攏係假 = 攏係GAY

馬鶯狗
攏係假
攏係GAY

凡是不挺台灣人核心價值的就不是朋友甚至是敵人

凡是力挺臺灣人核心價值的就是朋友.
也就是說凡是不挺台灣人核心價值的就不是朋友或敵人
==========================================

我們認為最重要台灣的核心價值有:民主，自由，人權，主權獨立，司法公正。
其中我認為民進党蔡xx，不挺人權，不挺司法公正，不太挺主權獨立。
所以蔡xx，絕不是朋友。蔡xx可能是敵人。

最近陳菊要將澳洲籍導演拍攝熱比婭生平的傳記電影《愛的十個條件》，
撤出2009高雄電影節的播映片單一事，
也違反了民主，人權，自由，主權獨立等台灣人核心價值。
所以陳x也不是台灣人有朋友了，也可能變成了台灣人的敵人了。

Evidence fails to support life sentence for Taiwan's former president

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunSeptember 16, 2009

When a court in Taiwan imposes a life sentence, there is an automatic appeal to a higher panel of judges, but former president Chen Shui-bian and his wife Wu Shu-chen should not nurse too many hopes that the draconian penalties imposed on them last week will be moderated.

From the start, the campaign to prosecute Chen, who stepped down in May last year after two four-year terms as president, and his wife for corruption have not passed the smell test of a fair and independent judicial process.

Many people both in Taiwan and abroad have commented since the process began that it looks more like political persecution of Chen, whose Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) promotes Taiwan as an independent nation, by the new Kuomintang (KMT) party of president Ma Ying-jeou than a genuine attempt to eradicate graft in high places.

Ma and the KMT, which for 50 years ran Taiwan as a one-party state under martial law until it was pushed by the United States into democratization in the late 1980s, have been edging Taiwan toward some kind of political union with China since they regained control of the administration in May last year.

In sentencing Chen and Wu to life in prison, the court has, doubtless inadvertently, presented Beijing with a gift and Taiwan's 23 million people a stern warning that they are not masters in their own house.

To put it bluntly, no convincing evidence was presented during the trial on which Chen could be convicted of corruption, embezzlement or money laundering by an impartial court, though that cannot be said of Wu, her brother or her children.

The campaign to prepare the expectation that Chen is guilty and would go to prison for a long time began during the investigation by prosecutors.

There was a steady stream of often scurrilous and insubstantial stories leaked to the media, whose proprietors are largely KMT supporters, spinning a web of guilt around Chen.

Chen was then held incommunicado for a month late last year before any indictment was presented. He was formally detained on Dec. 20 and when he applied for bail, was granted it.

But there was then an uproar by KMT legislators and a new judge was made head of the court. He is Tsai Shou-hsun, who, coincidentally no doubt, had recently found Ma not guilty of charges of, while mayor of Taipei, misusing discretionary funds, very similar charges that Chen faced.

Tsai immediately ordered Chen's pretrial detention to continue in case the former president tried to influence witnesses. And Tsai has presided over the trial and delivered the verdict.

And the documentation around these cases is so voluminous it smells of bafflegab.

The indictment is 202 pages in Chinese. The press release from the Taipei District Court announcing the verdict is 59 pages and this, apparently, is a prelude to the full 1,500-page judgment.

The first 190 pages of the indictment track the $30 million US in campaign donations and $15 million US in presidential discretionary funds on their way to accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

This is the money laundering case, but it is only a crime if the money was illegally obtained. And nowhere in the prosecution's case is there evidence that this money was got illegally. There's a lot of supposition and sly suggestion, but no evidence.

In Taiwan, election law says, despite efforts by Chen's administration to change it in the face of KMT obstruction, that leftover campaign donations belong to the candidate. And Chen dealt with the discretionary funds in exactly the same way as predecessors.

Chen says he left the family finances to Wu, who is known to be avaricious and has some reason to seek the security that money brings.

In 1986, Chen and Wu, while travelling around Tainan County thanking supporters, were attacked by a man driving a farm tractor. The driver missed Chen, but ran over Wu and a campaign aide. He backed up and drove over Wu again and then drove over her a third time.

Her back was broken and since then she has had to use a wheelchair. The driver was questioned by police, who concluded it was an accident, and no charges were laid.

There is little doubt that Wu received bribes in the case of land acquisition for a high tech science park.

But there was no evidence that she told Chen. Indeed, all the evidence says the couple has fallen out because Wu lied to her husband about what was going on.

911砍頭

The trials of Ah-Bian

Sep 17th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Bringing Taiwan’s former president to trial is ground-breaking. A shame about the judicial flaws

Illustration by M. Morgenstern

A DRAMA that has transfixed Taiwan came to a head on September 11th when Chen Shui-bian, president from 2000 to 2008, was sentenced to life in jail for embezzlement, money-laundering and bribe-taking. A life sentence was also given to his crippled wife. This is not the end of the saga, for a long appeals process stretches ahead. Still, bringing a former leader to book is unprecedented for Taiwan. It is, indeed, an inspiring first in Chinese history for a toppled ruler to be punished by the law rather than the mob. So more’s the pity that the achievement is marred by flaws in the legal system that Mr Chen’s trial has highlighted.

A quick reminder of the plot to date. During the “White Terror” of the Kuomintang (KMT) dictatorship, Wu Shu-chen, a beauty from a well-to-do family, falls for the idealism of a poor tenant-farmer’s son, nicknamed Ah-Bian, who has put his precocious talents as a lawyer into the fight for justice, human rights and democracy. She pays a physical price, when one day at a rally she is hit by a farm truck that runs back and forth three times over her legs. KMT hitmen may have been responsible. She is confined for life to a wheelchair.

Ah-Bian redoubles his battle against dictatorship and corruption. Opposition efforts begin to bear fruit, and democracy comes to Taiwan. In 2000 Ah-Bian himself wins the presidency as head of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), overturning the KMT’s half-century of power. He furthers Taiwan’ s democratisation, always controversially, by restructuring governing institutions and shaping a Taiwanese identity that stands out from mainland China’s. But this lifetime fighter against corruption proves to be very corrupt by any standards—except possibly the past KMT’s.

It has taken three years since the first real whiff of scandal for Mr Chen’s followers to face up to the scale on which their man has let them down. The DPP has felt the trauma in emotional and electoral terms. As for Mr Chen’s psychology, it is a story worthy of great tragedy. Friends say that high office made a humble man arrogant. They also emphasise his family’s suffering. In franker moments Mr Chen confessed to abiding guilt over Miss Wu’s disability. His wife seems to have played on this: didn’t she deserve a few jewels the size of boulders? At heart, this has been Mr Chen’s justification in his few expressions of public remorse, though former supporters think he has not apologised enough.

Yet, for all the revulsion with Mr Chen, the handling of his trial has also raised concerns. At best, many say, the judiciary has one foot stuck in the bad old days. At worst, it takes its orders from the KMT, now back in power.

The main worry has to do with Mr Chen’s detention before and during the trial, including a month in solitary confinement. No one has properly explained why, after the presiding judge freed Mr Chen from pre-trial detention (to loud protests by KMT politicians), the judge was replaced. The new judge, Tsai Shou-hsun, promptly detained Mr Chen again. Mr Tsai happens to have presided over an earlier trial of Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT, now Mr Chen’s successor as president, who was accused of abusing political funds when he was mayor of Taipei in ways that recall Mr Chen’s case. But Mr Tsai acquitted Mr Ma, and gave an aide involved in the abuse a year in jail.

Mr Chen’s supporters, pointing to his life sentence, and to the 20- and 16-year sentences meted out respectively to two of his aides, claim a political vendetta by the KMT, orchestrated by Mr Ma. That would hardly be in keeping with the clean-guy image of Mr Ma, a Harvard-trained lawyer. It would also throw into question how far Taiwan has really come as a law-based democracy. But it is more plausible to blame the trial’s flaws on a legal system that has only imperfectly made the leap from being venal and biddable under dictatorship towards judicial independence and due process. Six years ago Taiwan’s judge-prosecutors were replaced by a system in which impartial judges are meant to hear out the case for the prosecution and the defence. Mr Tsai’s open hostility to Mr Chen during the trial suggests some old-school attitudes are hard to shake off.

What is more, prosecutors’ immense powers, including the practice of interrogating an individual without letting him know what he is said to have done, remain a blot on democracy. Shameful too was the skit performed at the prosecutors’ annual dinner in which mockery was made of Mr Chen famously protesting at the humiliation of having to wear handcuffs. No rebuke came from the government. Now the justice ministry threatens to disbar Mr Chen’s lawyer, Cheng Wen-lung, for questioning the fairness of the judicial process. That smacks, says Jerome Cohen, Mr Ma’s former law professor, now at New York University, of the persecution of human-rights lawyers in China.

Drawing the right conclusions

What conclusions you draw about the future rule of law in Taiwan depend on whether you believe Mr Chen’ s trial was politically motivated or not. If not—and the investigation of Mr Chen, after all, began when he was still president—then the trial of a former president is surely a landmark. What is more, the legal system is responding to the trial’s shortcomings. For instance, thanks to a challenge by Mr Chen, the prosecutors’ insistence that they attend and record meetings between defendants and their counsel has now been ruled unconstitutional.

More telling, the KMT is looking anew at the whole business of murky political funds which the reforming Mr Chen should have addressed as a cancer on democracy, but instead dipped into. And most telling of all is China’s official reaction to the downfall of an enemy loathed for his embrace of Taiwanese independence. The reaction has been very nearly mute. After all, to cheer Taiwan’s pursuit of a corrupt leader might encourage China’s own citizens to draw all the wrong inferences about what should happen to their own rulers.

我們永遠不會諒解你笑瘋(李筱峰)對台灣意識的傷害

以下是李小瘋的文字:
(1) 我辛苦三、四十年的奮鬥，被扁珍家族毀於一旦，
接著又被一堆扁奴侮辱，已經決定停筆不再寫專欄。
扁珍家族和扁奴們對國民黨的貢獻，實在不小！
台灣就留給扁珍家族和扁奴們去救吧！

(2) 但還是希望扁珍家族悔改道歉，不要拖垮綠營。

(3) 哈哈哈哈，我永遠不會諒解扁珍家庭對台灣的傷害。