nov. 4 in which the store was ordered closed for reasons that were possibly outside police authority. The decision not to send the case to court drew criticism from civic groups and may lend credence to their concerns.
Limits on police power are an integral part of a democracy. For this reason, the three trials now in motion will be a gauge of police accountability. Fair and unobstructed proceedings will be necessary to dispel reasonable doubts on the safety of the verdicts.
---
延伸閱讀
檢察官無法管?
檢察官也有感慨
集會遊行本為民主社會下人民的一種權利,從陳雲林期間的多場警民衝突以來,到民眾提起自訴但遭警察機關試圖拖延司法偵查等(例如說無法確定是哪位警察涉及傷民,詳見下面原文提到警察機構一直到立委召開記者會後才配合司法偵查),無一不令人擔憂. 這是陳來台期間引起的警民衝突,當時國際特赦組織還發文呼籲警察勿濫用暴力
事實上與此同時令人擔憂的還有檢察官濫權的行為. 從謝清志的案例到郭瑤琪的案例都顯示著
之前我提過了,這種外部性不經濟,最好能夠內部化來解決以提高效率.最近世界銀行公佈得知台灣政府效能大退步,也許這些都是原因之一.
以下原文轉貼.
-----
Police accountability on trialWednesday, Jul 01, 2009, Page 8
When Taipei City police were accused last week of hindering a lawsuit over their response to protests in November, it wasn’t the first indication that there would be difficulties in substantiating police abuse of powers. Still, more than six months after Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan — and the demonstrations that the visit sparked — some of the complaints of protesters have reached court.
Taipei police have been accused of using excessive force against demonstrators and violating their freedom of expression during Chen’s visit.
Following that visit, the Judicial Reform Foundation helped members of the public with complaints against the police to take action, filing several lawsuits on their behalf. More lawsuits have been filed independently. Last week, three criminal cases opened at the Taipei District Court concerning the allegations against the police.
On Wednesday, the foundation expressed concern that the Taipei City Police Department might be shielding officers from court scrutiny. In a case concerning the police force’s response to protests outside the Grand Formosa Regent on Nov. 5, the department told the Taipei District Court it could not identify officers shown in photographs taken during the clash.
The group said that police departments elsewhere in the country had cooperated in similar lawsuits, identifying officers in photographs that had been provided to the court.
The question is whether political pressure or pressure within the police force to protect colleagues is hindering the judicial process. In an unexpected twist, after the foundation held a press conference with Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Huang Sue-ying (黃淑英), the Taipei Police Department said that it would identify the officers in the photographs.
If the threat of bad publicity is needed to ensure the cooperation of police departments, then there is every reason for concern.
After last week’s complaint by the foundation and the police department’s apparent turnaround on identifying the officers, it should be clear that any obstructions that hamper proceedings will attract attention and be acted on.
However, activists worry that it is easier for the police to seek redress in cases of clashes between officers and protesters. Significantly, the perception that taking legal action against police is exceedingly difficult has been a primary complaint of civic groups who oppose a Cabinet-proposed amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). The amendment would allow police to stop protests that they deem to be a threat to public security — but opponents say there is potential for abuse.
In April, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office said it would not indict former Beitou Precinct chief Lee Han-ching (李漢卿) — now the head of Shilin Precinct — who was in charge during an incident at Sunrise Records on Nov. 4 in which the store was ordered closed for reasons that were possibly outside police authority. The decision not to send the case to court drew criticism from civic groups and may lend credence to their concerns.
Limits on police power are an integral part of a democracy. For this reason, the three trials now in motion will be a gauge of police accountability. Fair and unobstructed proceedings will be necessary to dispel reasonable doubts on the safety of the verdicts.
---
延伸閱讀
檢察官無法管?
檢察官也有感慨
Saturday, June 27, 2009
轉載: Lesson in Integrity for All
這是舊文了,不過這個lesson到現在依然還沒被學會.尤其老愛把此馬比彼馬的,怎麼看都是愈比愈不像啊!
--------
Lesson in Integrity for All
Author: Jerome A. Cohen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies
April 18, 2009
South China Morning Post
The media on the mainland and in Taiwan took little note of last week's sensational federal court decision in Washington that voided the criminal corruption conviction of former US senator Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in American history.
Yet the case has profound implications for efforts on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to stamp out corruption while fostering a rule of law based on the adversarial system of criminal justice.
In recent years, Taiwan has made great strides in adapting the Anglo-American adversarial trial, minus the jury, to local conditions, and the mainland has been slowly moving in that direction, at least in principle. The adversarial system is based on equal combat between prosecutors and defence counsel before a neutral court. Their combat is governed by rules designed to promote fairness and accuracy.
One rule required by the US Constitution since the Supreme Court's 1963 Brady decision is that the prosecution, which generally has more resources for gathering evidence than the defence, must turn over to the defence information in its possession that is likely to benefit the defence. Although the degree of transparency required by this rule is subject to debate, withholding significant evidence is a major ethical breach that can result in setting aside a conviction.
This is what just happened in United States vs Stevens, a case that had been brought by the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice (DOJ) under president George W. Bush's administration, which handles official corruption prosecutions. It was tried, at Senator Stevens' request, shortly before last November's federal election, and his conviction may well have caused his defeat in a close contest.
Several times during the trial, Judge Emmet Sullivan, prompted by dynamic defence counsel, reprimanded prosecutors for withholding evidence, and sought to remedy any damage to the defence. However, in February, a new prosecution team selected to work on the case by President Barack Obama's new attorney general, Eric Holder, discovered yet another failure by its predecessors to reveal evidence - evidence that would have undermined the credibility of the government's key witness. At that point, Mr Holder, who had served in the Public Integrity Section decades ago, asked the court to void the conviction and announced that all charges against Senator Stevens would be dropped.
Judge Sullivan, formerly a successful trial lawyer, not only complied with the government's request but, after excoriating the DOJ's handling of the case, took the extraordinary step of appointing an independent lawyer to serve as special prosecutor to investigate whether six of the prosecutors should be held in criminal contempt of court for their repeated, and admitted, mistakes. Although the DOJ had already asked its Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the misconduct, the judge's loss of confidence in the integrity of the Public Integrity Section led him to insist on an independent investigation.
Why is this story relevant to the mainland and Taiwan? It illustrates one of the worst dangers of prosecution in every country. It also shows two of the safeguards that the adversarial system maintains against this danger. First, able defence lawyers had full access to their client, who was not detained pending trial, and they had the freedom and funds to conduct their own investigation and pursue aggressive courtroom challenges.
Second, an experienced judge had the independence and confidence to denounce the misconduct of a public integrity section that had failed to live up to its name.
The case also illustrates the importance of having a justice department chief courageous enough to repudiate his staff's misconduct, replace the offending prosecutors, initiate an investigation and drop the charges.
Finally, what does this sad tale tell us about the relationship between politics and criminal justice? We should note that it was the Republican Bush administration that prosecuted Republican Senator Stevens. Perhaps it wanted to be seen to be suppressing corruption as the federal election approached.
For the Democratic Obama administration, the decision to repudiate the Stevens conviction may have been easier, even though it cast doubt on the loss of Senator Stevens' seat. It reminded the public of the Bush administration's well-known distortions of the law and of President Obama's determination to restore America's reputation for supporting human rights. In the present US political climate, reaffirmation of fairness, justice and the constitution is good politics.
Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU Law School's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A fuller version of this article can be found at www.usasialaw.org.
This article appears in full on CFR.org by permission of its original publisher. It was originally available here
-------
延伸閱讀:
Jerome A. Cohen, Ma Ying-jeou's Mentor, Again Highlights the Erosion of Justice in Taiwan
--------
Lesson in Integrity for All
Author: Jerome A. Cohen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies
April 18, 2009
South China Morning Post
The media on the mainland and in Taiwan took little note of last week's sensational federal court decision in Washington that voided the criminal corruption conviction of former US senator Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in American history.
Yet the case has profound implications for efforts on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to stamp out corruption while fostering a rule of law based on the adversarial system of criminal justice.
In recent years, Taiwan has made great strides in adapting the Anglo-American adversarial trial, minus the jury, to local conditions, and the mainland has been slowly moving in that direction, at least in principle. The adversarial system is based on equal combat between prosecutors and defence counsel before a neutral court. Their combat is governed by rules designed to promote fairness and accuracy.
One rule required by the US Constitution since the Supreme Court's 1963 Brady decision is that the prosecution, which generally has more resources for gathering evidence than the defence, must turn over to the defence information in its possession that is likely to benefit the defence. Although the degree of transparency required by this rule is subject to debate, withholding significant evidence is a major ethical breach that can result in setting aside a conviction.
This is what just happened in United States vs Stevens, a case that had been brought by the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice (DOJ) under president George W. Bush's administration, which handles official corruption prosecutions. It was tried, at Senator Stevens' request, shortly before last November's federal election, and his conviction may well have caused his defeat in a close contest.
Several times during the trial, Judge Emmet Sullivan, prompted by dynamic defence counsel, reprimanded prosecutors for withholding evidence, and sought to remedy any damage to the defence. However, in February, a new prosecution team selected to work on the case by President Barack Obama's new attorney general, Eric Holder, discovered yet another failure by its predecessors to reveal evidence - evidence that would have undermined the credibility of the government's key witness. At that point, Mr Holder, who had served in the Public Integrity Section decades ago, asked the court to void the conviction and announced that all charges against Senator Stevens would be dropped.
Judge Sullivan, formerly a successful trial lawyer, not only complied with the government's request but, after excoriating the DOJ's handling of the case, took the extraordinary step of appointing an independent lawyer to serve as special prosecutor to investigate whether six of the prosecutors should be held in criminal contempt of court for their repeated, and admitted, mistakes. Although the DOJ had already asked its Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the misconduct, the judge's loss of confidence in the integrity of the Public Integrity Section led him to insist on an independent investigation.
Why is this story relevant to the mainland and Taiwan? It illustrates one of the worst dangers of prosecution in every country. It also shows two of the safeguards that the adversarial system maintains against this danger. First, able defence lawyers had full access to their client, who was not detained pending trial, and they had the freedom and funds to conduct their own investigation and pursue aggressive courtroom challenges.
Second, an experienced judge had the independence and confidence to denounce the misconduct of a public integrity section that had failed to live up to its name.
The case also illustrates the importance of having a justice department chief courageous enough to repudiate his staff's misconduct, replace the offending prosecutors, initiate an investigation and drop the charges.
Finally, what does this sad tale tell us about the relationship between politics and criminal justice? We should note that it was the Republican Bush administration that prosecuted Republican Senator Stevens. Perhaps it wanted to be seen to be suppressing corruption as the federal election approached.
For the Democratic Obama administration, the decision to repudiate the Stevens conviction may have been easier, even though it cast doubt on the loss of Senator Stevens' seat. It reminded the public of the Bush administration's well-known distortions of the law and of President Obama's determination to restore America's reputation for supporting human rights. In the present US political climate, reaffirmation of fairness, justice and the constitution is good politics.
Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU Law School's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A fuller version of this article can be found at www.usasialaw.org.
This article appears in full on CFR.org by permission of its original publisher. It was originally available here
-------
延伸閱讀:
Jerome A. Cohen, Ma Ying-jeou's Mentor, Again Highlights the Erosion of Justice in Taiwan
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
轉載: China Times Group Takeover Raises Press Freedom Concerns (中時集團轉手引發新聞自由的關注)
最近陸續看到關於旺旺報的一些新聞, 因為我很久沒看中時了,所以也沒特別注意到底是怎麼回事. 今天發現這篇由國際記協發出的新聞稿, 轉載如下,大抵是呼籲旺旺集團應該要秉持新聞自由與媒體獨立的精神來經營中時. 人名的中譯是我加的...
--------
China Times Group Takeover Raises Press Freedom Concerns
Jun22, 2009
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) stands in solidarity with its affiliate, the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ), and members of Taiwan’s independent media in demanding that the new owners of Taiwan’s largest media syndicate, China Times Group, make a public commitment to press freedom and media independence.
Taiwan’s media regulatory body, the National Communications Council (NCC), announced a conditional approval on May 27 of the takeover of the China Times Group by the Want Want Group, after a series of public hearings. Want Want Group is chaired by Taiwan businessman Tsai-Eng-ming, who owns a food products conglomerate largely based in China.
On June 12, the owners of the Want Want China Times Group sent legal notifications to several journalists and office-holders in media rights organisations threatening to sue them for any critical reporting of the takeover. Recipients included Media Watch chairman Kuan Chung-Hsiang (管中祥), ATJ President Chuang Feng-Chia (莊豐嘉) and Wealth magazine editor Tien Hsi-Ju (田習如).
More than 30 media reform and human rights organisations and more than 400 news media workers in Taiwan have signed a petition, “News media is not the tool of bosses”, condemning the takeover. The petition also condemns advertisements published in the group’s flagship newspaper, China Times, accusing the NCC of abuse of power. The advertisements reportedly included photos of three NCC members in a “most wanted” format.
The NCC’s decision imposed five rulings for conditions of operation of the Want Want China Times Group. These include reappointing board members of two major television stations owned by Want Want China Times Group, China Television Co (CTV) and the Chinese Nationalist Party-operated CTI; assurance of independence for the board of directors of both TV stations; separate advertising, sales and programming departments; and the establishment of an “ethics commission” and regularly published “self-discipline” reports on their respective websites.
Signatories to the ATJ-led petition voiced concern that the group’s response to critical commentary and NCC regulation indicated a lack of commitment to news media professionalism and independence. “The dignity and professional autonomy of news media employees cannot be sacrificed and news workers cannot be treated as sales personnel or given orders on what news to report or what to write,” the petition said.
"The Want Want China Times Group’s attempts to intimidate journalists, public commentators and NCC personnel call into question its attitude and commitment to freedom of expression and the value of independent voices in Taiwan,” IFJ Asia-Pacific Director Jacqueline Park said. “The group needs to recognise that the role of an independent media in a democracy is to provide a diversity of information, news and analysis, and that media business employees must be able to provide this public good without fear of intimidation and legal action.”
The IFJ joins the ATJ and petition signatories in calling on the owners of the Want Want China Times Group not to override the press freedom standards set by both the NCC and the independent reporting community in Taiwan.
For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919
--------
China Times Group Takeover Raises Press Freedom Concerns
Jun22, 2009
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) stands in solidarity with its affiliate, the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ), and members of Taiwan’s independent media in demanding that the new owners of Taiwan’s largest media syndicate, China Times Group, make a public commitment to press freedom and media independence.
Taiwan’s media regulatory body, the National Communications Council (NCC), announced a conditional approval on May 27 of the takeover of the China Times Group by the Want Want Group, after a series of public hearings. Want Want Group is chaired by Taiwan businessman Tsai-Eng-ming, who owns a food products conglomerate largely based in China.
On June 12, the owners of the Want Want China Times Group sent legal notifications to several journalists and office-holders in media rights organisations threatening to sue them for any critical reporting of the takeover. Recipients included Media Watch chairman Kuan Chung-Hsiang (管中祥), ATJ President Chuang Feng-Chia (莊豐嘉) and Wealth magazine editor Tien Hsi-Ju (田習如).
More than 30 media reform and human rights organisations and more than 400 news media workers in Taiwan have signed a petition, “News media is not the tool of bosses”, condemning the takeover. The petition also condemns advertisements published in the group’s flagship newspaper, China Times, accusing the NCC of abuse of power. The advertisements reportedly included photos of three NCC members in a “most wanted” format.
The NCC’s decision imposed five rulings for conditions of operation of the Want Want China Times Group. These include reappointing board members of two major television stations owned by Want Want China Times Group, China Television Co (CTV) and the Chinese Nationalist Party-operated CTI; assurance of independence for the board of directors of both TV stations; separate advertising, sales and programming departments; and the establishment of an “ethics commission” and regularly published “self-discipline” reports on their respective websites.
Signatories to the ATJ-led petition voiced concern that the group’s response to critical commentary and NCC regulation indicated a lack of commitment to news media professionalism and independence. “The dignity and professional autonomy of news media employees cannot be sacrificed and news workers cannot be treated as sales personnel or given orders on what news to report or what to write,” the petition said.
"The Want Want China Times Group’s attempts to intimidate journalists, public commentators and NCC personnel call into question its attitude and commitment to freedom of expression and the value of independent voices in Taiwan,” IFJ Asia-Pacific Director Jacqueline Park said. “The group needs to recognise that the role of an independent media in a democracy is to provide a diversity of information, news and analysis, and that media business employees must be able to provide this public good without fear of intimidation and legal action.”
The IFJ joins the ATJ and petition signatories in calling on the owners of the Want Want China Times Group not to override the press freedom standards set by both the NCC and the independent reporting community in Taiwan.
For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919
Monday, June 22, 2009
轉載: Democrat to seek help for TFD (美民主黨議員致函要求歐巴馬政府協助台灣民主基金會) (updated)
原文如下(含部分翻譯).
---------
GOING TO THE TOP
A White House official said the US president would give every consideration to a letter appealing for support for the pro-democracy organization
By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER , WASHINGTON
Monday, Jun 22, 2009, Page 3
A congressman has asked US President Barack Obama to become directly involved in the growing controversy over the future of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD). (TFD 為台灣民主基金會)
Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a letter to the White House that the TFD’s existence and present general policy directions were very much in line with the “fundamental values of democracy and human rights which Taiwan shares with the US.”
It goes on to ask Obama to “urge” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration to “let the TFD do its useful work the way it had done over the past six years.”
信中要求歐巴馬敦促馬英九政府讓台灣民主基金會能夠一如過去六年做它該做(有用)的事. 註: TFD是2003年成立的
A number of other Congressmen are expected to publicly support Andrews’ letter later this week.
The White House could not confirm last night that Obama had actually read the letter, but an official said: “It’s an important and significant subject and I am sure he will give it every consideration.”
In the letter to Obama, Andrews said that he was writing “to bring an issue to your attention that is of great concern.”
He added: “Recently, news reports from Taiwan have come to our attention that the administration of Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou is planning to curtail the activities of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, reversing the Foundation’s policies of supporting democratic movements in other countries on grounds that this may offend the autocratic government of the People’s Republic of China and replacing the TFD’s personnel with people sympathetic to this accommodationalist philosophy.”
(近來的台灣新聞報導讓我們注意到馬政府打算阻擋台灣民主基金會的活動, 修改基金會支持其他國家民主活動的政策以免惹惱中國政府, 並撤換基金會人員)
The TFD was founded in 2003 and modeled on the US’ National Endowment for Democracy with the aim of promoting democracy and human rights in Asia.
“The TFD liaised with Tibetan and Chinese dissident groups as well as organizations from the Czech Republic, former East Germany, Hungary and Poland, inviting speakers to Taiwan to discuss such issues as transitional justice and human rights,” the letter said.
“In January of this year, it also invited Freedom House to Taiwan to present its annual report of freedom in the world. It also supports democracy activists in Cuba,” it said.
Andrews added that he was concerned the Ma administration was seeking accommodation with China “at the expense of freedom and democracy, not only in Taiwan itself, but also in China and Tibet.”
(他擔心馬政府不但以台灣的民主與自由為代價,也以中國與西藏的民主與自由為代價來配合中國政府)
“This would constitute another blow to Taiwan’s vibrant democracy,” he said.
(這將嚴重打擊台灣的民主)
---------
延伸閱讀: Bad rap on rights is Ma's making Tuesday, Jun 23, 2009, Page 8
特別是第一段:
The political storm brewing over an approaching personnel reshuffle at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy was anything but inevitable.
Not long after news emerged that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) intended to make changes to the foundation’s board of directors, various organizations in Taiwan and the US began accusing Ma of interfering in the affairs of this reputable organization. One US congressman has gone so far as to call on US President Barack Obama to get involved.
---------
GOING TO THE TOP
A White House official said the US president would give every consideration to a letter appealing for support for the pro-democracy organization
By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER , WASHINGTON
Monday, Jun 22, 2009, Page 3
A congressman has asked US President Barack Obama to become directly involved in the growing controversy over the future of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD). (TFD 為台灣民主基金會)
Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a letter to the White House that the TFD’s existence and present general policy directions were very much in line with the “fundamental values of democracy and human rights which Taiwan shares with the US.”
It goes on to ask Obama to “urge” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration to “let the TFD do its useful work the way it had done over the past six years.”
信中要求歐巴馬敦促馬英九政府讓台灣民主基金會能夠一如過去六年做它該做(有用)的事. 註: TFD是2003年成立的
A number of other Congressmen are expected to publicly support Andrews’ letter later this week.
The White House could not confirm last night that Obama had actually read the letter, but an official said: “It’s an important and significant subject and I am sure he will give it every consideration.”
In the letter to Obama, Andrews said that he was writing “to bring an issue to your attention that is of great concern.”
He added: “Recently, news reports from Taiwan have come to our attention that the administration of Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou is planning to curtail the activities of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, reversing the Foundation’s policies of supporting democratic movements in other countries on grounds that this may offend the autocratic government of the People’s Republic of China and replacing the TFD’s personnel with people sympathetic to this accommodationalist philosophy.”
(近來的台灣新聞報導讓我們注意到馬政府打算阻擋台灣民主基金會的活動, 修改基金會支持其他國家民主活動的政策以免惹惱中國政府, 並撤換基金會人員)
The TFD was founded in 2003 and modeled on the US’ National Endowment for Democracy with the aim of promoting democracy and human rights in Asia.
“The TFD liaised with Tibetan and Chinese dissident groups as well as organizations from the Czech Republic, former East Germany, Hungary and Poland, inviting speakers to Taiwan to discuss such issues as transitional justice and human rights,” the letter said.
“In January of this year, it also invited Freedom House to Taiwan to present its annual report of freedom in the world. It also supports democracy activists in Cuba,” it said.
Andrews added that he was concerned the Ma administration was seeking accommodation with China “at the expense of freedom and democracy, not only in Taiwan itself, but also in China and Tibet.”
(他擔心馬政府不但以台灣的民主與自由為代價,也以中國與西藏的民主與自由為代價來配合中國政府)
“This would constitute another blow to Taiwan’s vibrant democracy,” he said.
(這將嚴重打擊台灣的民主)
---------
延伸閱讀: Bad rap on rights is Ma's making Tuesday, Jun 23, 2009, Page 8
特別是第一段:
The political storm brewing over an approaching personnel reshuffle at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy was anything but inevitable.
Not long after news emerged that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) intended to make changes to the foundation’s board of directors, various organizations in Taiwan and the US began accusing Ma of interfering in the affairs of this reputable organization. One US congressman has gone so far as to call on US President Barack Obama to get involved.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
茴香(4)
以下是最近的實驗...
1) 釀茴香醋
2) 茴香鮭魚
3) 茴香鮪魚沙拉
4) 茴香子炒羊肉
5) 茴香炙
------
茴香系列
茴香(1) : 茴香煎蛋, 茴香烤雞腿, 俄羅斯紅湯, 茴香鮭魚義大利麵, 茴香蛋餅, 茴香茶
茴香(2): 茴香吐司,茴香麵包, 茴香魚, 茴香烤羊排
茴香(3): 茴香咖啡羊排, 茴香餃子, 辣炒茴香雞丁
茴香(4)的完整照片
1) 釀茴香醋
2) 茴香鮭魚
3) 茴香鮪魚沙拉
4) 茴香子炒羊肉
5) 茴香炙
------
茴香系列
茴香(1) : 茴香煎蛋, 茴香烤雞腿, 俄羅斯紅湯, 茴香鮭魚義大利麵, 茴香蛋餅, 茴香茶
茴香(2): 茴香吐司,茴香麵包, 茴香魚, 茴香烤羊排
茴香(3): 茴香咖啡羊排, 茴香餃子, 辣炒茴香雞丁
茴香(4)的完整照片
Friday, June 19, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
最近生活流水帳
最近生活很多采,有以下更新:
1) 來此第三年,第一次進去Minneapolis 的市區(downtown). 是的, 第一次. 主要是去聽音樂.
詳情見此
2) 為了插枝九層塔, 買了九層塔,開發出來的九層塔大餐. 其實只有兩道(味噌茄子與九層塔炒羊肉),三種煮法(味噌茄子有兩種煮法)啦. 詳見此
3) 聽說google茴香的話,本人的部落閣已經名列前矛了, 當然要繼續開發茴香餐囉. 這是茴香鮭魚 太歡愉了是嗎? 來點正經的.
4) Starbucks or not: 這是關於台灣有部落客發起抗議台灣星巴克使用中國製的紙杯,還有近來一些比較激進的環保人士提議只使用當地的原料,只消費當地製造的物品已減少因為運送而多消耗的能源相關的一些想法. (不過只有"會員"進得去. )
5) 預告: 明天要去看賽馬! 賭資已經到手,期待啊!
1) 來此第三年,第一次進去Minneapolis 的市區(downtown). 是的, 第一次. 主要是去聽音樂.
詳情見此
2) 為了插枝九層塔, 買了九層塔,開發出來的九層塔大餐. 其實只有兩道(味噌茄子與九層塔炒羊肉),三種煮法(味噌茄子有兩種煮法)啦. 詳見此
3) 聽說google茴香的話,本人的部落閣已經名列前矛了, 當然要繼續開發茴香餐囉. 這是茴香鮭魚 太歡愉了是嗎? 來點正經的.
4) Starbucks or not: 這是關於台灣有部落客發起抗議台灣星巴克使用中國製的紙杯,還有近來一些比較激進的環保人士提議只使用當地的原料,只消費當地製造的物品已減少因為運送而多消耗的能源相關的一些想法. (不過只有"會員"進得去. )
5) 預告: 明天要去看賽馬! 賭資已經到手,期待啊!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)