xyz

See result here.

[台灣人心聲] 這不是台灣地區MV完整版-This is not Taiwan Area MV

這不是台灣地區MV完整版-This is not Taiwan Area MV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVu5qaYbImc

China: Democracy Won't Come Here

I want to share another article reporting the same CCP thinking that there will not be democracy in China. You may also want to read my 2009-01-18 posting: China must resist multiparty systems, separation of powers & erroneous democracy.

China: Democracy Won't Come Here

Vivian Wai-yin Kwok
2009/03/09 Forbes

A top Communist Party official insists China will never have Western-style Democracy.

A Chinese Communist Party leader said China won't follow a western political system, insisting that multi-party democracy will never happen in China.

Wu Bangguo, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), addressed about 3,000 Chinese lawmakers on Monday, and declared, "The Western model of a legal system cannot be copied mechanically." He said that China would establish its own style of democracy.

Wu said China would not introduce a system of "multiple parties holding office in rotation," nor would it allow a separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, or a legislature made up of lower and upper houses. China aimed to establish a "legal system of socialism with Chinese characteristics" by next year, achieved through enacting and revising legislation rather than making structural adjustments, Wu told the political elite gathered in Beijing for the annual nine-day meeting of the NPC, which is China's legislature.

This year is full of sentimental political anniversaries. Chinese Communists will celebrate the 60th year of Communist rule, beginning with Mao's victory in 1949. Meanwhile, democrats will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the bloody Tibetan uprising which prompted the Dalai Lama to flee to India, as well as the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which hundreds of students and workers were killed during peaceful protests.

The speech by Wu, the top leader under President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, suggested Beijing would try to avoid political unrest in this sensitive year, particularly while China is caught in the global economic downdraft. Top legislative work this year will focus on drawing up laws covering social programs such as health care, pensions and education.

The National People's Congress, the country's rubber-stamp or ceremonial legislative body, began its annual fall session last Thursday. In an opening address, Wen Jiabao vowed to use a record-high budget deficit as a tool to help the Chinese economy achieve its 8% economic expansion goal this year, and set an ambitious target of 5 trillion yuan ($730.5 billion) in new lending this year.

The premier also pledged to adopt more vigorous and effective measures to try to stabilize market confidence and investment in China's real estate market. The government will strive to solve the housing problems of 7.5 million low-income urban families and 2.4 million families living in shantytowns in forests, on reclaimed land and around coal mines within three years, the official Xinhua News reported Wen as saying.

Taiwanese and referendum

In the previous posting about President Ma's interview with Taipei Times, I quoted Ma to show that

1. He opposed to referendum most strongly, and
2. He stated basically that no country really uses referendum, contrary to the fact that referendum is an integral part of an American election, so that it is a way of life.

How do Taiwanese react to Ma's depriving them of their birthright to referendum and telling outright lies about referendum? Nothing. This posting hypothesizes why:

1. Taiwanese do not understand that point 2 above is an incredible lie. They believe that Ma must be right when he said I don’t think such a system [referendum] exists in the world.
   
2. Since they believe Ma that no country in the world does referendum, they feel it is OK for Ma to deny them the referendum rights.

Here is justification of my hypothesis.

• Note that KMT has never allowed Taiwanese the right to [real] referendum. Consequently, people do not understand referendum and its importance. In my mind, a country without referendum is not democratic. But almost all Taiwanese say Taiwan is democratic.
• Taiwanese truly do not know that in America, referendum is part of an election. Otherwise, how do you explain the very effective KMT propaganda that referendum should not be held at the same time with the legislative and presidential elections?

Why are Taiwanese so ignorant about referendum? Taiwan news media is a big help: there is little international news on TV news or newspapers.

MA disallows referendumSays no referendum system existsin the world

In this Taipei Times interview, Ma opposed referendum in strongest terms while telling the most incredible lies.

• Ma said:

  If you want to change it and decide everything via referendums, it will be very hard for the government to operate. I don’t think such a system exists in the world..

  No one was proposing to decide everything via referendum. The interviewers were certainly not suggesting that. They were asking whether something as serious and controversial as CECA should not be decided by a referendum. Ma said OPENLY that I don’t think such a system exists in the world. How about USA in which referendums are part of an election? Remember he lived in the states for a long time and is at least a US permanent resident. He was OPENLY making a statement that a country like United States in which referendum is a way of life does not exist.
  
  
• More lies about referendum:

  A referendum is an option, but it is not the only option. Referendums are time-consuming and expensive. A referendum costs about NT$300 million [US$8.8 million], or NT$500 million to hold. It also takes time to promote. If the government were to hold a referendum for every major policy, it would be very hard for the government to operate. We simply cannot hold a referendum because some people are against a government initiative.
  

• More:

  but referendums sometimes are not the best remedy.
  More importantly, the thresholds for a referendum are so high that many referendums have failed in the past.

  The unreal high thresholds were set by Ma's KMT. Why did he say that many referendums have failed in the past, when the fact is that nothing ever passed.

EXCLUSIVE MA YING-JEOU INTERVIEW: Nothing to fear from a CECA with Beijing: Ma

The government’s cross-strait policies have prompted concerns over the potential impact on Taiwan’s sovereignty. In an interview with staff reporters Huang Tai-lin, Ko Shu-ling and Mo Yan-chih and executive deputy editor-in-chief Charles Cheng on Wednesday, President Ma Ying-jeou responded to his critics, calling on the public to have confidence in Taiwan despite the obstacles it faces in securing participation in international organizations

Friday, Feb 20, 2009, Page 1

President Ma Ying-jeou speaks during an exclusive interview with the Taipei Times on Wednesday. PHOTO: LIU HSIN-DE, TAIPEI TIMES

Taipei Times: Do you think Taiwan is a normal country?

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九): The Taiwanese people elect their own president and legislature and govern themselves. Do you think that is normal or not normal?

TT: International recognition is also an important factor in defining a country.

Ma: Taiwan has 23 diplomatic allies and has 120 offices established in 87 countries. We enjoy substantive ties with those countries, so our relations with those countries are not any less than a UN member state enjoys. I don’t think it’s abnormal.

Of course, if you compare this with the 194 countries [in the world], some have worse conditions than we do, but they don’t think they are not normal. Every country is in a unique situation. As for Taiwan and the mainland, the special relationship has an impact on Taiwan’s international space. Because of this, I think it is important to normalize economic and trade relations with the mainland.

Our economic and trade relations with the mainland are very abnormal. Although we are both WTO members, many mechanisms have not yet been created. These include tariff exemptions, investment protection and double taxation.

That is why we have been negotiating these issues with the other side of the Strait recently. So, if you are referring to this aspect, we do need to normalize economic and trade ties with them.

PUBLIC CONSENSUS

TT: Are you referring to the CECA [Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement]? Could you elaborate? You said during your presidential campaign that the government needs to seek public consensus on major policies. This seems to run counter to recent remarks by National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi [蘇起] who said signing a CECA is a set policy.

Ma: It is part of my election platform, which of course has to be implemented after I was elected. Regarding its content and how it should be signed, we are open to all kinds of suggestions.

TT: During your campaign, you also mentioned the “three noes,” which included no importing Chinese labor and no further opening the market to Chinese agricultural products. Would this change under the CECA?

Ma: No.

TT: During the two-way deregulation of industries, will the government target certain businesses?

Ma: Normalizing trade and economic relations with the mainland does not necessarily mean allowing Chinese labor or letting more Chinese agricultural products to enter the local market. Actually, when the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] was in power, they sanctioned importation of more than 100 Chinese agricultural products.

When we sign a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, the interests of local industries must be taken into account. What is supposed to be protected should be protected, and what is supposed to be free should be freed. We will deal with the matter carefully.

TT: Will the government seek a public consensus via a referendum?

Ma: Such an agreement must be sent to the legislature, according to Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area [台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例].

TT: The four agreements signed last year between the Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait [ARATS] were not reviewed by the legislature, but took effect automatically. It seems the public’s voices were not reflected.

Ma: No, that is a different matter. Do you know Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area? It states that all treaties that require legal revision or legislation must be reviewed by the legislature.

Cross-strait direct transportation links are regulated by Article 95.1. In other words, because the agreements did not require any legal amendment, they automatically took effect when the legislature failed to review them within one month.

The economic pact is regulated by Article 5. Once it is signed, it must be approved by the legislature. It cannot be implemented if the legislature doesn’t approve it.

TT: But in view of the current political makeup of the legislature, it seems the opinions of the opposition and the public are not well represented.

Ma: I don’t think so. The voices of the 27 DPP legislators sound pretty loud to me.

TT: Many people, however, question whether lawmakers are truly reflecting public concerns, or merely their parties’ stances. And some have also wondered whether the government, in its negotiations for a CECA, is listening only to the voices of big companies and such, not the public.

Ma: What we have is a representative system. If you want to change it and decide everything via referendums, it will be very hard for the government to operate. I don’t think such a system exists in the world. So it needs to go through the legislature, which represents the people and is elected by the people. If you do not think the legislature can represent the people, how do you expect the system to work?

TT: You said during the presidential campaign that all major government policies must be supported by public consensus and that referendums are one option in soliciting public opinion. Are you now ruling out referendums as an option?

Ma: Do you think direct transportation links are a major issue? Many polls show that 60 percent of the public supports the initiative, but do you think it is necessary to hold a referendum?

A referendum is an option, but it is not the only option. Referendums are time-consuming and expensive. A referendum costs about NT$300 million [US$8.8 million], or NT$500 million to hold. It also takes time to promote. If the government were to hold a referendum for every major policy, it would be very hard for the government to operate. We simply cannot hold a referendum because some people are against a government initiative.

TT: You just mentioned opinion polls. Do you think opinion surveys can replace referendums? They poll only a small pool of people.

Ma: So you think opinion polls are not credible?

TT: You’ve always said opinion polls are for reference only. Are you saying now that opinion polls can be used in deciding a major government policy or issues pertaining to the national interest?

Ma: It is more reliable if there is more than one opinion poll conducted by different institutions over a period of time.

It is like a blood test. While only 1 percent of your blood is needed for the test, it is impossible to take all the blood out of your body. Opinion polls must be conducted in a modern and scientific manner. However, opinion polls are not absolute. They cannot solve all problems, but referendums sometimes are not the best remedy.

More importantly, the thresholds for a referendum are so high that many referendums have failed in the past.

TT: So what you mean is that to seek a public consensus on the CECA, opinion polls are the best option before such an agreement is signed. Once it is signed, it must be approved by the legislature.

Ma: Yes, as long as the polling questions on normalizing economic and trade relations with mainland are not designed to encourage the public to give the pollsters the answers they want, I believe most people will support it.

Many people expressed concern that once direct cross-strait transportation links were established, the door to Taiwan would be wide open and infiltrated by the mainland. However, many polls show that about 65 percent to 85 percent support the four agreements signed last year. All in all, more than 60 percent of the public supports the initiatives.

SOVEREIGNTY

TT: Is there any risk involved in signing the CECA? Will it belittle Taiwan’s sovereignty?

Ma: What do you mean by belittle Taiwan’s sovereignty? Do you mean that Taiwan will be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] or controlled by the CCP? I want to be clear on your question.

TT: Chinese President Hu Jintao [胡錦濤] has said that they would push for the CECA with the condition that it is under the framework of “one China.”

Ma: Then what framework do you think we should accept?

TT: Then, Mr President, do you mean you will accept the “one China” framework?

Ma: The Republic of China [ROC] Constitution was enacted in 1946 and implemented in 1947. The [PRC] was not yet established. It was not established until 1949.

There was only one China when the ROC Constitution was enacted. So the ROC Constitution was not for “two Chinas.”

TT: But do you think Hu’s “one China” refers to the “ROC” or the “People’s Republic of China”?

Ma: No matter what he thinks, we think “one China” refers to the ROC. This is what we insisted in 1992 and we have never changed that position since.

TT: But does the explanation that “one China” refers to the ROC conform to the international reality?

Ma: If we do not interpret it this way, do you think we should say “one China” refers to the “PRC”?

Do you remember when former [US] president George W. Bush talked to Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 26 last year, Hu said over the telephone that both sides of the Taiwan Strait accept the “one China” principle but have different interpretations of “one China.” That is what we call “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” That is the only interpretation according to our Constitution.

TT: But apart from Taiwan’s allies, all countries think Beijing is the only representative of China.

Ma: If we agree with those countries, there is no room for Taiwan to survive.

TT: So, if we are to sign agreements, including the CECA, under Hu’s so-called “one China,” would it be tantamount to acknowledging to the many countries that have diplomatic ties with China that we belong to the PRC?

Ma: That depends on how you look at it. It means that whatever agreements we sign with the mainland, we will run into this issue. So, then, should we not sign anything? And if we don’t sign anything, how can we develop relations?

Taiwan’s investment in mainland increased most rapidly in the past eight years under the former DPP government. With such an increase in investment, is it pragmatic for us not to sign anything with it now?

TT: But the problem is, with its advantageous position in the world, China promotes its version of “one China” to the international community — and that “one China” is the PRC — and this puts us at a disadvantage because China outnumbers us in terms of allies.

Ma: Why are you so lacking in confidence? With freedom, democracy and openness in Taiwan, I don’t think we would be in a disadvantageous position.

TT: Some say that we are too naive on the “one China” issue. It’s not a matter of confidence, but a matter of international reality.

Ma: If we refuse to sign agreements, our products will be taxed with higher tariffs in mainland and local industries will not survive. Is this less naive?

TT: Will there be any supplementary measures to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and national interests if the CECA is signed?

Ma: Take the agreement on cross-strait direct flights, for example: What did we lose by signing the agreement? We opened eight airports [to the flights], while mainland opened 11 airports and later upped it to 21 airports for cross-strait direct flights.

What did we lose? Did we consider it a domestic route? Or is it a special air route? Did we say that Taiwan became part of the PRC after signing the agreement? No, we never made such claims.

We should have confidence in ourselves. Communist China has its own assertions and we have ours. We cannot force it to accept our assertions at this stage and it cannot force Taiwan to accept its ideas either. As to how the international community perceives the [“one China”] issue, it depends on the stances of different countries. Some countries agree with us, and our allies won’t think Taiwan becomes part of communist China when it signs an agreement.

Those who are familiar with international relations know that major countries recognize the CCP as the only legitimate government of China when establishing diplomatic ties with communist China, but when it comes to the relations between communist China and Taiwan, those countries do not consider Taiwan a part of the PRC. There are several models adopted by different countries in this matter.

For example, Canada has used the term “takes note of” in response to communist China’s assertion [that Taiwan is part of China]. The US and England have said they “acknowledge” the assertion and Japan has said it “understands and respects” the assertion, rather than using the term “accept.”

The 1992 consensus and “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” are not Taiwan’s [model] alone. Almost all major countries that have established ties with communist China have different interpretations of the one China principle. How would they develop relations with us otherwise?

Does the US need communist China’s agreement to send someone to Taiwan? No, they don’t. So you need to understand that although these countries do not recognize us officially, they do not deny us, either. If they denied us as a country, why would they send people here and develop relations with us? The US sold weapons to Taiwan. Does the US think it is selling weapons to a ghost country?

DIPLOMATIC TRUCE

TT: Your administration adopted a “diplomatic truce” policy for foreign affairs. Does China acknowledge this policy?

Ma: There are a lot of policies communist China has put in place but didn’t say so [formally]. For example, it wanted to refer to us as “China Taipei” during the Beijing Olympics last year, but we insisted on using “Chinese Taipei.”

On the issue of the International Olympic Committee [IOC], an agreement signed between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in Hong Kong in 1989 stated that the title of the Taiwanese Olympic team within the scope of the IOC should be “Chinese Taipei,” and so we followed this protocol at the Sydney Olympics in 2000 and at the Athens Olympics in 2004.

We opposed communist China’s attempt to change our title at the Beijing Olympics and negotiated with communist China. Although it did not make an announcement, it stopped using the title of “China Taipei” later.

The so-called diplomatic truce means to not engage in unnecessary vicious attacks against each other. However, it doesn’t mean that we will stop strengthening relations with allies and other countries. We are seeking visa-free entry from the US and work holidays from Japan. We continue to strengthen ties with our allies and enhance pragmatic relations with non-allies.

What we aren’t pursuing is fruitless efforts, such as striving for allies through vicious attacks. When the former DPP government was in power from 2000 to 2008, we got three small allies, but at the same time lost nine big allies. The DPP government’s “beacon diplomacy” cost us six allies in total, so why should we continue such a policy?

What Taiwan needs is a good international image rather than a bad international reputation. Taiwan should be a peacemaker rather than a troublemaker.

CHEN YUNLIN’S VISIT

TT: You just mentioned Taiwan’s international image. Following the visit of ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin [陳雲林] and events that took place during his stay, a number of international organizations such as Amnesty International and Freedom House expressed concerns about democratic regression in Taiwan. What are your thoughts on this?

Ma: There is some criticism, but as Freedom House mentioned at its press conference, it would not change its evaluation on Taiwan based on a single incident. The Chen Yunlin incident is not an isolated incident. The earlier incident with [ARATS Vice Chairman] Zhang Mingqing [張銘清] had made the police very nervous and so the confrontations were heightened. Otherwise it would have been unnecessary to station such a heavy police force during Chen’s visit.

TT: What about the police clampdown on people who carried national flags?

Ma: It was a misunderstanding. We never asked the police to clamp down on our national flag.

TT: But footage from TV news showed that a lot of those people were carrying national flags outside of the restricted areas.

Ma: No, they were inside the restricted areas. Some were on the bridge and the police were worried that they would throw the flags onto the road. I had made my points clear on TV, and if any police dared to clamp down on national flags, I think they were looking to get punished.

TT: But some people passing by with national flags were arrested.

Ma: From what I’ve seen on TV, those who were arrested were in restricted areas or threw flags during fights. A key point in the Assembly and Parade Act [集會遊行法] is that the law does not regulate the content of the protests. It only regulates the time, the place and the form of the protests.

TT: Maybe the footage you saw was different from what we saw.

Ma: Maybe so, but our policy is very clear. After I heard about [the ban on national flags,] I went on TV to explain that I would never clamp down on the national flag. Besides, when Chinese visitors come to Taiwan, organizations with national flags inside the building don’t need to take the flags away. On the other hand, buildings with no national flags inside don’t need to put the flags there.

TT: We do not use the title “ROC” in international organizations and this is contradictory to the “one China” principle because the concept of “one China, with each having its own interpretation” called for mutual acknowledgment, with China as the PRC and Taiwan as the ROC. But Beijing has not acknowledged the ROC or Taiwan in the international community and our participation in international organizations under their conditions amounts to recognizing its “one China.”

Ma: When Taiwan entered the WTO in 2002, the former DPP government used “Chinese Taipei” as the title. The DPP government could have chosen not to participate in the organization, but do you have a better choice? If we could solve the problem using the title “Taiwan,” we would use it.

Participating in international organizations under the title of “Taiwan” or “ROC” may have been possible in the early years, but it has become much more difficult now. That’s why we have to come up with a pragmatic and flexible title so that we can maintain national dignity and at the same time achieve the goal of meaningful participation in international organizations. This is the challenge for our diplomacy, and the DPP encountered the same difficulty when it was in power. The former government did not solve the problems. Instead, they created a lot of trouble.

TT: Since you took office, however, the general impression of the international community is that Taiwan has accepted China’s “one China” framework. Customs in some countries even use “Taiwan, a province of China” when addressing Taiwan.

Ma: We have never recognized such a title; that was communist China’s assertion. Some countries may adopt the title to pander to communist China, but we do not recognize such a title.

Don’t feel like we’ve been swallowed by communist China because the sovereignty of the ROC has not been damaged. Give me one example of Taiwan’s sovereignty being damaged. Have we lost the freedom to make decisions? Are we governed by the other side? Such things have not happened.

We joined the WTO under the title “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.” If the former DPP government insisted on entering the WTO under the title “Taiwan,” it would not have joined the WTO. Could they do that? They couldn’t.

Again, if the DPP insisted on entering APEC under the title “Taiwan,” it wouldn’t have joined the organization.

Should we insist on our sovereignty in this way? That is not an insistence on sovereignty, but an insistence on the [specific] title. If we insisted on all occasions and withdrew from all organizations, we’d be besieged in Taiwan now. Would our sovereignty be upheld or shrink that way?

What we are doing now will make the world see Taiwan and we can have meaningful participation in the world.

TT: You have said that freedom and democracy are a common language across the Taiwan Strait. What do you think about China’s performance in these areas?

Ma: Of course there’s still a lot of room for improvement. On our part, I am pushing for the passage of two human rights conventions: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights. Communist China signed these two conventions 11 or 12 years ago and so I expected us to pass the two conventions as soon as possible.

The two sides of the Taiwan Strait should compete with each other in protecting human rights, democracy and freedom.

TT:Although China signed the conventions, in reality it oppresses the Falun Gong, Tibet and human rights activists, for example.

Ma: For communist China, there’s a lot of room for improvement in terms of human rights and democracy.

Even so, we still need to develop relations with communist China so it has the opportunity to learn from other countries. We don’t want to avoid communist China.

Instead, we want to push it to change through developing relations. It’s unnecessary to worry about Taiwan’s democratic society being affected by developing relations with communist China.

I have full confidence in Taiwan.

TT: After taking office, you opened the country to Chinese visitors and implemented cross-strait direct links. But the number of visitors is far less than expected and your approval ratings have fallen from 50 percent or 60 percent to 20 percent or 30 percent. You’ve paid heavy political capital for cross-strait policies. What are your thoughts on this? Will you change your policies?

Ma: We are in control of all the cross-strait policies and both the bad economy and my low support rate are not a result of my cross-strait policies.

In fact, cross-strait policy is the most popular of all of my policies. We need to further open the Taiwan Strait regardless of the economic situation.

Take sea transportation for example. Do you think we are a normal country if our ships are required to make detours to a third country and pay 30 percent to 40 percent more in total?

Cross-strait relations have not caused the economic slump, and yet some media outlets have misunderstood the whole thing.

I think the public knows that the situation is not like what some media portray.

TT: Does Taiwan depend on China too much economically?

Ma: It has been so since the former DPP government and our economic growth rate increased rapidly during that period of time.

The DPP government proposed proactive management and effective liberalization and also proactive liberalization and effective management, and it still failed to take control of the country’s economy.

The economy cannot be controlled fully by politics.

We will take economic measures to solve economic problems with less politics and ideology.

So far we have not seen any attempts by communist China to force Taiwan to do things we cannot accept and we wouldn’t have to accept it if they did so.

The day Chinatimes stop lyingPigs will fly

The following Chinatimes editorial was posted to a private Taiwan-centered forum, without commentary save for color highlighting. The message in its original marking is included at the end. I presumed the poster had high regards for the colored text. I want to point out that even for this Chinatimes editorial that won the approval of this highly educated Taiwanese poster, it is choke full of lies and unfairness. I will comment only on the second and the last paragraphs, starting with the second:

　在二○○四年民主黨大會上嶄現頭角的歐巴馬總統，當時只是參議員的候選人，他卻說出了流露領袖氣質的誓語：美國不能分自由的美國或保守的美國，紅的美國或藍的美國，黑的美國或白的美國或拉丁美國或亞裔美國，美國就是一個美國。所謂紅藍，正是美國兩大政黨的代表顏色，就是台灣常說藍綠一樣的意思。歐巴馬總統在宣誓就職時重申信念，要選擇希望而非恐懼，有意義的團結而非紛爭和不合。人民將從能建立而非摧毀的事物來評價領袖，藉著貪汙欺騙與使異議噤聲的手段緊抓權利的領袖，則是站在歷史錯誤的一邊。

Here the marking is mine to make it easier to explain. 所謂紅藍，正是美國兩大政黨的代表顏色，就是台灣常說藍綠一樣的意思 is a complete lie. In USA, the two parties compete on equal footings. In Taiwan, KMT dominates all the resources: media, judiciary, legislature, 軍公教, 黑道,... KMT has the world largest ill-gotten party assets; DPP has little operating budgets. To hint at that the two Taiwan parties are in any way similar to the two US parties has the clearest intent to deceive. 要選擇希望而非恐懼 is total non-sense. Who will choose 恐懼 over 希望? 藉著貪汙欺騙與使異議噤聲的手段 best describes Ma Yean-Jeou. Is this really what the editorial had in mind? Now, onto the last paragraph:

　超越藍綠，同時追求反對貪腐與公平審判的兩項共同價值，該是台灣面對二○○九年，審判前任總統司法案件所應該期許的新境界！

Empty and utterly hypocritical! Judicial system uses 反貪腐 to persecute DPP to the extent of jailing innocents without evidence and without charge. Meanwhile, the same judicial system openly go all out to protect KMT's 貪腐 by handing Ma Yean-Jeou a not-guilty verdict when his guilt is beyond doubt, by stonewalling his treason cases, by stonewalling 貓纜, 李慶安 ... investigations. Any talk of 公平審判 of Chen should be considered the most severe insult to human intelligence, after what has been done to him. 蘇貞昌's blog 一葉知秋 shows while Chinatimes talks about 公平, the reality is the complete opposite.

一葉知秋
--從李慶安案看政黨輪替後國家機器的黨同伐異

李慶安的雙重國籍案歹戲拖棚三百多天，她終於辭職下台，並在今天出庭應訊，往後她還要面對貪污、詐欺的追訴及把已領的一億多元薪水吐出來返還的問題。

李慶安最令人不齒的是她一直有美國籍，依法她不得擔任公職，當選後即應放棄，如已擔任亦應解職，但她不僅違法，刻意隱瞞，竟還用「雙重國籍有否放棄」來質 詢陳師孟等民進黨政府官員。更荒唐的是她所屬的國民黨在案發後一味袒護，立法院國民黨團為迴護她也再三阻擋拖延不給查，負責執法的法務部、檢察機關裝聾作啞，監察院更是毫無動作。這就是我們最擔心的：在政黨輪替後，一黨獨大下，公理、正義、法治被戕害乃至死亡的情況，果然已經出現。

政黨輪替以來，行政院對所屬公務員，從院本部、國營事業、金融機構乃至駐外人員，算選舉帳似的全面調動。一方面檢調機關對前朝官員全面追殺，急如星火。監察委員不顧司法正偵辦中，仍忙著進進出出看守所，對羈押禁見中的陳水扁、林德訓、馬永成、邱義仁等人訊問、查案，甚至還傳問辦案中的特偵組檢察官。另一方 面各該機關卻又立場一致地對李慶安案的明顯違法一拖三百天毫無動作。

國家機器中不同的機關，卻同一步調地打一邊、放一邊的種種作為，看在天下百姓眼裡，只有一種感覺，那就是黨同伐異，就是用國家機器追殺異己，對自己人犯法則曲意迴護。這那有正義，這那是法治？這是國家機關設置的使命嗎？。

李慶安案只是掉落的一葉，但路人皆知秋天來了。

How about UDN? 曾韋禎 honored UDN with the title 台灣第一爛報:

噁心的聯合報
今天的聯合報有一個「新聞幕後甘苦談」 專欄，讓聯合報記者有機會毫不掩飾地寫文章抒發自己的情感。不過，台灣第一爛報不是一蹴可幾，除了有爛主管、爛編輯外，當然也有一堆爛記者。看看這群聯合 報記者，捧馬、批扁毫不餘力，還有那種像義和團的無知鄉民，有這麼一群愛自爽、自以為是，又沒啥素質、常識的記者，無怪聯合報穩居台灣第一爛報寶座。

To expect Chinatimes, UDN and the like to be fair is to expect pigs to fly. I urge all Taiwanese to stop reading them. You won't miss a thing and you take a small step to stop supporting evil.

Finally, the posting with poster's original marking:

追求超越藍綠的共同價值
2009-01-25 中國時報 【中時社論】
　鼠年即將過去。臨尾世人目睹美國新總統歐巴馬就職，

為金融海嘯聲中的世界注入新的視角；台灣的扁珍司法大案則有子媳認罪，簽署授權書匯回海外洗錢款項若干。台灣該用什麼態度迎接牛年呢？

　在二○○四年民主黨大會上嶄現頭角的歐巴馬總統，當時只是參議員的候選人，他卻說出了流露領袖氣質的誓語：美國不能分自由的美國或保守的美國，紅的美國或藍的美國，黑的美國或白的美國或拉丁美國或亞裔美國，美國就是一個美國。所謂紅藍，正是美國兩大政黨的代表顏色，就是台灣常說藍綠一樣的意思。歐巴馬總統在宣誓就職時重申信念，要選擇希望而非恐懼，有意義的團結而非紛爭和不合。人民將從能建立而非摧毀的事物來評價領袖，藉著貪汙欺騙與使異議噤聲的手段緊抓權利的領袖，則是站在歷史錯誤的一邊。

　歐巴馬的話語，似也適用於台灣。台灣在二○○八年也經歷了總統大選，但是台灣也必須在藍綠之外接受某些共同的價值。藍色或綠色都不是台灣共同的價值，台灣不能只是藍的或綠的台灣，台灣就是一個台灣。如果審判前任總統對於台灣具有任何指標性的意義，它的意義當在於這一場審判能夠提鍊出什麼樣共同的價值。

　反對貪腐與公平審判，是台灣從事這一場審判，可以同時把握的兩項共同價值。掌握政治權力的人，不能夠以錢謀權，以權謀錢，這是貪汙的共同形態；更不能用製造對立與敵人，騙取權力的正當性，來掩蓋貪汙謀取私利的錯誤。台灣要有能夠抵禦分裂的共同價值，就該同意，反對貪腐是超越藍綠顏色的共同價值，藍色的貪腐與綠色的貪腐，都是應該反對與制裁的貪腐。不會先問貪腐的顏色是藍是綠，再來決定要不要反對貪腐。

　司法提供公平審判，也是台灣另一項重要的共同價值。司法是獨立的，中立於藍色與綠色之外的，審判任何人，都要堅守程序的正義來獲致實質的正義。在司法審判中，要讓被告得到合乎法治要求的作為，而非報復壓迫；足以超越藍綠的公平審判，沒有先入為主的偏見，不討好任何一方，不放鬆公正審判的任何程序正義環節，才能成就台灣的共同價值。

　反對貪腐與公平審判，應該是可以並行而非互衝突的共同價值。過去的時光之中，藍的一方只談反對貪腐，綠的一方只談公平審判，讓兩種價值似乎對立起來，不是彰顯共同價值的正確態度，只會凸顯自身的價值順序，很有應該檢討之處。

　只要求打擊貪腐，而不計較審判是否符合公平正義的程序要求，其實是將顏色的價值提昇到共同價值之上。只因為打擊貪腐能夠否定另一種顏色，就不講公平審判的價值，就願意捨棄公平審判的堅持，顯示的其實是只有顏色的信仰，沒有共同價值的超越體會，對於台灣的發展，只有害處，沒有幫助。

　只看到審判程序的細節，避談貪腐行為的錯誤，其實也是將顏色的價值提昇到共同價值之上。擔心打擊貪腐會形成顏色的否定，就拒絕切割，而寧願以訴訟技術操作踐踏司法程序，來保護心中鍾愛的顏色，顯示的同樣只是顏色的信仰，不是共同的價值。而台灣，如果可以為了顏色而包庇貪腐，可以為了顏色而破毀司法的存在，就會因為缺乏共同價值而沒有未來。

　唯其如此，我們很高興看到大法官在鼠年末做出憲法解釋，不因被告的顏色是藍是綠，明白地宣告律師接見羈押禁見的被告，全程監聽錄音，是違憲的作法，羈押法的規定違憲。大法官提供解釋的案件，正是藍的政府人員被控貪汙，同樣的憲法原則，當然也要適用於綠色政府的被告。

　超越藍綠，同時追求反對貪腐與公平審判的兩項共同價值，該是台灣面對二○○九年，審判前任總統司法案件所應該期許的新境界！

Some thoughts on 陳幸妤's 我有話要說

The following snapshot of a Google news search on 陳幸妤 and 謝長廷 shows that her article 我有話要說 provided KMT media fresh ammunition to manipulate Taiwanese. People attacked by 陳幸妤 such as 謝長廷 are hurt for no justifiable reason. On the other hand, KMT media will try to exploit this to hurt Taiwanese maximally. I hope Taiwanese are wise enough to avoid fighting among ourselves, but concentrate on urgent things such as recalling Ma to save Taiwan.

Before you blame 陳幸妤 for her selfish, unethical and unwise comments, ask how you would behave if your father had been persecuted and incarcerated by Nazi-like forces. 陳幸妤's cry for help is understandable: why don't you help us? We don't need to defend Chen Shui-Bian, and we shouldn't unless you can do so with clear conscience. But we can and we must demand a fair and legal proceeding for him.

It is beyond any doubt that the process using which the judicial system persecuted and jailed Chen Shui-Bian was blazantly illegal and unthinkably (quote Jerome Cohen) unprofessional [see Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3]. I urge all humans to voice a strongest condemnation. Many Taiwanese find it difficut to do so because condemnation of the illegal proceeding has been painted by KMT media as supporting Chen Shui-Bian. Simple logic says that condemnation of illegal proceeding is every citizen's obligation whether the accused be Chen, Ma, Obama, or Taliban. Demanding the process to be legal, just and fair is fundamental; it has nothing to do with who is involved.

陳幸妤爆料中風？ 謝長廷快閃走路慢，重心在右腳

NOWnews - 4小時前
陳前總統女兒陳幸妤投書爆料說，前行政院長謝長廷在總統大選期間其實是中風，而不是腳扭傷，謝長廷21日下午親自現身駁斥陳幸妤的說法，他說，陳幸妤聽到的，有很多都不是真的；不過，當記者進一步追問當時確定只是腳扭傷而不是中風嗎？謝長廷則是快步離開，沒有理會媒體的 ...
揭醫療隱私邱毅：陳幸妤像地獄使者 聯合新聞網
陳幸妤踢爆謝中風邱毅：沒格調已違醫師倫理 中時電子報
扁案開庭／陳幸妤爆謝長廷中風醫德遭質疑，最重判1年 NOWnews
NOWnews - NOWnews
所有 85 則相關新聞 »

陳幸妤捅謝綠營不認同 聯合新聞網 - 9小時前 前總統陳水扁出書大談長扁情仇，女兒陳幸妤今天投書爆料，箭頭也指向謝長廷；對此，民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘語重心長地說，大家應該以寬容、寬恕的心情看待，謝系子弟兵李俊毅則回批，矛頭向內，救不了（她的）父親、也傷了民進黨，找人陪葬沒有意義。 ... 幸妤爆料／綠委痛心：找人陪葬救不了扁也傷了民進黨 NOWnews 所有 2 則相關新聞 »

給我閉嘴！陳幸妤爆謝小中風綠委籲扁家別再傷害民進黨 NOWnews - 13小時前 黨籍立委潘孟安說，陳幸妤選在這時間爆料，根本是「親痛仇快」，潘孟安質疑，「這種狗屁倒灶的事情，需要在這時間講嗎？」他也認為，陳幸妤不應該選在這時候在民進黨傷口上灑鹽巴，「個人恩怨應該平息」。 黨籍立委李俊毅則指出，如果站在民進黨支持者立場，支持者現在對 ...

幸妤爆料／批昌長拿錢不認帳律師：政治獻金你情我願 NOWnews - 1小時前 前總統陳水扁女兒陳幸妤21日透過媒體發飆，說那些曾經拿過她爸爸錢的泛綠天王，包括：前行政院長謝長廷、蘇貞昌拿了錢還不承認，讓她徹底看輕他們，但律師認為，政治獻金的提供與受捐，本來就是你情我願，一般也不會白紙黑字寫下來，陳幸妤講這些根本就是白講。 ...

出庭前動作多扁家新總管陳致中精算每一步 NOWnews - 10小時前 不但在開庭前夕，陳致中卻先讓姐姐陳幸妤投書媒體爆料，再和妻子黃睿靚一起接受親綠媒體專訪；東森新聞掌握到，訪問過程中，主持人黃越綏都只與黃睿靚一問一答，而陳致中就像是個陪襯角色，但誰也沒想到，這一切的幕後安排者其實都是陳致中。 老爸陳水扁二度被押後，扁家 ... 洗錢案下午開庭黃睿靚舅媽：不擔心 自由時報 兒媳認罪陳水扁竟然不知情？！ 中國評論 台灣‧扁家弊案大審判‧扁兒媳妻舅認罪 星洲日報 所有 228 則相關新聞 »

幸妤爆料／蘇貞昌到台南探扁媽避談謝長廷是否小中風 NOWnews - 10小時前 陳幸妤投書平面媒體爆料，2008總統大選時，謝長廷曾經打電話給陳水扁，表示自己小中風，但因為怕影響選情，對外佯稱是腳受傷，當時蘇貞昌究竟知不知情？正當媒體想找蘇貞昌問清楚時，東森新聞記者捕捉到他現身陳水扁台南官田老家探望扁媽，不過對於所有問題一概不回應。 ... 蘇貞昌南下官田探視扁媽 自由時報 所有 2 則相關新聞 »

陳幸妤投書：謝長廷曾經小中風 聯合新聞網 - 14小時前 前總統陳水扁日前出書，指前行政院長謝長廷因腳傷影響總統大選，謝長廷昨天出面反擊要求陳水扁懺悔，陳水扁女兒陳幸妤今天投書媒體，指謝長廷那時有次突然打電話給陳水扁，說自己「小中風」，因為怕影響選舉不敢就醫，之後，謝長廷閉關一陣子，謊稱是腳傷。

幸妤爆料／謝身體狀況黨內各說各話內鬥成閉關好理由 NOWnews - 29分鐘前 前總統陳水扁女兒陳幸妤爆料指前民進黨總統參選人謝長廷在2008年總統大選期間，曾對外說他腳扭傷，其實是小中風，引起外界關注，而根據東森新聞重新比對當時的事發經過以及相關新聞，發現民進黨內對於謝長廷當時到底是發生什麼事，所做的陳述是各說各話，由於當時民進黨內 ...

中國評論	女兒投書陳水扁看報心情平靜 自由時報 - 12小時前 〔本報訊〕前總統陳水扁持續羈押台北看守所，確定無法回家過年，今天上午雖然沒有人來北所探視陳水扁，但他已經看過女兒陳幸妤的投書文章。台北看守所副所長李大竹表示，陳水扁看了報紙之後，心情還算平靜。 李大竹說，陳水扁大約在上午6點50分起床，7點20分用餐，早餐 ... 早上沒人去探視看守所：扁心情平靜 中國評論 扁案開庭／兒媳認罪北所：扁有看電視，心情平靜 NOWnews 致靚認罪北所：扁應已得知，心情平靜 自由時報 所有 5 則相關新聞 »

陳幸妤每天讀經禱告還計畫讓兒受洗？
NOWnews - 2009年1月18日
自從爆發洗錢案，陳水扁家一家人身心疲憊，紛紛求助上帝，扁家最虔誠的就是陳幸妤。 扁家人宗教信仰很多元，弊案纏身之後，越來越靠近上帝！扁家人最虔誠的就是陳幸妤，很久沒有在鏡頭前說話的她，每天讀經、禱告，週末假日也開始帶著兒子到教會上兒童主日學課程，甚至還 ...
陳水扁家人陸續歸入耶穌名下尋求“心靈解脫” 新浪網
扁密帳／諸案纏身阿珍、幸妤禱告勤致中睿靚最鐵齒？ NOWnews
弊案纏！珍每日必讀《靈命日糧》 配合禱告救扁 NOWnews
所有 7 則相關新聞 »

--

陳致中、黃睿靚認罪道歉謝長廷：社會應接納他們
NOWnews - 2小時前
陳幸妤21日第三度投書親綠媒體，在《我有話要說》中，陳幸妤將矛頭指向前行政院長謝長廷，她並爆料謝長廷曾經在2008年總統大選期間小中風。 今天(21日)台北地院審理洗錢案，陳致中表示願意認罪，黃睿靚也極小聲的表示願意認罪，陳致中也向社會大眾道歉。前行政院長謝長廷 ...
陳幸妤爆料中風？ 謝長廷快閃走路慢，重心在右腳 NOWnews
扁案開庭／陳幸妤爆謝長廷中風醫德遭質疑，最重判1年 NOWnews
小中風有沒有？ 謝長廷不滿：幸妤從爆料被害人變加害人 NOWnews
NOWnews - NOWnews
所有 85 則相關新聞 »

聯合新聞網

影音》謝長廷籲扁：認錯心存慚愧 聯合新聞網 - 21小時前 前總統陳水扁新書再爆「長扁心結」，前行政院長謝長廷以「蒼天如可問、赤子果何辜」形容心境，他呼籲扁應向支持者認錯，心存慚愧與歉疚，檢討自己，這樣站起來會比較容易，「我已經沒辦法再幫他（扁）了」。 謝長廷昨天出席一場武俠小說的新書發表會。 ... 熱門話題：拖垮謝長廷阿扁才是包袱 中時電子報 扁密帳／決裂！ 謝長廷批扁：應該要心存慚愧跟歉疚！ NOWnews 謝長廷以文天祥詩句回應陳水扁指責 臺灣新浪網 聯合新聞網 - NOWnews 所有 148 則相關新聞 »

幸妤爆料／謝身體狀況黨內各說各話內鬥成閉關好理由 NOWnews - 30分鐘前 前總統陳水扁女兒陳幸妤爆料指前民進黨總統參選人謝長廷在2008年總統大選期間，曾對外說他腳扭傷，其實是小中風，引起外界關注，而根據東森新聞重新比對當時的事發經過以及相關新聞，發現民進黨內對於謝長廷當時到底是發生什麼事，所做的陳述是各說各話，由於當時民進黨內 ...

幸妤爆料／蘇貞昌到台南探扁媽避談謝長廷是否小中風 NOWnews - 10小時前 陳幸妤投書平面媒體爆料，2008總統大選時，謝長廷曾經打電話給陳水扁，表示自己小中風，但因為怕影響選情，對外佯稱是腳受傷，當時蘇貞昌究竟知不知情？正當媒體想找蘇貞昌問清楚時，東森新聞記者捕捉到他現身陳水扁台南官田老家探望扁媽，不過對於所有問題一概不回應。 ... 蘇貞昌南下官田探視扁媽 自由時報 所有 2 則相關新聞 »

陳幸妤投書：謝長廷曾經小中風 聯合新聞網 - 14小時前 前總統陳水扁日前出書，指前行政院長謝長廷因腳傷影響總統大選，謝長廷昨天出面反擊要求陳水扁懺悔，陳水扁女兒陳幸妤今天投書媒體，指謝長廷那時有次突然打電話給陳水扁，說自己「小中風」，因為怕影響選舉不敢就醫，之後，謝長廷閉關一陣子，謊稱是腳傷。

謝長廷：陳前總統失去自由理解其心境 自立晚報 - 2009年1月20日 【記者郭穗台北報導】影子政府召集人謝長廷〈檔案照〉昨(二十)日上午出席許仁圖武俠小說《枕舟江湖》、《港澳版大武林》的新書發表會。對於記者詢問陳前總統出版的【台灣的十字架】一書中，關於長扁互動敘述的看法，謝長廷表示，他跟陳前總統都互相幫忙過，也有很多外界都 ...

我有話要說 自由時報 - 21小時前 其一，二○○八年大選時，謝長廷有一次突然打電話給我爸爸，說他小中風，但是因為怕影響選舉不敢就醫，之後他閉關一陣子，謊稱是腳傷，但是算他運氣好，之後除了一腳比較無力，還算能欺瞞過去，但總是體力有限，選舉有氣無力，事後回想，若非當時一己之私，讓位給蘇貞昌 ...

扁打謝悶棍蘇貞昌游錫堃會心驚肉跳 NOWnews - 2009年1月20日 他與謝長廷有長期的心結，根本不是什麼秘密，但從他在書中所舉出來的瑣瑣碎碎例子，即使是事實，也只能證明自己的心胸和麻雀差不多，才會對這種芝麻小事念念不忘，經過多年還記得如此清楚。其實，從謝長廷的立場來看，他這幾年所受的氣，幾籮筐也講不完，但他盡量保持 ...

陳幸妤捅謝綠營不認同 聯合新聞網 - 9小時前 前總統陳水扁出書大談長扁情仇，女兒陳幸妤今天投書爆料，箭頭也指向謝長廷；對此，民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘語重心長地說，大家應該以寬容、寬恕的心情看待，謝系子弟兵李俊毅則回批，矛頭向內，救不了（她的）父親、也傷了民進黨，找人陪葬沒有意義。 ...

游錫堃轉戰北市長？傳找陳敏薰合作
NOWnews - 12小時前
民進黨天王謝長廷復出主持廣播節目，呂秀蓮辦玉山午報，都被外界解讀有意角逐2012總統大位，另一位天王游錫堃也傳出將有動作，他要挑戰的是台北市長郝龍斌，目標放在明年底的台北市長選戰。 對此，游錫堃表示，「根本沒有想過這樣的事情(選北市長)，目前都沒考慮到這部分 ...

--

臺灣新浪網

馬永成、林德訓喊冤與扁切割 臺灣新浪網 - 2小時前 扁家4大弊案，在國務機要費部分，台北地院20日分別傳喚馬永成、林德訓，而這2位前後任總統公室主任大聲喊冤，說自己只負責簽名，沒權審核，況且下屬陳鎮慧是扁家帳房，錢怎麼用他們根本不知情，更強調沒有一毛錢放進自己口袋，企圖和陳水扁完整切割，以換取清白。 ... 國務費案供述不實馬永成林德訓翻供道歉 中時電子報 國務費案馬永成林德訓道歉不認罪 自由時報 聯合新聞網 - NOWnews - yam天空新聞 - 新報 所有 118 則相關新聞 »

扁新書／馬回應暗批扁不配當總統勸扁不要怨天尤人 NOWnews - 3小時前 對 於民意的需求，馬總統似乎也聽到了，今天上午出席公開活動時，面對媒體關注消費券方案，馬總統除了以笑容回應外，還比出他最愛的握拳加油手勢，似乎信心滿 滿。(本報資料照) 針對前總統陳水扁新書內容，馬英九總統20日接受電視媒體專訪時，也首度回應向人在台北看守所被 ... 馬英九：扁莫怨天尤人 中時電子報 總統：不尊重司法不配當總統 自由時報 中央廣播電台 - 香港新浪網 - NOWnews 所有 23 則相關新聞 »

扁聲請蔡守訓迴避高院駁回 聯合新聞網 - 7小時前 最高檢特偵組要求新光醫院前副院長黃芳彥明天到案說明，但黃至今行蹤不明；針對立委質疑有人向黃芳彥通風報信，檢察總長陳聰明昨天首度公開澄清說，他不知道黃芳彥出國的事。 特偵組主任陳雲南昨天證實，已向黃芳彥發出證人傳票，要求他廿二日到案說明。 ... 台灣高等法院駁回扁聲請法官迴避 自由時報 陳水扁提法官迴避高院裁定駁回 yam天空新聞 中央廣播電台 - 中國經濟網 - NOWnews 所有 16 則相關新聞 »

聯合新聞網

謝：扁應心存感恩、愧疚 中時電子報 - 7小時前 前總統陳水扁出書爆長扁心結，前行政院長謝長廷昨日也四兩撥千斤地反擊說，扁過去曾握他手，眼眶泛紅說，要用生命報答他。還說陳水扁私下常跟他抱怨其他天王，但他絕對不附和，也不會幫扁出主意，「我怎麼會那麼傻！」他是總統，早料到他會寫回憶錄。 ... 謝籲扁：誠實面對才容易站起來 自由時報 扁密帳／決裂！ 謝長廷批扁：應該要心存慚愧跟歉疚！ NOWnews 中央廣播電台 - 臺灣新浪網 - 聯合新聞網 - 中時電子報 所有 137 則相關新聞 »