我一直想看外國人對郭冠英事件的看法(報導), 現在終於有一篇,轉載如下. 這裡有中文翻譯
至於我自己的看法? 沒有太多想表示的, 關於自認為高級一事, 還是借鐵娘子的老話一句--
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
擁有權利的人就像淑女,如果你需要告訴別人你是, 那麼你就不是. 將此話的powerful改成高級,
如果一個人需要自己吹噓或是告訴別人自己是高級人,那麼他/她就不是[1].
-----------
Official's pro-China claim causes uproar in Taiwan, The Associated Press
Published: March 18, 2009
TAIPEI, Taiwan: President Ma Ying-jeou's efforts to build a diverse communal coalition have taken a hit after an official was alleged to have called Taiwan's majority population "primitive" and suggested China should use force to seize the island.
The affair is a huge embarrassment to Ma, who has worked hard to unite Taiwan's fractious communal groups to support his ambitious China engagement program, despite continuing Chinese threats to take over democratic Taiwan by force.
While it is unlikely to delay the program's implementation — it still enjoys strong support — it could cost Ma's party votes in this year's local elections, as so-called "native Taiwanese" return to the communally conscious — and anti-China — opposition, the Democratic Progressive Party.
The affair burst into the limelight late last week when Kuo Kuan-ying of Taiwan's representative office in Toronto admitted he described himself in a newspaper essay as a "superior mainlander" — a politically charged reference to the 2 million people who came to the island in 1949 after the Chinese civil war and dominated its institutions for the next 50 years.
Amid growing local outrage, Kuo denied more serious charges of referring to the majority population of native Taiwanese as "primitives," and writing that "China should use force to take over" Taiwan, even though the island "was not qualified" to unite with Beijing.
Lawmakers identified with the interests of native Taiwanese have led the public criticism against Kuo. They say a pen name he is known to have used was on an essay that contained those inflammatory anti-Taiwan, pro-China statements.
Ma, whose parents were born in China, is particularly vulnerable on that issue, because he is struggling against a widespread perception that many mainlanders favor unity with China. Taiwan split from the mainland amid civil war in 1949, and has been self-governing ever since.
Relations between mainlanders and native Taiwanese — people whose ancestors came to the island from China in the 17th and 18th centuries — have long delineated a crucial political fault line on Taiwan. Native Taiwanese struggled hard against the pro-mainlander policies of Chiang Kai-shek and son Chiang Ching-kuo until 1987 when they were finally able to form a political party of their own.
That party came to power in Taiwan's second free presidential elections in 2000, but was soundly defeated by Ma's Nationalists eight years later. A major advantage for Ma, who took office 10 months ago, was his success in shedding the Nationalists' exclusive mainlander image and adopting a more bi-communal personna in its place.
The lawmakers are demanding that Kuo be stripped of his job at the Government Information Office — rather than his actual punishment of being demoted and transferred back to Taipei.
Even rival lawmakers from the ruling Nationalist Party — long identified with mainlander interests — say Kuo's punishment is not enough.
"It is unreasonable that the government is not sanctioning him more severely," said Tsao Erh-chang. National Taipei University political scientist Hou Han-jyun said Monday that Kuo's relatively light punishment was "stirring up communal hatred" and that the matter "needs quick government intervention."
Political commentator Chung Nien-huang said, "Kuo Kuan-ying simply said what Ma and (his government) are really thinking — that they are superior mainlanders."
[1]我以前就常跟朋友講,那種名片上要印一堆抬頭的其實都不是什麼了不起的名人. 王永慶的名片只要印王永慶就夠了, 完全不需要靠抬頭來告訴別人他是誰.
---------
延伸閱讀:
很有趣的一篇. 范蘭欽的受害者
3/23:
事情演變真是有趣, 有新聞局等自動跑出來幫忙捍衛公務員的權利, 公務員的義務好像不重要; 還有人自己跑出來對號入座(上面那篇延伸閱讀), 結果現在好了, 那些當初幫腔說郭冠英不是范藍欽的,現在郭都自己承認了, 不知這些幫腔的人要說什麼? 出來道歉一下嗎? 郭冠英真是厲害, 這樣輕易就耍蘇俊賓,彭蕙仙等幫腔者一圈. 台灣的政治新聞簡直比綜藝新聞還高潮迭起啊!
3/29: "潘舜昀25日投書聯合報民意論壇，發表「我的同事郭冠英」一文(http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/X1/4808899.shtml)，今天有媒體報導，這篇文章實際上出自郭冠英，潘舜昀看過之後，同意署名。" 自誇不夠還要借別人之名來誇 然後最好笑的是還有人願意借名. 現在潘被調查中, 看來受到池魚之殃的還不止彭小姐一位啊!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
spring break -part 2(春假) (revised on 4/5)
輪到我放春假. 這是紀錄春假的流水帳.
之一: 土耳其咖啡
第一天........哦,好吧,週末不算後的第一天去喝下午茶. 因為最近迷上土耳其咖啡, 到這裡就開始找哪裡有賣土耳其咖啡.....找到了
詳見此連結
之一: 土耳其咖啡
第一天........哦,好吧,週末不算後的第一天去喝下午茶. 因為最近迷上土耳其咖啡, 到這裡就開始找哪裡有賣土耳其咖啡.....找到了
詳見此連結
之二: 藤籃麵包vs. 山寨麵包
看到網路上有人利用洗菜籃的條紋來做藤籃麵包, 小孩子個性又發作,左暗示右明示跟DG說我也想做耶! 因為我們也有洗菜籃....結果出來完全不像藤籃,卻像飛碟啊!!
不甘心重做後把藤籃麵包正名為山寨麵包. 詳見此連結.
------
added on 3/22
之三: MSU訪友
看過墰子專門收集問題學生的灰燼嗎? 看此篇就對了
之四: 大餅與關於發酵一二事
我果然是作empirical induction以及experiment的,連麵包的發酵都是這樣歸納出來的....
之五: 關於房子的兩件事
Sunday, March 8, 2009
[轉載] EDITORIAL: More tricks in the Chen legal circus
Saturday, Mar 07, 2009, Page 8
The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
延伸閱讀:
告洋狀會出洋相嗎?
The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
延伸閱讀:
告洋狀會出洋相嗎?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
轉載: 看戲的心情(2)
我甚少在公開部落格講個人對經濟的一些看法,原因很簡單, 它不是我的專長. 之前我在不開放的部落格講到一些個人對Obama當選後的感想 (需要密碼,因為是不開放的), 當時(2008年11月八日寫的)我提到我對經濟悲觀的看法, 節錄如下
2. 美國經濟不會好. 不會好的原因有幾個. 第一個,民主黨向來是主張大政府的(特別此次民主黨也在國會佔優勢,總統+國會........我看大政府是跑不掉了). (後略) 第二個原因是, 歐巴馬主張管制經濟與保護主義. 不相信自由貿易,不相信市場機制(其實很諷刺!) 管制經濟的下場是處以凌遲,慢慢死的那種. (後略) 第三個原因是,歐巴馬如果是極端或說傳統的民主黨, 那公司稅一定會加稅. 公司稅增加的結果最後羊毛出在羊身上,倒楣的是員工啦. 美國的公司稅現在已經偏高了(35%),...新加坡一開始獨立給外商7年免稅! 相比之下美國的公司稅已經這麼高了,還加,會好到哪啊? 為什麼加公司稅?(後略)
現在看到這篇史丹佛大學經濟教授的文章, 真是深得我心啊!
------------------
[轉載開始]
前一篇才講到美國貨條款對美國經濟的影響, 現在就有這篇新聞.
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
看到沒,就說民主黨當選增稅的可能性遠大過於減稅. 實在不是我烏鴉嘴啊! 之前也講過要是希拉蕊出線,美國經濟不會這麼慘的原因....
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
看吧! 就說民主黨向來主張大政府... ...(有興趣可看這篇英文的報導; 還有這個....後面這個直接提到"The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it")
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
經濟上的鐵律: people respond to incentives. 之前就講過, 違反人性的制度是不會持久的....美國開始走向共產制度了嗎? 好啦,是社會主義, 還沒到共產主義,可以吧?!
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
看吧! 就說美國的公司稅已經過高了,之前我就講過馬侃的經濟政策(減公司稅)是比較好的,可惜叫好不叫座. 之前也講過新加坡建國初期如何利用海外投資增強自己的經濟實力...看我沒說錯吧
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
2. 美國經濟不會好. 不會好的原因有幾個. 第一個,民主黨向來是主張大政府的(特別此次民主黨也在國會佔優勢,總統+國會........我看大政府是跑不掉了). (後略) 第二個原因是, 歐巴馬主張管制經濟與保護主義. 不相信自由貿易,不相信市場機制(其實很諷刺!) 管制經濟的下場是處以凌遲,慢慢死的那種. (後略) 第三個原因是,歐巴馬如果是極端或說傳統的民主黨, 那公司稅一定會加稅. 公司稅增加的結果最後羊毛出在羊身上,倒楣的是員工啦. 美國的公司稅現在已經偏高了(35%),...新加坡一開始獨立給外商7年免稅! 相比之下美國的公司稅已經這麼高了,還加,會好到哪啊? 為什麼加公司稅?(後略)
現在看到這篇史丹佛大學經濟教授的文章, 真是深得我心啊!
------------------
[轉載開始]
前一篇才講到美國貨條款對美國經濟的影響, 現在就有這篇新聞.
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
看到沒,就說民主黨當選增稅的可能性遠大過於減稅. 實在不是我烏鴉嘴啊! 之前也講過要是希拉蕊出線,美國經濟不會這麼慘的原因....
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
看吧! 就說民主黨向來主張大政府... ...(有興趣可看這篇英文的報導; 還有這個....後面這個直接提到"The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it")
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
經濟上的鐵律: people respond to incentives. 之前就講過, 違反人性的制度是不會持久的....美國開始走向共產制度了嗎? 好啦,是社會主義, 還沒到共產主義,可以吧?!
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
看吧! 就說美國的公司稅已經過高了,之前我就講過馬侃的經濟政策(減公司稅)是比較好的,可惜叫好不叫座. 之前也講過新加坡建國初期如何利用海外投資增強自己的經濟實力...看我沒說錯吧
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Friday, March 6, 2009
玉山在哪裡?
看到這個投票我就一肚子火, 什麼叫做玉山位於亞洲(Asia)的中華台北(Chinese Taipei)啊? Chinese Taipei會比台灣有知名度或是更會吸引選票? 拜託! 那請以後發的護照改放 Chinese Taipei好了, 而我要申請 Taiwanese Tainan的護照,可以吧?!
Friday, February 27, 2009
[轉載] 美國國務院對台灣的人權報告 2008 Human Rights Report: Taiwan
相關中文新聞: 美國國務院評台灣人權
相關英文報導: US cites continued rights abuses in Taiwan, CONCERNS: A State Department report said that foreign spouses were targets of discrimination and that arranging marriages tended to treat women as property
之前轉載的如IFJ譴責政府干預媒體自由,陳雲林來台期間引起的風波,還有扁案有政治力的介入引發國際學者與媒體多次報導,還有野草莓運動都有所提及. 蠻全面的報導.
因為最近發現blogger的copy & paste很難用,分段不會跟著被帶過來, 這麼長的文章,我就懶得手動去幫忙分段了. 詳見此.
相關英文報導: US cites continued rights abuses in Taiwan, CONCERNS: A State Department report said that foreign spouses were targets of discrimination and that arranging marriages tended to treat women as property
之前轉載的如IFJ譴責政府干預媒體自由,陳雲林來台期間引起的風波,還有扁案有政治力的介入引發國際學者與媒體多次報導,還有野草莓運動都有所提及. 蠻全面的報導.
因為最近發現blogger的copy & paste很難用,分段不會跟著被帶過來, 這麼長的文章,我就懶得手動去幫忙分段了. 詳見此.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
[轉載]台灣民主的試驗仍進行中
台灣的民主試驗還在進行中,雖然很多倒退的事實,但是糾正的機制也存在,不幸中還有值得安慰的一點
以下原文
----------------------------------
Taiwan’s democratic test continues
By Christopher Walker Sarah CookTuesday, Feb 17, 2009, Page 8
Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.
Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.
First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.
In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”
Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.
These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.
The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.
The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public. (按: 好幾個涉嫌暴力的警察在之後湊巧得到晉升也被提出來討論了,之前我就提過了啊)
The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.
Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.
Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.
The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.
Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.
Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.
Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.
以下原文
----------------------------------
Taiwan’s democratic test continues
By Christopher Walker Sarah CookTuesday, Feb 17, 2009, Page 8
Since shedding authoritarian rule two decades ago, Taiwan has achieved commendable progress in democracy. On a recent visit, however, it was clear that while democracy continues to flourish, a number of serious concerns have arisen that threaten to shake public confidence in the country’s democratic institutions.
Our meetings with senior officials of both major political parties, as well as leaders of Taiwan’s diverse non-governmental organizations and academic community, revealed a palpable sense that the political system is becoming less transparent and more exclusive.
Several developments have triggered alarms among Taiwan’s civil society and international observers.
First, the judicial system’s impartiality and ability to hold the current government to account has come into question. The restoration of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to full political control in the aftermath of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) decisive victory in last year’s elections — along with an overwhelming legislative majority for his party — has weakened important checks and balances that had been in place over the previous eight years.
In the months since the KMT retook control, a spate of investigations have been launched against former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials and businesspeople connected to it. The apparent imbalance with which these cases are being pursued raises concerns of selective justice. One prominent lawyer in Taipei describes the phenomenon as a “judicial recession.”
Further exacerbating tension is the country’s politicized, tabloid-style news media, especially the use of certain outlets to discredit (would-be) defendants before they have their day in court. Six 24-hour cable news channels — four KMT-aligned and two favoring the DPP — pump out a steady diet of over-the-top coverage of political and legal scandal. A robust flow of leaks enables a pernicious form of “trial by media” for those pulled into the judicial vortex.
These phenomena came to a head in two recent cases. The first is that of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The ultimate decision on the former president’s guilt or innocence will be decided by the courts, as it should be. However, the judicial process requires the utmost scrupulousness to ensure there is neither the fact nor perception of political interference. So far, such care has been lacking. A slipshod switching of judges just before year’s end and a grossly impolitic skit mocking the former president — during a party organized by Ministry of Justice officials — have raised eyebrows at home and abroad about the seriousness of the officials entrusted with handling this sensitive case.
The second case involves the investigation into clashes between police and citizens protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan in November. During this historic visit, more than 100 demonstrators and police were injured. Other citizens have complained of official harassment in response to peaceful acts of protest.
The National Police Agency undertook one review shortly after the event, which resulted in mild discipline, followed, incongruously, by promotions of several key officers. It apparently has undertaken a second more comprehensive internal review, but those findings have not been made public. (按: 好幾個涉嫌暴力的警察在之後湊巧得到晉升也被提出來討論了,之前我就提過了啊)
The Control Yuan is undertaking its own investigation, but the extent to which its findings will be made public is unclear. Perplexingly, the process of such an investigation, or even whether it is taking place at all, remains unknown to even the most well-informed members of Taiwan’s civil society, let alone the public-at-large.
Given the increasing unease with the trajectory of democratic governance in Taiwan, several immediate steps by the authorities to enhance transparency would help lay such concerns to rest.
Comprehensive reports and regular status updates should be published of any investigations carried out by key government bodies, including the Control Yuan, the police and other agencies, irrespective of the political orientation of their subjects.
The authorities should also make a dedicated effort to stop the debilitating cycle of leaks from criminal investigations. Ma and relevant senior officials must make clear that any information improperly dispensed by prosecutors, investigators or any other judicial or law enforcement body will not be tolerated.
Finally, as the current administration makes decisions that will affect generations of Taiwanese to come — particularly in its sensitive cross-Strait negotiations — it should take an inclusive and open posture toward the public. The combination of closed-door talks with the Chinese Communist Party and a dismissive attitude regarding citizen complaints of official abuse risks creating an atmosphere of highhandedness within government and alienation outside it.
Several developments in recent weeks — including a Council of Grand Justices’ decision on the unconstitutionality of recording client-lawyer conversations and the Control Yuan’s public criticism of prosecutorial leaks — are encouraging signs that Taiwan’s self-correcting democratic mechanisms are functioning. Concerns remain, however, over the evenhandedness with which standards of accountability are being applied.
Taiwan has established itself as a democracy whose significance extends far beyond its shores. In a region where the ideals of democracy are directly challenged, fundamental principles of transparency and pluralism need particularly vigorous safeguarding. The current era of closer relations with China’s government, known more for secretiveness and intolerance of dissent than for democratic governance, make these standards even more important for Taiwan.
Christopher Walker is director of studies and Sarah Cook is an Asia researcher at Freedom House.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
[轉載] Taiwan, South Korea muzzle pessimistic brokers
以下是經濟學人的報導. 台灣與南韓這下的確很像,政府要干預財經消息,只准報喜不可報憂(accentuate only the positive)
------------------------
Bye bye sell
Feb 5th 2009 HONG KONG AND SEOULFrom The Economist print edition
Tired of bad news about the financial markets? Censor it
Illustration by S. Kambayashi
NOT so many years ago brokers were prosecuted in America for shamelessly plugging the dogs of the dotcom boom. Consider it a sign of the times that governments in South Korea and Taiwan are now quietly encouraging brokers to accentuate only the positive.
The methods may differ, but if you have something critical to say and it somehow becomes public knowledge, you should brace yourself for unpleasant consequences. In December the Taiwan Securities Association, a trade body, reminded brokers, on behalf of the government, that the press must receive the firm’s approval before quoting research.
When critical brokers’ opinions are cited in newspapers, regulators now want “explanations”. On February 4th CLSA, a regional broker, issued a report saying Taiwan’s economy had deteriorated sharply. The press jumped on the report, and the government jumped on CLSA, which quickly issued a statement. The report was intended for clients alone and CLSA had not changed its investment opinions. Regulators have insidiously suggested that investment firms take a harder line by suing media outlets that report on their opinions.
In South Korea, a reluctance to issue sell recommendations has already taken hold. Of the 17,335 reports issued by South Korean brokers in 2008, there were 14,903 “buy” recommendations but not a single “sell”, according to FnGuide, a Seoul-based financial-information company. At best, that reflects poor analysis: the stockmarket tumbled 41% during the year.
But something more sinister may be afoot. JPMorgan, an American investment bank, was the target of an investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service after it suggested that problem loans at South Korea’s Hana Bank may be higher than the bank’s own estimates. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse was denounced by Hyundai Securities, which publicly castigated the firm after it halved its target price for the South Korean broker. One analyst recalls a threatening telephone call from a sushi-restaurant owner after he issued a “sell” recommendation: “I have many sharp knives. Stay away from dark alleys,” the man said.
-------
延伸閱讀:
我們還有言論自由嗎: 從《金融》部落格報明牌，金管會開罰 說起
這就是言論自由
------------------------
Bye bye sell
Feb 5th 2009 HONG KONG AND SEOULFrom The Economist print edition
Tired of bad news about the financial markets? Censor it
Illustration by S. Kambayashi
NOT so many years ago brokers were prosecuted in America for shamelessly plugging the dogs of the dotcom boom. Consider it a sign of the times that governments in South Korea and Taiwan are now quietly encouraging brokers to accentuate only the positive.
The methods may differ, but if you have something critical to say and it somehow becomes public knowledge, you should brace yourself for unpleasant consequences. In December the Taiwan Securities Association, a trade body, reminded brokers, on behalf of the government, that the press must receive the firm’s approval before quoting research.
When critical brokers’ opinions are cited in newspapers, regulators now want “explanations”. On February 4th CLSA, a regional broker, issued a report saying Taiwan’s economy had deteriorated sharply. The press jumped on the report, and the government jumped on CLSA, which quickly issued a statement. The report was intended for clients alone and CLSA had not changed its investment opinions. Regulators have insidiously suggested that investment firms take a harder line by suing media outlets that report on their opinions.
In South Korea, a reluctance to issue sell recommendations has already taken hold. Of the 17,335 reports issued by South Korean brokers in 2008, there were 14,903 “buy” recommendations but not a single “sell”, according to FnGuide, a Seoul-based financial-information company. At best, that reflects poor analysis: the stockmarket tumbled 41% during the year.
But something more sinister may be afoot. JPMorgan, an American investment bank, was the target of an investigation by the Financial Supervisory Service after it suggested that problem loans at South Korea’s Hana Bank may be higher than the bank’s own estimates. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse was denounced by Hyundai Securities, which publicly castigated the firm after it halved its target price for the South Korean broker. One analyst recalls a threatening telephone call from a sushi-restaurant owner after he issued a “sell” recommendation: “I have many sharp knives. Stay away from dark alleys,” the man said.
-------
延伸閱讀:
我們還有言論自由嗎: 從《金融》部落格報明牌，金管會開罰 說起
這就是言論自由
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
轉載: GIO minister answers open letter (馬政府回覆第三封公開信)
先轉載原文如下,有空再候補中譯或感想 .第三封公開信見此
----------------
GIO minister answers open letter
By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China. Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
----------------
GIO minister answers open letter
By Su Jun-bin 蘇俊賓
Monday, Feb 02, 2009, Page 8
In a recent open letter (“Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3,” Jan. 21, page 8) the signatories express their concern for fairness in Taiwan’s judicial system. The government of the Republic of China appreciates their concern, but we find in the open letter a number of points of inaccuracy or misunderstanding about which I would like to provide clarification.
The open letter alleges that during the visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) in November, police infringed on basic human freedoms, and infers that our government has taken no action to investigate such allegations. Actually, however, the National Police Agency has conducted internal investigations of such allegations and has so far taken disciplinary measures against five policemen whose behavior was found to be flawed.
Moreover, our Control Yuan and the public prosecutor’s office of the Taipei District Court are in the process of investigating complaints of improper police behavior together with instances of protester violence during Chen’s visit.
These facts demonstrate that our government takes this matter seriously and that our various investigatory mechanisms are functioning effectively.
In this connection, we note that preliminary data of the National Police Agency indicates that more than 170 policemen were injured by unruly protesters, as compared with 40 civilians (including reporters) who were injured, while 18 persons were arrested based on evidence that they did indeed perpetrate violence. The standards applied in making these arrests and in reviewing criticisms of police behavior are completely in line with those applied in other democratic nations.
As to why our government does not conduct such investigations by establishing a special independent commission, we have publicly explained this before: The Control Yuan is a branch of government constitutionally mandated to investigate allegations of misconduct by public servants, including police authorities, and to function independently of other branches of government. The US government, for example, has no comparable independent investigatory body and its Congress must therefore sometimes resort to establishing independent commissions.
In 2004, our Legislative Yuan established a special commission to investigate the shooting incident in which then president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were injured. Later, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional certain aspects of the law by which the special commission was established, rendering the commission inoperative.
This demonstrates that under the constitutional system of the Republic of China, the Control Yuan suffices to play the role of independent investigatory body, and the establishment of a special commission in competition with the Control Yuan’s function is constitutionally questionable.
As people who are knowledgeable about Taiwan, the signatories of the open letter should be quite familiar with the aforementioned episode in history and understand its significance. Currently, the Control Yuan is in the process of re-examining the events of March 19, 2004.
Further, the open letter expresses concern about the legality of the switch of panels of judges to conduct the trial of former president Chen. Following the Dec. 12 indictment of the former president on multiple charges of corruption and money laundering, the Taipei District Court determined that because the charges concern complex financial matters of major importance, the trial should be conducted by a panel of judges with specialized competence in such matters. Through a lot-drawing procedure, the court assigned the case to a three-member panel of judges headed by Chou Chan-chun (周占春).
Later, the same panel of judges, at the suggestion of one of its members, Ho Chiao-mei (何俏美), requested the Taipei District Court to consider whether the case should be combined with an earlier-initiated case being heard by another panel of judges — namely the “state affairs fund” case, in which the accused is former first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
Former president Chen had also been charged in the 2006 indictment against the first lady, but was immune to prosecution at the time. Now that his immunity has lapsed, and one of the charges in the Dec. 12 indictment concerns the state affairs fund case, Judge Ho felt it was sensible and more economical to combine the two cases for hearing by the same panel so that the same questions will not be asked in the examination of witnesses in two different trial proceedings.
A review panel of Taipei District Court judges was convened to consider the question and it determined that a joinder of indictments is indeed the best course of action. Hence, the case involving former president Chen was reassigned to the panel of judges, headed by Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓), that has been handling the state affairs fund case since 2006. Furthermore, in response to an appeal by former president Chen’s counsel to reverse this decision, the Taiwan High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed that such a joinder is proper. This review and reassignment process is fully in keeping with due process of law.
As for suspicions that public prosecutors have leaked information to the press, we point out that former president Chen was named as a co-defendant in the state affairs fund corruption case in 2006, and that the period of investigation during which there is a ban on release of information has lapsed. We further point out that in the course of the investigation of former president Chen, his family members, and others in connection with suspicion of corruption and money laundering, the various witnesses, legal counsel and the accused themselves have inappropriately made public statements or provided information to the press. Thus, the open letter’s statement that information which appeared in news reports could only have come from public prosecutors is unfair.
Moreover, we stress that in the event solid evidence emerges to show that any person involved in the prosecutorial process has leaked information during the investigation stage of any case and has thus violated the rule of secrecy, the Ministry of Justice will surely take firm disciplinary and criminal legal action against said person.
Finally, with regard to the skit performed by public prosecutors attached to the Taipei District Court in celebration of Law Day, the Ministry of Justice had no knowledge of the content of the skit prior to its performance, nor do we deem it proper for the ministry to conduct a “pre-show investigation” of, or censor, the content of any such performance. Respecting the right of free speech, we can only hope and trust that light-hearted performances will remain within the bounds of good taste and will not reflect poorly on the performers’ integrity.
Following the performance, in response to criticisms that a portion of the skit inappropriately made fun of former president Chen, the prosecutors involved indicated that they had no intention of acting out of vengefulness but wished only to heighten the dramatic effect. Although such joking by public servants may be tolerated as being within the bounds of freedom of speech, the Ministry of Justice has nevertheless conveyed to the prosecutors in question, the reactions of critics who found their joking to be in bad taste or damaging to the dignity of the judicial system, and has urged them to avoid such behavior in the future.
To all who care about Taiwan, including the signatories of the Jan. 21 open letter, we again express our gratitude for your comments and criticisms. Please be assured that in prosecutorial matters, our judicial authorities are deeply concerned about safeguarding human rights and ensuring judicial fairness, and shall strive to strictly uphold the procedures stipulated by the laws of the Republic of China. Su Jun-pin is the Government Information Office minister
Monday, February 2, 2009
[轉載] Political corruption in Taiwan: Trial and error ("審判"與錯誤)
沒想到連經濟學人都要湊一腳啊.
先說一下,這個標題下得很有意思. 有時候就語文的角度來閱讀就有很大的樂趣了. Trial and error通常指的是嘗試錯誤,因為嘗試,而犯錯,再從錯誤中學習. 在這裡trial又正好是"審判"的英文, 一語相關(pun), 我個人因此覺得這標題下得很有意思.
以下原文. 這裡有中文翻譯.
-------------
Jan 22nd 2009 TAIPEI
From The Economist print edition
A former president and the judiciary are both in the dock
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, this week pleaded not guilty at a hearing marking the start of his trial on corruption charges. Mr Chen, who ruled on a confrontational platform of independence from China, looked tired and dispirited, but was as combative as ever. “There is no way I can accept these charges and insults,” he told judges, after arriving at a Taipei court in handcuffs. His supporters are trying to ensure it is not just Mr Chen’s probity but also the integrity of Taiwanese justice that are on trial.
In one case he is alleged to have influenced the government to buy land from a company that bribed his wife, Wu Shu-chen. The couple is also charged with embezzlement from special presidential accounts, with forgery and with laundering ill-gotten money through Switzerland.
Mr Chen, who might face a life sentence, insists he is innocent and faces what amounts to political persecution. This week prosecutors produced two new charges, of extortion and profiteering in connection with the land deal. Mr Chen accused them of making Taiwan’s president seem like a local bully or mafia boss: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
Mr Chen is very unpopular. And his case was dealt a blow later in the week when his son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law all pleaded guilty to laundering large sums of money for the family.
Nevertheless, Mr Chen’s trial is a test for Taiwan’s two-decade-old democracy, which has already managed two peaceful transfers of power to the opposition. Many are heartened that corruption, long endemic in politics, is being attacked and that a former president can stand trial like a common citizen.
Critics, however, say recent judicial proceedings have been marred by sloppy improprieties, and, some allege, bias towards the Nationalist party, the Kuomintang or KMT, which took power last May under President Ma Ying-jeou. Mr Chen was imprisoned incommunicado for a month before he was charged, raising questions about the presumption of innocence. A panel of judges that released Mr Chen from prison without bail last month was mysteriously replaced by a new one that ordered his reimprisonment a fortnight later. Prosecutors had appealed and KMT politicians had complained, leading to suspicions of political interference. The same judges are presiding over his trial. (註: 看這裡用"marred"這個字也是很美啊,相對於用"damaged"言)
Bruce Jacobs, a Taiwan expert at Monash University in Australia, points out that recent corruption investigations have mainly been aimed at opposition politicians; prosecutors seem far less interested in investigating KMT figures. He also points to the “lack of discretion” in a remarkably tasteless recent incident: prosecutors involved in Mr Chen’s case performed a comic skit at a party at the justice ministry. To the glee of the audience, one is said to have mimicked the former president’s arrest by raising handcuffed hands above her head and shouting slogans. Shown on television, this outraged many.
Mr Ma’s spokesman denies any party-political bias among prosecutors, and insists the president respects judicial neutrality. But even it that is true, the judiciary’s lack of professionalism risks creating public cynicism about its independence, undermining both the drive against corruption and respect for the courts’ decisions.
-----------
延伸閱讀
Why Chen Shui-bian Will Not Get a Fair Trial in Taiwan.Monday February 02, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
先說一下,這個標題下得很有意思. 有時候就語文的角度來閱讀就有很大的樂趣了. Trial and error通常指的是嘗試錯誤,因為嘗試,而犯錯,再從錯誤中學習. 在這裡trial又正好是"審判"的英文, 一語相關(pun), 我個人因此覺得這標題下得很有意思.
以下原文. 這裡有中文翻譯.
-------------
Jan 22nd 2009 TAIPEI
From The Economist print edition
A former president and the judiciary are both in the dock
CHEN SHUI-BIAN, Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, this week pleaded not guilty at a hearing marking the start of his trial on corruption charges. Mr Chen, who ruled on a confrontational platform of independence from China, looked tired and dispirited, but was as combative as ever. “There is no way I can accept these charges and insults,” he told judges, after arriving at a Taipei court in handcuffs. His supporters are trying to ensure it is not just Mr Chen’s probity but also the integrity of Taiwanese justice that are on trial.
In one case he is alleged to have influenced the government to buy land from a company that bribed his wife, Wu Shu-chen. The couple is also charged with embezzlement from special presidential accounts, with forgery and with laundering ill-gotten money through Switzerland.
Mr Chen, who might face a life sentence, insists he is innocent and faces what amounts to political persecution. This week prosecutors produced two new charges, of extortion and profiteering in connection with the land deal. Mr Chen accused them of making Taiwan’s president seem like a local bully or mafia boss: “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
Mr Chen is very unpopular. And his case was dealt a blow later in the week when his son, daughter-in-law and brother-in-law all pleaded guilty to laundering large sums of money for the family.
Nevertheless, Mr Chen’s trial is a test for Taiwan’s two-decade-old democracy, which has already managed two peaceful transfers of power to the opposition. Many are heartened that corruption, long endemic in politics, is being attacked and that a former president can stand trial like a common citizen.
Critics, however, say recent judicial proceedings have been marred by sloppy improprieties, and, some allege, bias towards the Nationalist party, the Kuomintang or KMT, which took power last May under President Ma Ying-jeou. Mr Chen was imprisoned incommunicado for a month before he was charged, raising questions about the presumption of innocence. A panel of judges that released Mr Chen from prison without bail last month was mysteriously replaced by a new one that ordered his reimprisonment a fortnight later. Prosecutors had appealed and KMT politicians had complained, leading to suspicions of political interference. The same judges are presiding over his trial. (註: 看這裡用"marred"這個字也是很美啊,相對於用"damaged"言)
Bruce Jacobs, a Taiwan expert at Monash University in Australia, points out that recent corruption investigations have mainly been aimed at opposition politicians; prosecutors seem far less interested in investigating KMT figures. He also points to the “lack of discretion” in a remarkably tasteless recent incident: prosecutors involved in Mr Chen’s case performed a comic skit at a party at the justice ministry. To the glee of the audience, one is said to have mimicked the former president’s arrest by raising handcuffed hands above her head and shouting slogans. Shown on television, this outraged many.
Mr Ma’s spokesman denies any party-political bias among prosecutors, and insists the president respects judicial neutrality. But even it that is true, the judiciary’s lack of professionalism risks creating public cynicism about its independence, undermining both the drive against corruption and respect for the courts’ decisions.
-----------
延伸閱讀
Why Chen Shui-bian Will Not Get a Fair Trial in Taiwan.Monday February 02, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)