[0609] Pan-blue's Propaganda on BBC

Shih Ming-Te interviewed by Caroline Gluck from BBC (09/07/2006)
As the "anti-bian" sit-in in Taiwan started on September 9th, 2006, journalists from all over the world were drawn to this hot event. Among the news reports written, I am surprised to see one that shows not only the lack of knowledge of the writer on the subject but also is heavily biased (Protests against Chen gain ground By Caroline Gluck, BBC News, Taipei). Especially, presented on BBC website as the representative point of view, it starts to make me wonder the professional level of BBC's work.

Democracy by counting dollars?

Ms Gluck started the article with the "donate money to show your anti-bian intention" donation summoned by Shih:

Within six working days, more than a million people signed up to support him, donating a symbolic NT$100, a little more than US$3, each.

The speed and the scale took many by surprise, including Mr Shih and his supporters.

What surprises me is that Ms Gluck reports "more than one million people" as a fact. The truth is, Shih never disclosed the exact count of people who donated the money. What he announced is "dollars", not "heads":

( The accounts for "Promising Fund" for One Million People Anti Bian Movement was closed as of 8/25/2006. The sum of donation is NT$111,211,563元 )
[See here]

During the donation campaign, Shih repeatedly requested people to use money as a measure to show their anti-bian determination. Under such a provoking, there were probably a considerably large portion of anti-bianers happily donated "much more than NT$100" to show how determined they are. So, even Shih kept announcing "NT$100 for one person, 100 million dollars means 1 million people", any one with some basic sense will know right away that 100 million dollars never really means 1 million people. In an extreme possibility it could mean one very rich guy donating 100 million dollars alone.

Unfortunately, Ms Gluck took it at the face value and went alone with Shih's trick that there were more than one million people based on the sum of donation. I am wondering, since when the vote-counting in democracy is based on how rich you are?

Before Shih's anti-bian movement, pan-blue legislators have launched a movement in the Legislative Yuan to unseat the president but failed. It indicated that the "anti-bian" movement couldn't gather enough people to reach the head counts required by law. Anti-bianers then sought for a different approach "endorsement over the internet," which is by no way close to be democratic, and thus suffered another definite failure.

Now, knowing that they could not possibly gather enough people to unseat a president who was legally elected by 6.3 million people, anti-bianers came up with another trick: counting money instead of counting heads. Any one who has basic democracy concept in mind-- even he or she never followed Taiwan politics-- would know that it's violating the very basic principle of democracy -- one person one vote -- and is simply a trick to create "fake measure" of anti-bian head count. It's a shame that a reporter from BBS failed to see this trick and went along to dance with those politicians.

Historical reputation

Ms Gluck went on to state that Shih's reputation is the key element for this movement :

His place in the island's history and his personal reputation were factors in the huge public response.

Obviously Ms Gluck has no idea at all how Taiwanese look at Shih nowadays.

Yes, Shih was once a hero of Taiwan for his fight against KMT. However, in the past ten years or so, he has probably used up all the credits he earned and Taiwanese no longer have much respect for him. His famous credits-wasting efforts include, but not limited to, his behaviors during his three terms of legislators (1992~2001)-- he was reported partying all nights in bars, going home to sleep in the morning, and thus missing most of the legislative sessions during the days. The result is that he was ranked the last or the last two in all Legislator rankings -- including the laws he involved, the sessions he actually appeared, not to mention the laws he actually studied, submitted and pushed. What people saw Shih as a legislator was no longer a hero but a rotten politician who did nothing but waste people's tax money.

As a result, Taiwanese kicked him out of the Legislative Yuan when he was seeking the fourth term. Facing that loss, he didn't have any wee bit of self-examination but blamed Taiwanese with a remark that is still famous to this day,

"Not voting me is Taiwanese loss but not mine."

Shih did have a heroic role in Taiwan history, yes, which we shouldn't deny (although even that heroic role has been questioned and put under thorough re-evaluation now). But that is indeed a "history", shouldn't be confused with the current Shih. In reality, Shih couldn't possibly win any election nowadays, due to his behavior no longer deserves much respect from the Taiwanese. The brutal evidence was the pathetic counts of vote he earned when he campaigned for KaoHsiung City Mayor (don't forget that KaoHsiung City is his home town) in 2002:

( Shih Ming-Te campaigned for Legislator in 2001 and 2004, and both failed with 24925 and 26974 votes, respectively. He campaigned for KaoHsiung City Mayor in 2002, failed with 8750 votes )
[Shih's wiki]

Compared to how popular Shih was back in 1992, when he campaigned for Legislator the first time and won it with the highest vote in Tainan, the poor support he got in 2002 simply shows how rapidly he trashed his own reputation.

These information is no secret. The fact that Ms. Gluck closes her eyes to such easily available information and presenting readers a one-sided view jeopardizes not only the reputation of hers but BBC's.

No partisan involvement ?

Next, again, Ms Gluck cited Shih's words without challenging or any counter statement :

I think I am following the people's will," he told the BBC. "The anger towards President Chen is so widespread. It doesn't differ with regard to region, or ethnic groups, or even partisan positions. This whole island is angry.

The truth is, just like any other political events in Taiwan, the anti-bian movement does have regional and ethnic factors. As pointed out by Michael on BBC on Anti-Chen Campaign, with a photo showing "Shih Ming-te flanked by Blue leaders KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou on his left, and PFP Chairman James Soong on his right":

Non-partisan? There's Shih seated with two pro-Blue leaders. Shih himself has been cooperating with the Blues for the last five or six years.

Jason also mentioned in his comment about Ms Gluck's report:

Both chairmen of the opposition Kuomintang and People's First Party not only showed up at Friday's event, but posed for photos with Mr. Shih, who seems quite tickled at the partisan company.

These protests are nothing more than a partisan attack on the elected government of Taiwan dressed up in populist pageantry. It's a shame your correspondent didn't bother interviewing someone who recognizes this fact.

Whole island is angry --- about what ?

"The whole island is angry" is probably a fair statement -- but, angry about what? Is Ms Gluck interested that maybe at least half of them are angry at Shih and anti-bianers for trying to destroy the structure of democracy by, for example, counting money? ( Tim also pointed that out here )

Immoral accuses others of immoral?

Ms Gluck then talked about the "moral standards" by citing a pan-bluer, Emile Sheng, professor of politics at Soochow University, currently the media spokesman of Shih's anti-bian movement, without any counter argument or background information.

"For me, this is a social movement to rebuild the moral standards of Taiwan politics," he said. "Moral standards are not something Taiwan politicians really care about.

"I think by putting people's attention on anti-corruption, it's going to send a message directly not only to the president, but also to every politician in the future in Taiwan. To let them know that we as a people really care about moral standards and want politics to be conducted in a civil way."

Does Ms Gluck care to provide views of anti-Shih people, that if "moral standards" be the main subject of this movement, then Shih is probably the last person in Taiwan having the right to accuse others ?

Other than the above-mentioned political misconduct that Shih presented, his way of life is nothing close to "having any moral standard" at all. For example, his famous "3 Noes" toward females,

"No initiative, No rejection, No responsibility"

How on earth does a person who can't take responsibility for what he did thinks he has the right to question other's moral standards?

Other immoral conducts of Shih:

Shih's ex-wife confirms Shih begged for forgiveness when he was jailed
--Begging for forgiveness from then-president Chiang (instead of behaving like a no-regret hero who he has been painted on);
-- playing hero as a jail riot leader after a riot but actually he was hidden away from the riot during that riot;
-- Sleep with 5 women at the same time ;
-- Claiming that he is so righteous by giving up the compensation money (for wrongful jailing time) but actually he gave it up so he could apply for another much bigger compensation (which was turned down by the court recently) ...

As any other Shih-related information, this is widely spread, easily available, and again, conveniently left out by Ms Gluck, leaving her interview full of unchallenged words from one side.

Anti whose corruption?

Ms Gluck also took the point (of Emile Sheng) of anti-corruption without any counter argument, making it look as though that Chen's administration is such a corrupted one.

Does Ms Gluck know that the members from KMT involving(and convicted) in corruption is far more than that from DDP? Does Ms Gluck know that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-Jeou has publicly admitted that he put the government money in his private pocket? Does Ms Gluck know that Ma's KMT still unwilling to return the estates that KMT had stolen from the people ? Does Ms Gluck know that, if a movement is aiming at "anti-corruption," then KMT would be the first one on the list?

Without providing these counter information to the readers but simply repeating what the interviewee said, Miss Gluck has successfully turned a BBC report into a tool of political propaganda favoring the interviewees.

Redefining "noise" ?

Next, Miss Gluck talked about a creative campaign against "Mr. Chen". She mentioned,

There will be no noisy horns. Organisers say the silent power of the large crowds will speak louder than chants. They have vowed to continue the protests until the president steps down.

I have no idea where all that came from. The fact is, the organizers, even though they told the reporters that their will be "no noise", actually planned to have "32 huge heavy bass speakers" since the very beginning:

百萬人反貪腐運動總部昨天公布,將以大型重低音音箱... 讓音波震撼總統府,搭配三十萬人齊聲喊口號 ...
( One-Million Anti-Corruption Headquarter announced yesterday that they will use large bass speaker to broadcast ... to let the sound wave shock the President Hall, plus the slogan-shouting from 300 thousand people ... )
[See here]

Rehearsal noise
And during the "practice protest", they actually used speakers. As a result, not only in site reporters have to block their ears, but also, a near-by high school was reported to have the glass windows shaking like what happens in earthquake:

( The noise made the glass windows of First-Girl School shaking, shocking the students wondering if an earthquake has occurred )

NTUH map
The above report was published on September 2nd, 5 days before Ms Gluck concluded that "there will be no noisy horns." How can a professional reporter so naive on the subject she is reporting ?

The environment-hazard level of noise continues to bother people after the sit-in was officially started on September 9th. In nearby National Taiwan University Hospital ( NTUH):

倒扁活動昨日正式登場,號稱「靜」坐的活動,卻害得台大醫院病患不得安寧 ... 倒扁重低音喇叭不時發出隆隆巨響,聽似雷聲、更像電影「侏羅紀公園」中的暴龍逼近時的腳步聲。每當重低音放送,C、D棟六到八樓窗戶都會明顯震動,甚至發出龜裂聲。"
( Anti-bian movement was officially launched yesterday. It was called 'silent' sit-in but cost the peace of patients in NTUH. ... Heavy bass speakers generate loud grounding sound from time to time, sounded like thunderstorm, or even worse the stamping sound of a closing T-rex dinosaur. Whenever it happens, the windows on floor 6~8 of Building C and D would shake, sometimes even make cracking sound. )

As a result,

- 家屬忍無可忍,衝下樓抗議
(protest from patients family)
- 在十四樓病房陪病的黃小姐表示,她七十四歲的老父剛離開加護病房,卻被吵得睡不著,只能向護士要安眠藥助眠.
( Ms Huang, accompanying her father on the 14th floor, said that her 74-year old father was just transferred from the Intensive Care Unit, was unable to sleep due to the noise and had to ask the nurse for sleeping pills )
- 一位王姓護理人員無奈表示,這次抗爭吵得不得了,嚴重打擾病人靜養,有不少人乾脆「請假」回家養病。
(a nurse, Wang, said that this demonstration makes unbearable noise, seriously interferes the quiet time that is needed by patients. Some patients simply "take a leave" and go home)

In the sit-in area:

( Coming to the sit-in, people can't help but block their ears to avoid the loud sounds from the speakers )

Now, against all these "noisy" reports, Ms Gluck tried to tell readers that it's a "no noise" event. Should we believe that Ms Gluck doesn't have an agenda of her own ?

Other than the incorrect report on the 'no-noise' of the practice protest, Ms Gluck said,

A "practice protest", designed to test the campaign volunteers' organisational abilities, drew large crowds.

Once again she conveniently left out the fact that the practice protest has to be closed down before the scheduled time due to the lack of participants [See here].

People-elected "Mr" Chen ??

At last, I spotted from the legends of two attached photos about President Chen, Ms Gluck doesn't even bother to recognize Chen as a 'president':

Organisers have pledge a creative campaign against Mr Chen
Opinion polls suggest Mr Chen has lost public support

In the 6+ years that Chen has been in the president seat, that's exactly the attitude of pan-bluer's -- refuse to recognize Chen as a legally elected president. Does Ms Gluck agree with that point, or she was just plain rude ?

Shame on BBC

Overall, Ms Gluck's report shows how poorly informed she is on the subject and how less effort she tried to study the subject or challenge the interviewees. She is not doing a report but providing BBC as a platform for those interviewees to dance. During the time when I was writing this article to counter-argue Ms Gluck, I found that almost every sentence that she wrote is questionable, which is really unbelievable. Without presenting any counter arguments against the words of the interviewees, she has aligned herself with the unprofessional pan-blue politicians, turning herself and BBC into a tool of pan-blue political propaganda. It's a shame on BBC to have a such an unprofessional journalist doing such a lousy job.

Further readings


[0608] 中國掛黑道也挺扁?







> 不只倒扁! 天使隊挺扁也出面
2006-08-27 13:07


白狼張安樂號召的天使隊,有女天使,她們的背景如何?天使護衛隊成員許琳珍:「你看我們像那個(黑道),我們是良家婦女,妳們(天使隊),給人家的印象, 不是這樣子,日久見人心,天使這2個字,顧名思義就是天使。」






[0608] Shih's possible armed insurgency?

Shih's possible armed insurgency?

Recently DPP's ex-president Shih Ming-Te had a journelist conference, asking Taiwanese to pay him (total 100 million New Taiwan dollars) for anti-bian movement. This is very weird. First of all, recalling of a president is a given right for Taiwanese. Why the hell do people need to pay Shih in order to exercise the right that they already have ?

Secondly, Shih opened personal accounts and receive so much money, but he never mentioned how he is gonna use that money. Besides the sitting-in, he simply said he has it all planned. What does he really have in mind?

Thirdly, suppose that he is gonna organize huge demonstration. But, in his anti-bian website (*), he said to the public clearly:

# We don't want any flag (national flags, party flags, campaign flags, school flags, faction flags)
# We don't welcome any campaign props and ads (campaign jackets, party jackets...)
# 我們不要任何其他旗幟:國旗、黨旗、競選旗、校旗、派系旗,都不要。
# 我們不歡迎任何競選道具和廣告;競選背心、助選背心、政黨背心,都不要。

He said it out loud that he is not gonna invest the donated money on things that are usually needed for a political demonstration.

Then ... besides a demonstration, what else can he do, with that whole chunk of money ?

Suddenly I was hit by an old memory. In Shih's teenage, he determined to enter the army school. In Taiwan, the popular perception is that only whoever fails the entrance exam to normal schools would consider entering an army school. So very very few Taiwanese would devote his/her career to the army. Shih did that, and from the documents disclosed later, we know that he did that because he wanted to learn how to organize people for an armed coup to overthrow the KMT government. It seems to reveal his characteristics: whatever he doesn't agree, he wouldn't hesitate going extreme with violence.

Other than the inborn nature, it would need a combination of many other factors for one to choose a violent means. For example, when one is in a high position in government, is very rich, is well-respected in the society ... etc, considering a violent means might turn a wonderful life into jail time or even death and thus lose all feasts, it's less likely that he would do so.

Judging Shih's life in recent years -- being discarded by Taiwanese (failed a campaign of legislator miserably), being kept distant by DPP members and pan-green supporters (he is going closer and closer to the pan-blue side), has to rely on KMT's support to live (according to his ex-wife Linda)... he is in the brim of total collapse, in terms of almost all sides of life (position, reputation, wealth ...). Comparing to his life ten years ago, at that time he was well respected as a hero in the Taiwan's democratic history, the combination of all those abjection courses could cast a higher chance for him to 'light a fire' in the late age of his life, which would fit his teenager dream perfectly.

* Shih's anti-bian web: http://www.newtaiwan.org.tw/
$ This article in manderinhttp://echotaiwan.blogspot.com/2006/08/blog-post.html
! This article in "anti-media" http://www.anti-media.tw/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15221

[0608] 慎防施明德武裝暴動







從這個角度來看施明德近幾年所面臨的「外在條件」。施明德當年以台灣英雄之姿進入立法院,結果常常熬夜泡酒家導致缺席不開會,在立法院立委出席率排名倒數有名,長期的怠惰失職與私生活的不檢點,終使他在 2001年的立委選舉中被選民所唾棄。接下來的言論,漸漸偏離了泛綠色彩,也與泛藍人士來往更加密切。而這回跳出來呼應泛藍的倒扁期望進行募款,就有傳出他這舉動是為了還債,也許是個人欠債,也許是利用民眾匯款時交給銀行的手續費來抵還貸款(報載銀行光是手續費就可以收入千萬)。

可以想見,施明德近幾年的生活,不管是名聲、地位、財富,都可以用「落魄」來形容。這樣的「外在條件的落魄」,配上他的「革命性格」,可謂是火上加油,「鋌而走險」的事情,是很可能發生的。換言之,施明德很可能用募來的款項購買武器,以他年輕時夢想著的「武裝暴動」,在他生命中的「日落西山」之時,燃起另一道火花。民進黨政府應該審慎評估這個可能性,並 早做提防。


註一:施明德倒扁網站 http://www.newtaiwan.org.tw/



更新時間:2006年7月26日 by Echo




這種廢物還會造成另外一個社會問題:一些本來不反扁的知名人士可能被偷簽了而不自知。譬如說,閃靈樂團團長Freddy今天開記者會嗆聲說他根本沒簽,但名字卻在該份所謂的「已經查證過」的名單上出現:棄扁/我沒簽署! 閃靈樂團團長Freddy嗆:名單有問題~


程式的輸出表佔三個欄位如下:蔡佳珊(人力資源經理) 原所森(餐飲業)
2 呂明澤(公民)
3 楊沾淳(經理)
4 丁淑娟

第二欄是 月.日.第幾頁.第幾號,可從此找回此名在原網頁中的位置;
第三欄是 人名(職業)


目前(7/26/2006)抽取到的總人數是:23306。 該網站上宣稱總計有 23554,浮報了 248 人之多。


[0606] Ma threatened the law : the government be run by different party

Ma Ying-Jeou, after being reluctant to get involved in the recall of President Chen for a while, now is actively leading his party KMT toward the goal of the recall in full speed. And, according to this report, KMT has an opinion on the progress of investigation on the "so-called" scandals . They think that the law enforcement doesn't "make the investigation speedy enough to satisfy KMT." So, now, the law in Taiwan DOES serve KMT ?????

More rediculous is how KMT's president Ma commented on this. He actually threatened the entire Taiwan investigation system by saying:

"One day the government will be run by a different party"
"All the things and people (about the current investigation) could be investigated (by the new government)"

How could a political leader in a supposedly democratic country openly threaten the entire law system with possible future retaliation in such a blunt manner ? And he threatens the law simply because that the way the investigation proceeds doesn't satify KMT's thirst !!

Ma also "announced" his "five-big-reasons" for pushing the recall:

1. To teach next generation ( by showing them what they could end up with for being pro-green? )
2. For Taiwanese dignity ( So Taiwanese dignity is saved by surrendering to pan-blue's society-breaking action? )
3. For Taiwan's democracy ( by showing people how to punish a person for a crime he never commited? )
4. For DPP's future ( Huh? When is Ma the DPP president as well ? )
5. To warn the law system ( HUH??? By threatening them that pan-blue can even recall a president, let alone any law guy ? )

In response to Chen's rebuttal against the accusation of him mentioned by pan-blue, Ma said:

"It's not me who asked him to corrupt; I told him not to corrupt, but he didn't listen to me. You can't blame me for that ..."

Now, in order to make his move of recall sounds justified, Ma has crossed the line of rationale and accused openly Chen of corruption, which is a shameless lie. He knew that President Chen didn't corrupt but now in order to achieve his personal agenda he'd rather lie.

So, how can you imagine a person like Ma won't fold under pressure ? Do you like him to be your future president ?


[0606] Ma: Chen will die a very tragic death !!

-- in response to Michael Turton's post Ma Ying-Jeou, Man in Motion

Ma (Ying-Jeou, 馬英九) doesn't seem to up to the job of a leader (of Pan-blue's). After holding up his attitude about recall for the presidency for days, in order to convince pan-blue supporters that he is still the leader, he said something like these:

"I could be very cruel when time comes."

"If Chen doesn't resign, but instead steps down by recall, he will die a tragic death !!"

What kind of political leader in a democratic country would use that kind of language, especially in a seriously divided society ? It's more like the barbarian communist politicians threatening their opponents.

With him going gradually closer to the center of political conflict, Ma does slowly reveal his true nature.

馬:不辭 扁會死得很難看


In response to an anonymous reader's post:

The point isn't on whether Ma was calling for Chen's assassination or not. In a society, not to mention a heavily divided one, any responsible political learder would always consider the impact of his/her words on easily provoked supporters, and avoid any hint or encouragement that might, on some emotional people, lead to violent actions.

Obviouisly Ma doesn't care about the possible violent consequence of what he said. He doesn't care if his words are taken as a 'go' signal for executing an assassination.

Or, maybe it's not fair to say so --- maybe that's exactly what he wanted. We don't really know, do we? Maybe that 'signal' has already triggered a secret plot under the surface, who knows ?

Don't forget the fact that 3(?) years ago there was a pan-blue guy openly called for a team to assassinate the president. That "call for assassination" news was all over the media.


[0606] Society-breaking conspiracy in Taiwan (2)

Follow-up from the (1) ...

Here is another typical example [1] of pan-blue's "society-breaking conspiracy". In this case, again, a public guilty sense was induced through media by pan-blue's manipulation with premature judgements based on pure circumstantial guesses and imaginations, way before any legal investigations were conducted.

It was followed by an investigation heavily biased by the outraged public pressure. In the end, the judge sentenced the accused 10 years in jail, 2 more years than what the district attorney asked for. Why 2 more years? The judge said that it is because the accused "deny the crime to the death" (死不認罪).

According to the news report [1][2], the official verdict, which is supposed to list the details of the crimes that the district attorneys can come up with, includes statements like these:

-- Crime motive:
"Because the accused knows X and Y pretty well in person, he SHOULD have the motive to commit this crime."

-- How the crime is committed:
"The accused SOMEHOW committed the crime"

-- Evidence:
"A telephone record between the accused and X showed conversation length of 0 second, indicating that a "signal" for committing the crime was sent."

When you call someone but the phone is not picked up, it shows 0 second on record. So to live in Taiwan, you'd better be home 24 hours a day, and make sure that the recipient be home before you make any call. Otherwise you might one day become a criminal because of that.

According to the accused, the judge ignored all or most of his not-guilty evidences, and made the judging based on public opinions but not facts, making the official verdict read more like a novel [2].

It's for certain that this "novel" will serve as an example for the current hot case about the first family --- if the investigation
and the sentencing of Chao, Jian-Ming (趙建銘)came out anything less, expect waves of anti-court, anti-government, society-breaking demonstrations launched by pan-blue.

It's a pitty that pan-green never came up with any way to counter this trick, even after so many years of fighting against pan-blue.


[0606] Society-breaking conspiracy in Taiwan

Taiwan has police stations and courts where a person can go report anything illegal. But Chiu Yi didn't go that legal path. Instead, he talks to the public through media, and planted seeds into people's minds, **before the legal system has a chance to investigate**.

Why does he not follow the legal way?

If you look into what he said carefully, most accusations he made were just not fact but suspecions. He (and other pan-blue politicians) is good at exagerating the suspecions, adding up all circumstancial evidences and making it look guilty. This process provokes the public. Then, a looked-guilty, people-outraged case is investigated. If it ends up with not-guilty charges, Chiu then has the outraged people to support him to ramp the court.

If he goes legal way, all those circumstancial suspecions will have no chance to be manipulated. Only by provoking public first, by which he can tag those suspecions with his own judgement, can he turn doubts into something more.

So the justice-seeking process in Taiwan now has the following pattern:

Pan-blue :
--> raise suspecions to public;
--> exagerated with premature accusation;
--> people got provoked;
--> whole country shouted guilty before any legal investigation
--> district attorneys step in
--> if they don't charge the accused, pan-blue mobilize people to the street

This pattern has been repeatedly used by pan-blue in the past couple of years, and probably will be used again and again in the future.

Judging from the extent of damage it brought to Taiwan's society, I can't stop wondering if Chinese government is behind all these.

PS: In response to Michael Turton's blog [The view from Taiwan] on