2008年11月23日 星期日
2008年11月21日 星期五
芒果日報被強制關站了
繼「笨總統事件」，金管會大搞文字獄要求股市名嘴禁口之後；
現在連雅虎奇摩除了「刪文」之外，現在更以「強制關站」的惡質手法，
將「芒果日報」部落格強行關閉！這簡直是搞戒嚴時期的白色恐怖、
限制言論自由，看到沒？這就是「笨總統」完全執政後僅僅半年就已經完成的
「百年盛世」德政。
他們過盛世，台灣人就得「百年」！死豬不怕滾水燙，驅笨免驚批評多，
執政無能又經不起時政批評，手底下的人自然會揣摩上意，幫忙箝制言論自由，
讓台灣公民住嘴；這跟在1106事件中關閉唱片行、警察捂住路人嘴巴不讓人
講話的現象又有何差別？！
年糕呼籲，請所有的台灣派部落客一起發文聲討這種惡質行為，同時也請酥餅大、
妙子桑、機車團的漢堡、大腸、太伯等位大大、玉山記者團全球同仁、
TBA比利潘大大諸位，請再聯手發起對國際媒體與友人的「一人一信」運動，
否則今天是芒果日報、下一個可能就是年糕、再來又會是誰遭遇毒手呢？
尤其要讓美國雅虎總部也知道這件事件，懇請所有台灣派部落格友達們逗三工！
幫芒果日報聲援，也是為我們自己留條言論自由的活路。
http://blog.roodo.com/gamy543/archives/7657419.html
瞎毀？芒果日報被強制關站了！
Yahoo的客服電話：(02)2192-7123
大家一人一通電話打去Yahoo抗議箝制言論自由。
新禁歌-台灣之歌 戀戀北迴線
上揚唱片被關掉的歌，大家來聽囉！！
【戀戀北迴線】曲詞：黃麒嘉
火車載阮要來去 台灣的後花園
世間尚水的所在 攏置彼一屏
瑞芳金瓜石 溫柔可愛的基隆河
濛朧三貂嶺 青青雙溪水
悠悠擱綿綿 親像一首詩
行到福隆 看見著海邊
轔轔嚨嚨 搖過基隆河
唭唭喀喀 攀過三貂嶺
船隻漂來又漂去 海風帶鹹味
海面金金地閃熾 日頭浮上天
北關的海湧 歸工歡喜地唱歌
熱情龜山島 陪咱鬥陣行
礁溪洗溫泉 宜蘭買膽肝
來到蘇澳 海產尚好呷
悉悉沙沙 海湧地唱歌
嚕嚕啦啦 礁溪洗溫泉
大山大海大港灣 花蓮到台東
大橋大溪大塴崆 塴崆黑籠籠
遊賞太魯閣 散步迷人的鯉魚潭
坐船秀姑巒 台東摘金針
世外的桃源 美麗的台灣
自由自在 幸福台灣人
卿卿硿硿 火車鑽塴崆
吧哪吧吧 火車地相閃
【戀戀北迴線】曲詞：黃麒嘉
火車載阮要來去 台灣的後花園
世間尚水的所在 攏置彼一屏
瑞芳金瓜石 溫柔可愛的基隆河
濛朧三貂嶺 青青雙溪水
悠悠擱綿綿 親像一首詩
行到福隆 看見著海邊
轔轔嚨嚨 搖過基隆河
唭唭喀喀 攀過三貂嶺
船隻漂來又漂去 海風帶鹹味
海面金金地閃熾 日頭浮上天
北關的海湧 歸工歡喜地唱歌
熱情龜山島 陪咱鬥陣行
礁溪洗溫泉 宜蘭買膽肝
來到蘇澳 海產尚好呷
悉悉沙沙 海湧地唱歌
嚕嚕啦啦 礁溪洗溫泉
大山大海大港灣 花蓮到台東
大橋大溪大塴崆 塴崆黑籠籠
遊賞太魯閣 散步迷人的鯉魚潭
坐船秀姑巒 台東摘金針
世外的桃源 美麗的台灣
自由自在 幸福台灣人
卿卿硿硿 火車鑽塴崆
吧哪吧吧 火車地相閃
美國自由之家呼籲臺灣政府成立獨立委員會調查警民衝突
美國自由之家呼籲臺灣政府成立獨立委員會調查警民衝突
Freedom House Calls for Inquiry into Taiwan Clashes
Washington – November 20, 2008 – Freedom House urges Taiwan's
government to create an independent commission to thoroughly
investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese
envoy Chen Yunlin's historic visit and recommend needed reforms.
"A public investigation of the violence—which involved both sides—will
send a critical message that the new government of President Ma
Ying-jeou is interested in upholding the democratic values of
transparency and accountability," said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House
executive director. "The inquiry should examine evidence on both sides
and recommend any needed reforms to police practices and the legal
framework governing demonstrations."
Hundreds of university students are currently staging a sit-in in
Taipei's Freedom Square and several other cities to protest the
government's handling of the incident. During Chen's visit, police
reportedly used heavy-handed tactics—including physical assault,
arbitrary detention and destruction of property—to prevent Chen from
seeing symbols of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, as well as
broader demonstrations against the Chinese regime. Demonstrators also
employed violence against police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs
outside Chen's hotel on November 6.
The clashes reveal a need for police to undergo crowd control training
that adheres to the standards used in other democracies. Likewise,
demonstrators and political advocacy groups must recommit themselves
to orderly protests that avoid violence under any circumstances.
The inquiry commission should examine controversial passages in
Taiwan's Assembly and Parade Law, such as restrictions on where people
are allowed to demonstrate, and determine whether they need to be
liberalized to protect citizens' rights to freedom of expression and
assembly. The commission should also investigate claims that police
are selectively enforcing the law.
The visit by Chen, the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan
since it split from China in 1949, and the recent arrests of several
opposition party figures are raising concerns that that President Ma
and his Kuomintang Party may rollback democratic freedoms.
"The government must renew its commitment to tolerating robust freedom
of assembly and peaceful protest, no matter what the cause," said
Windsor.
Taiwan is ranked Free in the 2008 edition of Freedom in the World,
Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and in
the 2008 version of Freedom of the Press.
For more information on Taiwan, visit:
Freedom in the World 2008: Taiwan
Freedom of the Press 2008: Taiwan
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that
supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring
political rights and civil liberties in Taiwan since 1972.
Freedom matters.
Freedom House makes a difference.
www.freedomhouse.org
Freedom House Calls for Inquiry into Taiwan Clashes
Washington – November 20, 2008 – Freedom House urges Taiwan's
government to create an independent commission to thoroughly
investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese
envoy Chen Yunlin's historic visit and recommend needed reforms.
"A public investigation of the violence—which involved both sides—will
send a critical message that the new government of President Ma
Ying-jeou is interested in upholding the democratic values of
transparency and accountability," said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House
executive director. "The inquiry should examine evidence on both sides
and recommend any needed reforms to police practices and the legal
framework governing demonstrations."
Hundreds of university students are currently staging a sit-in in
Taipei's Freedom Square and several other cities to protest the
government's handling of the incident. During Chen's visit, police
reportedly used heavy-handed tactics—including physical assault,
arbitrary detention and destruction of property—to prevent Chen from
seeing symbols of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, as well as
broader demonstrations against the Chinese regime. Demonstrators also
employed violence against police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs
outside Chen's hotel on November 6.
The clashes reveal a need for police to undergo crowd control training
that adheres to the standards used in other democracies. Likewise,
demonstrators and political advocacy groups must recommit themselves
to orderly protests that avoid violence under any circumstances.
The inquiry commission should examine controversial passages in
Taiwan's Assembly and Parade Law, such as restrictions on where people
are allowed to demonstrate, and determine whether they need to be
liberalized to protect citizens' rights to freedom of expression and
assembly. The commission should also investigate claims that police
are selectively enforcing the law.
The visit by Chen, the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan
since it split from China in 1949, and the recent arrests of several
opposition party figures are raising concerns that that President Ma
and his Kuomintang Party may rollback democratic freedoms.
"The government must renew its commitment to tolerating robust freedom
of assembly and peaceful protest, no matter what the cause," said
Windsor.
Taiwan is ranked Free in the 2008 edition of Freedom in the World,
Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and in
the 2008 version of Freedom of the Press.
For more information on Taiwan, visit:
Freedom in the World 2008: Taiwan
Freedom of the Press 2008: Taiwan
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that
supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring
political rights and civil liberties in Taiwan since 1972.
Freedom matters.
Freedom House makes a difference.
www.freedomhouse.org
2008年11月16日 星期日
迷失的聯繫：改善兩岸關係顯然已犧牲台灣的公民自由 ■孔傑榮投書（雲程譯）
【Comment】
It is beyond my understanding why Professor Cohen write to the editor of South China Morning Post instead of having a phone call to his student Ma now the President of ROC?
What Ma’s doings recently may have concequences internationally as belows,
1. What will happen if the pro-US Taiwanese lost their human rights and democracy and feel betrayed, again? Do Taiwanese become anti-US as Chinese are now?
2. What is an anti-US Taiwan in the West Pacific rim means to the US?
3. Can the US encourage Beijing to walk straight forwad in the path of democracy if democratic Taiwan no longer exist?
4. Will China have more reasons to control her people then ever and threaten its neighboring countries?
5. Can the US ever say that the democracy is a superior system?
若有人不懂，容我再補一句「天地君親師」！
一如往常，若有翻譯錯誤或不精確之處，敬請不吝指正。
迷失的聯繫：改善兩岸關係顯然已犧牲台灣的公民自由 ■孔傑榮投書（雲程譯）
上週，北京的兩岸首腦陳雲林至台灣進行歷史性訪問，並簽署四項實用性協議，輿論焦點集中於人權與政治等議題。部份議題為自由社會中政府對抗議民眾的回應。其他議題則與前任與現任政府領袖的貪瀆疑案進行公平調查有關。
中國人承認保護來使已有近三千年的歷史。在大清帝國成立之前，相互征戰的封建國家都保證來使的安全。此等保護在國與國的合作上也是必要的。
在台南警方無法保護陳先生的副手，馬英九政府本應在陳雲林訪台期間提供更佳的保護。雖然警方無法避免陳雲林因大量抗議群眾而被困八小時，他們確實在飽受壓力的一週內保護了陳雲林的人身安全。
為此，馬政府逾越了自由社會的限制，禁止和平的抗議群眾，不准其展示台灣【譯註：其實是中華民國】與西藏的旗幟。從示威者手中沒收旗幟，勒令關閉播放台灣歌曲的商店，以使訪客感受不到抗議。有一些警察暴力，雖然有時是回應示威群眾的暴力挑釁。警察的濫權，甚至於也被陳雲林的支持者所激怒。在競選期間宣示將支持修改集會遊行法，以廢除「事前報備制」的馬先生，應建議修法禁止近日警察所發生不民主的行為，並下令加強警察服從法律的訓練。要注意的是，民主進步黨主席蔡英文領導大規模示威遊行不僅呼籲政府應正視警察濫權，也重新檢視民進黨無法規範示威群眾。若民進黨要實踐其民主反對者的角色，不得退返為街頭戰士的政黨。
部份台灣與外國評論者將陳雲林的訪問視為另一個民主政府的重要議題，即對現任與卸任官員疑似貪瀆時能獲得公平的調查起訴。評論者指出對三個前民進黨政府官員進行嚴重逮捕、收押禁見案例。這些案例暗示了，只起訴民進黨而國民黨官員則被豁免。他們也說絕大多數民進黨的嫌疑人被收押禁見而並未經法庭審視拘留的合法性，而檢察官洩漏不利於涉嫌人的資訊給媒體，而不給他們有機會反駁「媒體審判」這些事件讓人質疑司法的政治中立性，讓人質疑對民主政治最重要的能有公平與公開審判的「無罪推定」前提，以及其他正當法律程序所需的要素，讓人質疑將喚醒「實施戒嚴的黑暗時期」（1947-1987）不義程序的惡魔。目前尚不清楚評論者所稱「選擇性起訴」是否真確。近日的逮捕，僅反應民進黨過去八年執政時大規模的腐敗，貪瀆的層級據說達到前總統陳水扁與其家人。奇怪的是，雖然在陳水扁政府時期，檢察官都曾起訴民進黨與國民黨要人，一些顯著的國民黨目標即便監察院有成篇纍牘的卷案，都被忽略不辦。馬先生應該成立由公正專家所組成的委員會重新檢視這些訴案，還不太顯著的情形是，近日拘留民進黨要人是否未接受法院庭訊，或者其受審的權利被剝奪。此外，根據法律，若嫌疑者有湮滅證據之虞，法院羈押判決的期間可長達四個月。但是，就此「起訴前的懲罰」如此粗糙，同時對【譯註：被告之】正當防禦權利所造成的障礙而言，此權力應當盡量不行使。
當然，立法院或我所建議成立的委員會，在此應重新檢視遊行的立法，以在「貪瀆對民主政府的威脅」以及「羈押禁見對公民自由的威脅」之間求取新的平衡。
對於偏私的洩漏案情給新聞界一事，似乎是評論者最理直氣壯的控訴。這種洩漏案情的事情，也在許多國家發生，確有其事卻不允許在民主國家出現。
孔傑榮，紐約大學「美國與亞洲法律學院」共同主任、「外交關係協會」資深助理學人。
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17748/ties_that_blind.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F
http://blog.xuite.net/lgb2007msu/2008study/20749909
http://roserylovely.blogspot.com/
“Ties that Blind: Improved cross-strait relations appear to have come at a cost to some civil liberties in Taiwan” by Jerome A. Cohen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies
November 13, 2008 South China Morning Post
Last week's historic visit to Taiwan by Beijing's cross-strait chief, Chen Yunlin , which culminated in four useful agreements, focused attention on issues of human rights as well as politics. Some issues concerned the proper government response to public protests in a free society. Others involved fair investigation of former and present government leaders suspected of corruption.
Chinese have recognised the importance of protecting foreign envoys for almost 3,000 years. The feudal states that contended for power before establishment of the Qin dynasty reciprocally assured the personal safety of their emissaries. Such protection has continued to be indispensable to inter-state co-operation.
After police in Tainan failed to prevent an assault on Mr Chen's deputy, president Ma Ying-jeou's government was obligated to do better during Mr Chen's visit. Although police could not prevent Mr Chen from being trapped in a hotel for eight hours by a huge mob of protesters, they did defend him against bodily harm throughout a stressful week.
In doing so, they went beyond the limits of a free society, forbidding peaceful protesters from displaying Taiwanese and Tibetan flags, confiscating flags from demonstrators, closing a store that played Taiwanese songs and seeking to minimise the visitors' awareness of the protests. There were also incidents of police brutality, albeit sometimes in response to violent provocations by demonstrators.
The police misconduct even outraged many local supporters of Mr Chen's visit. Mr Ma, in addition to implementing his campaign pledge to sponsor revision of the Assembly and Parade Law to eliminate protesters' need for advance official permission, should recommend amendments prohibiting the kind of undemocratic police practices that recently occurred and order training designed to enhance police compliance with the law. It is encouraging to note that Democratic Progressive Party chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen, who led the massive opposition demonstration, has subsequently called not only for a government review of police misconduct but also for a re-examination by her own party of its failures to maintain order among its demonstrators. The DPP, if it is to fulfil its essential role as democratic opposition, must not degenerate into an army of street fighters.
Some Taiwanese and foreign critics took the occasion of Mr Chen's visit to call attention to another crucial feature of democratic government - the fair prosecution of current and former officials suspected of corruption. The critics voiced three serious complaints about recent arrests and incommunicado detentions of prominent DPP figures who have served as government officials. They imply that the DPP is being singled out for prosecutions while corruption among Kuomintang leaders is being ignored. They also claim that: most DPP suspects have been held incommunicado without a court examination of the justification for their detentions; and that prosecutors' offices have been leaking detrimental information about the suspects to the media while denying them knowledge of the leaks and a chance to refute the "trial by press".
These practices, it is said, bring into question the political neutrality of the judiciary, and the presumption of innocence and other elements of due process required for the fair and open trials essential to democracy, raising the specter of the unjust procedures of "the dark days of martial law" (1947-1987). It is not clear whether critics' claims of "selective prosecution" are well founded. Recent arrests may simply reflect massive corruption by the DPP, which dominated executive government for the past eight years - corruption that allegedly reached as high as former president Chen Shui-bian and his family.
Oddly, although during the Chen administration some prosecutions were brought against both DPP and KMT figures, some obvious KMT targets were overlooked despite reportedly thick dossiers compiled by Control Yuan investigators. Mr Ma should appoint a commission of impartial experts to review such prosecutions.
It does not appear that any of the recently detained DPP figures were denied a court hearing or their right to counsel. Moreover, there is a legislative basis for the courts' decisions to detain them incommunicado for up to four months of investigation if there is a reasonable basis for believing that the suspects might otherwise falsify evidence. Yet, in view of the harshness of this pre-indictment sanction and the obstacles it creates to mounting an adequate defence, it ought to be invoked rarely.
Certainly, the Legislative Yuan, or the commission suggested here, should re-examine legislation to strike a new balance between the threat of corruption to a democratic government and the threat of incommunicado detention to civil liberty.
The charge of biased prosecution leaks to the press seems to be the most straightforward of the critics' complaints. Such leaks, which occur in many countries, do appear to have taken place and cannot be allowed in a democratic system.
Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
It is beyond my understanding why Professor Cohen write to the editor of South China Morning Post instead of having a phone call to his student Ma now the President of ROC?
What Ma’s doings recently may have concequences internationally as belows,
1. What will happen if the pro-US Taiwanese lost their human rights and democracy and feel betrayed, again? Do Taiwanese become anti-US as Chinese are now?
2. What is an anti-US Taiwan in the West Pacific rim means to the US?
3. Can the US encourage Beijing to walk straight forwad in the path of democracy if democratic Taiwan no longer exist?
4. Will China have more reasons to control her people then ever and threaten its neighboring countries?
5. Can the US ever say that the democracy is a superior system?
若有人不懂，容我再補一句「天地君親師」！
一如往常，若有翻譯錯誤或不精確之處，敬請不吝指正。
迷失的聯繫：改善兩岸關係顯然已犧牲台灣的公民自由 ■孔傑榮投書（雲程譯）
上週，北京的兩岸首腦陳雲林至台灣進行歷史性訪問，並簽署四項實用性協議，輿論焦點集中於人權與政治等議題。部份議題為自由社會中政府對抗議民眾的回應。其他議題則與前任與現任政府領袖的貪瀆疑案進行公平調查有關。
中國人承認保護來使已有近三千年的歷史。在大清帝國成立之前，相互征戰的封建國家都保證來使的安全。此等保護在國與國的合作上也是必要的。
在台南警方無法保護陳先生的副手，馬英九政府本應在陳雲林訪台期間提供更佳的保護。雖然警方無法避免陳雲林因大量抗議群眾而被困八小時，他們確實在飽受壓力的一週內保護了陳雲林的人身安全。
為此，馬政府逾越了自由社會的限制，禁止和平的抗議群眾，不准其展示台灣【譯註：其實是中華民國】與西藏的旗幟。從示威者手中沒收旗幟，勒令關閉播放台灣歌曲的商店，以使訪客感受不到抗議。有一些警察暴力，雖然有時是回應示威群眾的暴力挑釁。警察的濫權，甚至於也被陳雲林的支持者所激怒。在競選期間宣示將支持修改集會遊行法，以廢除「事前報備制」的馬先生，應建議修法禁止近日警察所發生不民主的行為，並下令加強警察服從法律的訓練。要注意的是，民主進步黨主席蔡英文領導大規模示威遊行不僅呼籲政府應正視警察濫權，也重新檢視民進黨無法規範示威群眾。若民進黨要實踐其民主反對者的角色，不得退返為街頭戰士的政黨。
部份台灣與外國評論者將陳雲林的訪問視為另一個民主政府的重要議題，即對現任與卸任官員疑似貪瀆時能獲得公平的調查起訴。評論者指出對三個前民進黨政府官員進行嚴重逮捕、收押禁見案例。這些案例暗示了，只起訴民進黨而國民黨官員則被豁免。他們也說絕大多數民進黨的嫌疑人被收押禁見而並未經法庭審視拘留的合法性，而檢察官洩漏不利於涉嫌人的資訊給媒體，而不給他們有機會反駁「媒體審判」這些事件讓人質疑司法的政治中立性，讓人質疑對民主政治最重要的能有公平與公開審判的「無罪推定」前提，以及其他正當法律程序所需的要素，讓人質疑將喚醒「實施戒嚴的黑暗時期」（1947-1987）不義程序的惡魔。目前尚不清楚評論者所稱「選擇性起訴」是否真確。近日的逮捕，僅反應民進黨過去八年執政時大規模的腐敗，貪瀆的層級據說達到前總統陳水扁與其家人。奇怪的是，雖然在陳水扁政府時期，檢察官都曾起訴民進黨與國民黨要人，一些顯著的國民黨目標即便監察院有成篇纍牘的卷案，都被忽略不辦。馬先生應該成立由公正專家所組成的委員會重新檢視這些訴案，還不太顯著的情形是，近日拘留民進黨要人是否未接受法院庭訊，或者其受審的權利被剝奪。此外，根據法律，若嫌疑者有湮滅證據之虞，法院羈押判決的期間可長達四個月。但是，就此「起訴前的懲罰」如此粗糙，同時對【譯註：被告之】正當防禦權利所造成的障礙而言，此權力應當盡量不行使。
當然，立法院或我所建議成立的委員會，在此應重新檢視遊行的立法，以在「貪瀆對民主政府的威脅」以及「羈押禁見對公民自由的威脅」之間求取新的平衡。
對於偏私的洩漏案情給新聞界一事，似乎是評論者最理直氣壯的控訴。這種洩漏案情的事情，也在許多國家發生，確有其事卻不允許在民主國家出現。
孔傑榮，紐約大學「美國與亞洲法律學院」共同主任、「外交關係協會」資深助理學人。
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17748/ties_that_blind.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F
http://blog.xuite.net/lgb2007msu/2008study/20749909
http://roserylovely.blogspot.com/
“Ties that Blind: Improved cross-strait relations appear to have come at a cost to some civil liberties in Taiwan” by Jerome A. Cohen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia Studies
November 13, 2008 South China Morning Post
Last week's historic visit to Taiwan by Beijing's cross-strait chief, Chen Yunlin , which culminated in four useful agreements, focused attention on issues of human rights as well as politics. Some issues concerned the proper government response to public protests in a free society. Others involved fair investigation of former and present government leaders suspected of corruption.
Chinese have recognised the importance of protecting foreign envoys for almost 3,000 years. The feudal states that contended for power before establishment of the Qin dynasty reciprocally assured the personal safety of their emissaries. Such protection has continued to be indispensable to inter-state co-operation.
After police in Tainan failed to prevent an assault on Mr Chen's deputy, president Ma Ying-jeou's government was obligated to do better during Mr Chen's visit. Although police could not prevent Mr Chen from being trapped in a hotel for eight hours by a huge mob of protesters, they did defend him against bodily harm throughout a stressful week.
In doing so, they went beyond the limits of a free society, forbidding peaceful protesters from displaying Taiwanese and Tibetan flags, confiscating flags from demonstrators, closing a store that played Taiwanese songs and seeking to minimise the visitors' awareness of the protests. There were also incidents of police brutality, albeit sometimes in response to violent provocations by demonstrators.
The police misconduct even outraged many local supporters of Mr Chen's visit. Mr Ma, in addition to implementing his campaign pledge to sponsor revision of the Assembly and Parade Law to eliminate protesters' need for advance official permission, should recommend amendments prohibiting the kind of undemocratic police practices that recently occurred and order training designed to enhance police compliance with the law. It is encouraging to note that Democratic Progressive Party chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen, who led the massive opposition demonstration, has subsequently called not only for a government review of police misconduct but also for a re-examination by her own party of its failures to maintain order among its demonstrators. The DPP, if it is to fulfil its essential role as democratic opposition, must not degenerate into an army of street fighters.
Some Taiwanese and foreign critics took the occasion of Mr Chen's visit to call attention to another crucial feature of democratic government - the fair prosecution of current and former officials suspected of corruption. The critics voiced three serious complaints about recent arrests and incommunicado detentions of prominent DPP figures who have served as government officials. They imply that the DPP is being singled out for prosecutions while corruption among Kuomintang leaders is being ignored. They also claim that: most DPP suspects have been held incommunicado without a court examination of the justification for their detentions; and that prosecutors' offices have been leaking detrimental information about the suspects to the media while denying them knowledge of the leaks and a chance to refute the "trial by press".
These practices, it is said, bring into question the political neutrality of the judiciary, and the presumption of innocence and other elements of due process required for the fair and open trials essential to democracy, raising the specter of the unjust procedures of "the dark days of martial law" (1947-1987). It is not clear whether critics' claims of "selective prosecution" are well founded. Recent arrests may simply reflect massive corruption by the DPP, which dominated executive government for the past eight years - corruption that allegedly reached as high as former president Chen Shui-bian and his family.
Oddly, although during the Chen administration some prosecutions were brought against both DPP and KMT figures, some obvious KMT targets were overlooked despite reportedly thick dossiers compiled by Control Yuan investigators. Mr Ma should appoint a commission of impartial experts to review such prosecutions.
It does not appear that any of the recently detained DPP figures were denied a court hearing or their right to counsel. Moreover, there is a legislative basis for the courts' decisions to detain them incommunicado for up to four months of investigation if there is a reasonable basis for believing that the suspects might otherwise falsify evidence. Yet, in view of the harshness of this pre-indictment sanction and the obstacles it creates to mounting an adequate defence, it ought to be invoked rarely.
Certainly, the Legislative Yuan, or the commission suggested here, should re-examine legislation to strike a new balance between the threat of corruption to a democratic government and the threat of incommunicado detention to civil liberty.
The charge of biased prosecution leaks to the press seems to be the most straightforward of the critics' complaints. Such leaks, which occur in many countries, do appear to have taken place and cannot be allowed in a democratic system.
Jerome A. Cohen is co-director of NYU's US-Asia Law Institute and adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
2008年11月12日 星期三
2008年11月9日 星期日
一起來回顧暴民的歷史吧
話說2004年4月10日，泛藍在這一天展現了一個抗爭者所應該擁有的武器
下面的畫面同樣是2004年，我發現中國人真的比較會打戰
連阿伯都很有２下，不愧是打過小日本鬼子、共匪
這是溫良恭儉讓的馬前市長
下面的畫面同樣是2004年，我發現中國人真的比較會打戰
連阿伯都很有２下，不愧是打過小日本鬼子、共匪
這是溫良恭儉讓的馬前市長
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
發表文章
