[0710] 竹聯幫是國民黨的秘密暗殺組織?

今年10月4日，國內第一大黑幫竹聯幫的精神領袖，綽號「鴨霸子」的陳啟禮，在香港的 St. Teresa's 醫院病逝。陳啟禮成為台灣眾所周知的人物，主要是因為他涉及 1984 年的一宗跨海謀殺案，死者是具有美國人身份的台灣同鄉，筆名「江南」的劉宜良。劉宜良住在美國加州，因為寫了一些有關當時總統蔣經國婚外情的內幕而被國民黨視為叛國賊。國民黨以「為國家做事」之名下令竹聯幫幫主陳啟禮執行暗殺任務。

以這樣的任務派令，陳啟禮等於是執行國家任務的情報人員，理當被當作國家英雄對待。但是國民黨過河拆橋，在陳啟禮圓滿達成任務之後，將陳啟禮以重刑犯對待，不但判處無期徒刑，在獄中更是以比對待其他重刑犯更嚴厲的方式對待他，甚至企圖將他殺害滅口。

陳啟禮後來逃到柬普寨以躲避刑罰並在那裡一直待到病亡。

陳啟禮的死亡不但給竹聯幫劃下一個轉捩點，並且，更重要的是，再一次地喚醒台灣人有關國民黨與黑道掛勾的黑暗齷齪本質。最近爆發的另外一件國民黨密謀交代香港著名武打明星王羽前往美國暗殺當時的黨外巨頭之一許信良的暗殺任務，更使得國民黨的利用暗殺剷除異己的殘酷本質更加彰顯。

但更令人震驚的還不止於此。首先我們先試著瞭解一下為什麼會有竹聯幫的成立。

這篇文章 Taiwan's Dirty Business 中提到：

『竹聯幫是 40 年前由蔣介石的國民黨裡幾個高級將領的未成年兒子所組成。這些高級將領逃過毛澤東的共產黨的殺害而躲到台灣。因為他們的父親慘遭失敗而感到羞辱，這些叛逆的青少年組織起來在台北郊區的竹林路與其他幫派火拼。』

The United Bamboo was founded 40 years ago by a handful of teen-aged sons of senior officers in Chiang Kai-shek's KMT army who had encamped in Taiwan rather than be crushed by Mao Zedong's advancing Communists. Disenchanted by the humiliation of their fathers, the young rebels joined forces to fight other gangs along Bamboo Forest Road on the outskirts of Taipei.

另外一篇 Lord Duck Is Dead 提到：

陳啟禮於1943年出生於中國，在1949年跟著家人到台灣。17歲的時候，他跟一群朋友組成竹聯幫。。。。竹聯幫的組成份子是一群在中國出生的青少年，因為受台灣人欺負而組成幫派來自衛。

Chen (Chi-li) was born in 1943 in China and moved with his family to Taiwan in 1949. At age 17, he formed the United Bamboo gang with friends ... the United Bamboo gang was formed by a bunch of teenage students who were born on the mainland, oppressed by local Taiwanese people and got together to defend themselves.

根據這兩篇文章所言，當初之所以會有竹聯幫的組成，大抵也不過是叛逆青少年的幫派英雄式的幻想。如果事實真的是這樣，那我們可以說，國民黨是在有需要的時候，與一個「已經存在」的幫派聯絡、掛勾，以利用該幫派的火力進行政治行動。

但是，根據近日的資訊，這個我們早已耳熟能詳，而且有歷史事實根據的「國民黨與黑道掛勾」的印象，似乎並不能完整呈現國民黨介入黑幫的整個面貌。

當年當陳啟禮因為跨海謀殺案而被起訴的時候，代表劉宜良遺孀的律師不是別人，正是目前民進黨的總統候選人謝長廷。因為是該事件律師，謝長廷當然跟著陳啟禮一起在庭上，並且有機會聽到陳啟禮所有的陳述與自白。

在近日的一篇報導 『謝長廷：當時的政府要陳啟禮組竹聯幫』中, 謝長廷說:

『陳啟禮當年在法庭講過，「當時的政府要他組織竹聯幫，就是要對付所謂的叛徒，殺害這些人，他們當時認為黨外、民主運動人士沒有力量，很可能
可以結合流氓，組織竹聯幫制裁、傷害這些人，這是陳啟禮自己講的。」』

『陳啟禮講的很清楚，公開在法庭講，叫他出來組織竹聯幫，擴大勢力，就是要殺害這些人。』

『他有自白、有錄音，把這經過講得很詳細，當時大家不敢講，看了大家會冒冷汗，是政府去組織黑社會。』

謝長廷還暗示，竹聯幫之所以會成為台灣第一大幫派，是因為有國民黨在暗地裡撐腰。

謝長廷先生的陳述令人震驚。畢竟，「與黑道掛勾」是一回事，但「主動下令組成幫派以進行政治謀殺」則是完全不同的一回事。這些話出自竹聯幫幫主之口，可見我之前引用的，竹聯幫的組成是單純的「叛逆青少年的幫派英雄幻想」的說法並不可靠。

由此可知，台灣人即使經過了幾十年的慢慢覺醒過程而漸漸認識了國民黨「與黑幫掛勾」的本質，但對國民黨的黑幫內在還是沒有真正的認識。現在國人總算可以看清楚，國民黨不僅僅是「與竹聯幫掛勾」而已；竹聯幫事實上是國民黨組成的秘密謀殺組織。

當我們認識了這個事實之後，就可以瞭解，馬英九「當選後要重新調查陳文成命案、林義雄家人謀殺案」的說法是多麼荒謬可笑。他們既然組成了專門執行政治暗殺任務以剷除異己的黑幫，而林宅血案又是在他們的特務人員層層包圍監視，所謂連一隻鳥也飛不過的情況下讓兇手來去自如地發生，這就如陳總統日前講的，「用膝蓋想也知道是誰幹的」，那就把自己的內部檔案公開就可以，何必虛情假意裝無辜地講什麼「重新調查」？

---

[註1]：這篇文章是從我寫的一篇英文
United Bamboo- KMT's Underground Assassination Sector 翻譯而來。有興趣的讀者可以前往一讀。
[註2]：同文發表在媒抗。
[註3]：延伸閱讀：媒抗網友 abiau2 開的欄 『涉嫌陳文成命案的政黨參選人說當選後會查陳文成命案』

[0704] Michael Turton: 國民黨魁訪中國，中國飛彈打台灣

Michael Turton 在他的部落格 The View from Taiwan 裡發表了一篇文章，標題是『國民黨魁訪中國，中國飛彈打台灣』。文裡引用了『英文中國郵報』的一篇新聞報導：『國民黨高層：新任黨主席將訪問中國』。該篇新聞說，根據國民黨副主席關中所言，國民黨新任黨魁吳伯雄將在這個月（2007年4月）月底率領該黨高層與中國的共產黨會談，並言吳伯雄希望該會談能達成「具體協定」。

該報導又指出，吳伯雄的前任馬英九，因為怕被貼上「親中」的標籤而沒有訪中，但是吳伯雄並不在乎這些，因為他並沒有要競選什麼職位。關中說：『他（吳伯雄）不可能被說成過度親中而遭批評。』

我不知道吳伯雄為什麼不怕被說成親中。他既當了黨主席，他的過度親中就代表國民黨的過度親中，難道當真如此明目張膽的硬幹，不怕台灣人質疑？

不管如何，國人不可忽略這篇新聞報導所呈現的象徵性意義。如同 Michael 在他的文章裡提的：

Substantive talks! I get arguments that the KMT isn't cooperating with China because they used to be enemies, because "so many have died." Yet the first thing Wu does as Chairman is visit China for "substantive talks." The symbolism of the leader from abroad who visits China after being selected leader isn't lost on anyone here or in China: [b]he goes to pay tribute to the masters in Beijing[/b]. If it isn't blindingly obvious that the KMT and the CCP are cooperating......no need to finish that sentence.

具體協定！ 我常聽說，國民黨沒有在與中國合作，因為以前兩邊互為敵人，也因為曾因此死了很多人。然而，吳伯雄當選國民黨主席後想做的第一件事，竟是與中國達成「具體協定」。一個外國領導高層在剛就任就急著去「拜訪中國」，這個舉動的象徵性意義，在每一個中國人的眼中都是不言而喻的：『他（吳伯雄）是來北京跟他的主子磕頭的』。國民黨是不是在跟共產黨合作，可說是「司馬昭之心，路人皆知」了。

另外一個值得注意的現象，是這則新聞，竟然在中文媒體上看不到。是這些中文媒體很清楚這個消息的可能負面衝擊性而自動過濾，還是有其他原因？

Cross-post:
http://www.anti-media.tw/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=484185#484185

[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。