[0703] Is Taiwanese Holo a Chinese language?

I was reading Michael's post Language and Culture Here and There, in which some language issues are discussed. I found this paragraph:

The weird fact is that the government here is recognizing other Chinese languages as national languages -- and both sides regard this as becoming less Chinese. In fact, I am sure that the pro-China crowd is going to scream that increased use of Chinese languages like Hakka and Taiwanese is an act of "de-Sinicization.

and don't quite agree with it. I wrote a comment below:

Michael, it seems that you consider the Hakka used in Taiwan and the Taiwanese(holo) are "chinese languages." I don't quite agree with this view.

First of all, a language, like biology species, evolves. When a language splits and each isolates from the other for some period of time, they evolve into different languages. This is a general case in all languages.

Taiwan in the ruling of Chiang kei-shih had prevented the contact between people from two sides of the Strait. That provided the necessary requirement -- isolation -- for languages on each side to evolve independently.

Secondly, Taiwan has gone through rulings of different countries, each contributes some of their cultural elements into Taiwanese. This is especially true for Japan. Many Taiwanese words are actually Japanese. I did have a chance to talk with a Holo guy from China. We can understand each other by about 60%-70% of the words we use, but not 100 or 90%. It's NOT like the case of "American English vs. British English," in which the English in USA is not that much deviated from its British cousin.

That means, even it's a fact that Holo was originally from China, the current Holo in Taiwan is a combination of many different influences and is already different from its origin language significantly. Therefore, labeling it a "chinese language" would be misleading.

When comparing the cultures between Taiwan and China, one common misconcept is that "Taiwan culture is part of China culture." Actually, to describe more precisely, we probably have to say, "China culture is part of Taiwanese culture," becaue Taiwan's culture is a combination of many different cultures and Chinese culture is just one of them.

[0703] DPP poll: 69% think Taiwan is an independent state

DPP announced a poll :

Who defines Taiwan status (台海現狀）	Taiwanese 83.2%	China government 1.7%	Both 6.4%
Is Taiwan an independent sovereignty state?	Yes 69.2%
Is Taiwan part of China?	Yes 14.6%
A referendum is required when signing sovereignty-related agreements with China	Yes 84.8%	No 9.7%
Join United Nations in the name of "Taiwan"	Yes 70.6%	No 19.6

It seems that Taiwanese conscience has already become the majority in Taiwan. I recalled President Chen said earlier that, by the time of the 2008 Presidential Election, Taiwanese consicience would rise to a level that any candidate advocating for "Unification with China" will have no chance at all of getting elected. I never truely believe in what he said like this one before ... :)

[0703] Michael Turton - 美聯社錯在哪裡

在台灣的老外圈子裡的部落格中，最受重視的部落格之一是 Michael Turton 的 The View from Taiwan。他對台灣透視犀利，關於台灣政壇的動向分析遠比在台灣自己本土的記者要來得理性且深入。同時，他與其他網友如 Tim Maddog, Stop Ma 等人，持續地在監督外國媒體污衊台灣的報導，並不斷地以部落格、以email等方式在替台灣批判這些外國媒體敗類，避免了英語世界的外國媒體成為偏中的一言堂。

對於這一次美聯社跟 CNN 以「台灣人渣競選總統」來污衊呂秀蓮的動作，Michael 以及與其合作的群體部落格 「台灣時事 Taiwan Matters」 均發表文章加以批判。另外，Michael 還投書到英文報紙台北時報，指出這事件的關鍵不在偏頗，而在外國媒體向來慣於放棄記者「平衡報導的道德要求標準」而主動地一面倒採用北京的觀點與措辭來污衊台灣。

CNN 以「台灣人渣競選總統」為標題來污衊呂秀蓮

這次引發爭議的該新聞報導是由在香港的美聯社派出的中國記者李明（或李閩？）所撰寫。在 CNN 發表的該報導已經在爭議後將標題由「台灣人渣競選總統」改為「呂秀蓮欲成為台灣第一個女總統」，但是內文中仍然保留對呂秀蓮副總統的污衊用語。而且，修改前的「台灣人渣競選總統」一文，仍然可以從 google 的搜尋系統中找到 （到 google 打入 cnn scum of nation然後點選 cached。如果找不到，可以看看我翻印下來的圖形檔。

Michael Turton 在「The View from Taiwan」發表的對 CNN 的批判：
CNN 以北京用語描述呂秀蓮
對美聯社與呂秀蓮爭議的最後評語

Tim Maddog 在「台灣時事」發表的對 CNN 的批判：
CNN:有線新聞媒體的敗類

Michael 在台北時報的投書在這裡。因為很精彩，特別將其全文翻譯置於此：

The recent "scum of the nation" flap, and the response to it from the Taipei Times, Associated Press (AP) and other organizations, shows that the media still do not understand why Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) -- along with those of us who follow international media coverage of Taiwan -- find the story so offensive.

最近有關於「民族敗類」的事件，以及來自台北時報、美聯社及其他機構的反應，顯示出（台灣的）媒體還是沒搞清楚副總統呂秀蓮──和我們這些盯著「國際媒體的台灣報導」的一群人── 為什麼會覺得這整件事是如此冒犯。

The issue is not, as the Taipei Times framed it in a recent editorial ("Annette Lu tames the world press," March 10, page 8), one of naive bias on the part of CNN and AP. Nobody is accusing either organization of slanting stories to favor China. Rather, the issue is the foreign media's uncritical incorporation of propaganda from Beijing into its reporting on Taiwan in a way that is automatic and unconsidered, allowing those opinions to shape its discourse on the nation, instead of developing a robust understanding of Taiwan in its own context.

事情的關鍵並非如台北時報在最近的社論 ("Annette Lu tames the world press," March 10, page 8) 所說的，是 CNN 與美聯社幼稚的偏見。沒有人控訴這兩個單位以偏頗的報導來偏向中國。事實上這件事的關鍵在於，外國媒體很自動地、毫不遲疑地引用北京的政治宣傳用語來報導台灣，完全沒有經過任何批判。相對於先對台灣加以深刻瞭解之後以自己的觀點來看台灣，（這些媒體）充分採用北京的政治語言來對台灣下結論。

The "scum of the nation" story is an excellent example of how this works. Instead of selecting one of the numerous other possible angles on Lu -- Lu the politician, Lu the feminist, Lu the activist, Lu the Taiwanese -- AP chose to lead with what Bejing said. This constant and reflexive use of verbiage from Beijing to frame Taiwan continues throughout the article. Elsewhere in the article the writer, a Hong Kong Chinese, refers to "Beijing's sacred view" of its claim to Taiwan. Once again, we get Beijing's take on things.

這件「民族敗類」的事件是這種行為的最佳例子。美聯社置許多呂秀蓮的可能角色 ─── 政治家、女性主義運動者、行動主義者、台灣人 ─── 於不顧，僅採用北京對呂秀蓮的評語。該文章整篇反覆地出現這種北京用以污衊台灣的措辭。該文作者 ─── 一個來自香港的中國人 ─── 指稱北京對台灣的野心是「北京的神聖使命」。我們又看到北京在這件事情上得逞。

Once again, Beijing frames Taiwan. Why not Taiwan's "sacred view" of its own independence and democracy? And what is the word "sacred" doing in a news report in the first place?

於是，北京再一次地設計搆陷了台灣。為什麼（這些媒體）不說台灣自己的獨立與民主是「神聖的使命」？等一下，一篇新聞報導為什麼會出現「神聖」這兩個字？

The article goes on to offend further, reporting that "Taiwan has been ruled separately from China since the Communists won a civil war and took over the mainland in 1949." This is a common formulation, but the implication that Taiwan and China were one nation prior to this period is a historical error -- yet it is commonly reported in the foreign media as if it were true -- since (it goes without saying) Beijing claims this is the case.

接下來該篇文章繼續冒犯台灣，說「台灣是在 1949 年共產黨贏得內戰並接收大陸後由中國分離出來」。這雖然是一個通稱，但是這其中暗示的「在那之前，台灣與中國是一個國家」卻是一個歷史錯誤。但外國媒體卻不斷地把這個歷史錯誤當作事實一樣地報導，只因為北京這樣宣稱。

Of course, no foreign media article on a pro-democracy politician is complete without referring to the tensions such people allegedly cause: "... and tensions with China would likely rise if she were elected."

很自然地，這些外國媒體好像不報導底下這一條就會覺得他們的報導少了什麼：「 她（呂秀蓮）被選為總統很可能導致與中國之間的關係更緊張」

In fact, tensions would only likely rise if Lu were elected because Beijing would cause them to do so -- as it does whenever Taiwan exercises its democracy. Democracy and its supporters do not cause tensions -- it is opposition to democracy that creates tensions. The article once again chooses a Beijing-centric frame to discuss Taiwan.

事實上，她如果當選，只有北京有可能昇高緊張的情勢 ─── 就如同以往每一次台灣執行民主步驟時一樣。民主與民主的支持者不會造成緊張情勢，只有反民主的勢力才會製造緊張情勢。該篇文章又一次地採用北京的觀點來搆陷台灣。

Longtime media watchers in Taiwan are wearisomely familiar with the international media bogeyman constructed out of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁): "Mad Chen," the "Crazed Independence Radical" -- He Can Cause a War At Any Moment, He's So Crazy! Here we see the script for "Mad Annette" in its first draft.

長期在台灣的媒體觀察者都清楚並厭倦國際媒體小丑污衊陳水扁總統的用詞：「陳瘋子」、「發瘋的獨立偏激份子」、「他隨時會發動戰爭」、「他是如此瘋狂」！現在，我們看到「呂瘋子」的第一個版本。

Near the end of the article the writer refers to the assassination attempt by a pan-blue supporter on Chen and Lu in 2004, noting: "The opposition alleged the shooting was staged to win sympathy votes." Fundamentally, there was no reason to mention the shooting; it is irrelevant to Lu's presidential candidacy. "The opposition" is a coy reference to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).

在文章尾端，該文作者提到 2004 年時一個泛藍支持者試圖暗殺陳水扁與呂秀蓮的事件，並下了這樣的註解：「反對勢力指控該暗殺事件是事先安排以贏得同情票的」。事實上該作者根本沒有必要提到該事件；該事件跟呂的競選總統無關。在這裡「反對勢力」暗指的是中國國民黨。

The writer also failed to mention that no evidence supports the opposition claims, making a hollow pretense of the sound journalistic ethic of balance in assigning equal weight to nonsense claims, and using the phrase "the police said" as if no investigation was conducted and no chain of evidence was followed. Note that the opposition's claim is set off in a sentence of its own, and that it comes last in the discussion of the assassination attempt. It goes with saying that Beijing supports the opposition on that one.

該作者沒有提到反對勢力的該項指控並沒有任何證據為根據，使得新聞記者「平衡報導」的基本道德成為一個空洞的虛言。該作者並刻意使用「警察說」（譯者註：而不是檢查官、法官說）使得整件事看起來好像沒有經過任何調查與搜證。值得注意的是，該反對勢力的指控本身是自說自話，在該暗殺事件的討論中的重要性微乎其微。有人說北京支持反對勢力的該項說法。

The issue here is not that China insulted Lu. The issue is that the foreign media repeatedly use Beijing to frame Taiwan, resulting in a media discourse about Taiwan that is strongly slanted in Beijing's favor. The bias lies not in the stories the international media select, but in the language and underlying assumptions the international media use in describing "The Beautiful Isle."

這整件事（「民族敗類」之言）的關鍵不在於中國侮辱呂秀蓮。重點在於外國媒體不斷地利用北京來搆陷台灣，使得有關台灣的報導一面倒地傾向北京的調調。這種偏見不在於外國媒體如何選擇報導的事件，而在於這些外國媒體在描述台灣這個「美麗寶島」時所用的語言與先入為主的觀念。

[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":

百萬人民倒扁運動承諾金帳戶，已於民國95年8月25日0點停止接受匯款，最後結帳金額為$111,211,563元〈壹億壹仟壹佰貳拾壹萬壹仟伍佰陸拾?元整〉。
( 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:

2001年、2004年，施明德兩度以獨立候選人身分參加立法委員選舉，分別以24925票、26974票落選；2002年，參選高雄市長；得到8750票落選。
( 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:

噪音震得北一女教室玻璃晃動，還有學生以為是地震而受到驚嚇
( 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:

來到靜坐現場，民眾還是受不了刺耳的喇叭聲，忍不住摀起耳朵
( 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

• Tim Maddog BBC gets Taiwan all wrong
• Michael Turton BBC on Anti-Chen Campaign
• Victor Liu with Taiwanese Protest
• Angry netters:
  BBC angers all who care about Taiwan
  揭發倒扁活動的錯謬！趕快去BBC英文新聞網投書！
  
• Washington Post is eager to play dirty too ( Protesters Call On Taiwan's Leader to Quit by By Jane Rickards, Special to The Washington Post, Sunday, September 10, 2006 ). Countered by Jason with The WaPo gets it wrong, too and by Michael Turton with Jane Rickards at WaPo on anti-Chen protests .
• Another article on BBC Chinese by their journalist Ms Meng-Yu Yang (translated from 中文網特約記者楊孟瑜) shares the same nonsense: 倒扁大戰誰遭殃. They did post some reader's comments. Among them:
  
  

  以這一篇來看就知道記者在撰稿之前沒有下功夫查証。另外，中文的水平讓人無法相信記者受過正規訓練，難道錄音轉文字就可以算是文章報導嗎？這和台灣的聯合報、中國時報之類的編故事報導可算是同一等級的了。
  Chao-Hong Liu, Taiwan
  ( The article shows that the journalist didn't make any effort to study and confirm the story. Besides, with that quality of Mandarin it's hard to believe that the writer is professionally trained-- Can an article that simply records and repeats be called a report? This is on the same level of story-fabricating articles on United Daily News or China Times News )
  

  
  It's unbelievable that BBC is full of third class journalists. Shame on you, BBC !
  

[0608] 中國掛黑道也挺扁？

在施明德與黑道掛勾，白狼張安樂欲派遣黑道天使隊替施明德護航的消息曝光之後，施明德的倒扁行動已經蒙上了一層揮之不去的陰（黑）影。

原本泛藍活動差不多每次都有黑道參與，關於這點，很奇怪地，台灣人好像是不關痛養（反正死別人不是死自己），譬如說去年連宋訪中的「機場事件」，挺綠的老伯伯被一群挺藍的黑衣青少年圍毆到頭破血流，這種違背倫理、破壞治安、對法治公然挑戰的恐怖份子的行為，好像台灣社會並沒有為此激起多大的漣漪，而民進黨政府對這類暴行的批判與執行法律制裁的動力不足，也讓人覺得民進黨並無決心消除恐怖氣氛的擴張。

這樣的環境，使得不惜採用暴力手段的恐怖份子看到，使用暴力手段在這個社會是被通融、被接受的，等於是變相鼓勵、滋長了暴力行為的質與量。

於是乎，我們終於看到，中華統一促進黨的主席林正杰，在全國觀眾都看得到的電視機前，以不斷地拳打腳踢的暴力行為，將挺綠學者金恆煒打到鼻梁斷裂，縫了五針。

原本，對於以往「泛藍的群眾運動有黑道參與」的情形，泛藍從來沒有拒絕過，更別說發動媒體予以譴責。而對於已經被報導幾天的「施明德請白狼當護衛」的消息，彷彿也不怎麼在意。

而林正杰這一個電視機前面公然施暴的行為，卻似乎讓泛藍自己也起了警覺心。我們看到施明德的反扁總部開始努力撇清與白狼與林正杰的關係，然根據白狼的說法，卻是施明德找林正杰去要求白狼出面保護他。然後有了底下這一則令人啼笑皆非的報導：

> 不只倒扁！ 天使隊挺扁也出面
2006-08-27 13:07

宣稱會出面維持靜坐秩序的天使護衛隊到底組成份子是什麼？外界一直有疑慮，林正杰說，這裡面不只有男天使還有女天使，平時隱身各行各業，不輕易暴露身份，有活動才會穿黑衣出現，而且他們不只會參加倒扁，挺扁也會出面。

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。」

以柔和的方式維持秩序，而且隊規第一條就規定，罵不還口，打不還手，以和平守護為宗旨。更強調身家清白，因為警方始終懷疑成員複雜，中華統一促進黨主席林正杰特別強調，天使隊隱身行各業，而且不管挺扁或反扁，都會出來維持秩序。

號稱成員超過5百人的天使護衛隊，平常手機簡訊聯絡，採小隊長制，林正杰說他們全是義工，接獲簡訊會統一穿上黑衣站在活動最前線，保護受委託人安全，只是現在倒扁的不歡迎他們，挺扁的也沒有打算要求他們保護，讓外界懷疑天使隊什麼時候正式登場。

這篇報導來自TVBS，撰稿人連名字都不敢附上，文中一再強調，黑道的天使隊『即使挺扁也會相助』，明眼人一看就知道是為了要跟「反扁」做切割所捏造的假文。

這種粗糙的、卑劣的伎倆只會令人笑掉大牙。同時呈現的，是泛藍人士向來活動中所呈現的暴力傾向，已經開始有另泛藍擔憂的「反作用」的效果，要不然泛藍不會去做這種種撇清行為。

[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

近日民進黨前主席施明德為了反扁召開記者會，要求台灣人付錢給他讓他反扁。這是個很不尋常的舉動。一來，「罷免總統」是人民應有的權利，享用你原來就有的權利，為什麼要付錢給施明德？因此這個錢收得很奇怪。

二者，施明德收了那麼多錢，但卻未曾跟付錢者交代他打算怎麼花錢。他除了說要靜坐以外，只說，山人自有妙計。這妙計到底是什麼呢？

三者，假設他想搞群眾運動好了，但在他的倒扁網站上（註一），卻清楚明白地告訴民眾：一般群眾運動所需的旗幟、衣服等必要支出都要省下，也就是說，倒扁捐款不會用在群眾運動支出上。

那。。。民主法治外的「倒扁行動」，除了「群眾運動」外，還會有什麼可能性？

我突然想起來，施明德早年立志要念軍校。台灣人立志從軍的很少，從後來的文件知道，他當年從軍的主要目的，是要學習軍隊的組織與運作，以做為武裝推翻國民黨的基礎。可見，施明德對他看不爽的事情，有「不惜武裝一戰」的革命性格。

一個人會採取暴動的手段，除了「革命性格」之外，還要有「外在條件」配合。譬如說，假如一個人在政府中當高官、在社會中享有崇高的地位、手邊有無盡的財富。。。這些「享受」都「令他滿意」的時候，在考慮到暴動可能使他由「享受」變成「坐牢」甚至「死亡」而喪失所有的享受時，那儘管再怎麼有革命性格，恐怕不會想要走極端。

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。

日前報載施明德可能用「自焚」來作為反扁的激烈手段。這應該是不太可能發生的。畢竟很難想像一個沈溺於物質享受的的人會去自焚來犧牲一切。更何況，自焚只需一根火柴加一桶汽油，不需要台灣人付他一億元台幣吧？

註一：施明德倒扁網站 http://www.newtaiwan.org.tw/
註二：此文在媒抗：http://www.anti-media.tw/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15221