NCC's Selective Punishment on Pro-green Stations

National Communications Commission (NCC) issued punishments in fine against 11 pro-green ratio stations for encouraging people to protest the visit of Vice President Zhang Ming-qing (張銘清), China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS, 海協會), on 21th, Nov, 2008.

The reasons of punishment given by NCC are:

"Violating the social order and kindhearted customs", NT$ 13,500 (~ 400 US)
"Using words 'dog shit' and 'bull shit' in the programs, which is an even more serious violation of the social order and kindhearted customs", NT$ 24,000 (~ 700 US$)

As critics point out, when much more serious violations were conducted by pro-blue stations back in 2006 to encourage people to join Red Army, an illegal anti-bian siege, NCC keeps a total blind eye.

NCC was ruled as "unconstitutional" by Council of Grand Justices, the nation's highest court, back in July, 2006 (See Taipei Time's NCC unconstitutional: grand justices). But that doesn't seem to bother a bit for those lawless pro-blue people to keep operating NCC and using it as a political tool against pro-green stations.

Ref (in Chinese): 張銘清案 NCC開罰11家電台, 鼓吹民眾包圍張銘清 11家電台遭NCC罰款

理想與戰略

對於「理想」與「戰略」的差別，泛綠，尤其是深綠，似乎沒有看得很清楚。

許多深綠支持者一直堅持要把「台灣獨立」、「愛台灣」當口號常常喊，似乎只要不把這個當口號常常喊，這些「理想」就會消失不見。

但是，大軍作戰論輸贏，靠的卻不是「理想」而是戰略。作戰時要不要喊「愛台灣」的口號、要喊什麼口號，這是輸贏的策略，是「戰略」的問題，不是「理想」、「原則」的問題。

看看馬英九，他真正在做的，是「愛台」還是「賣台」？

他的理想是終極統一，當然不惜賣台。但是他的戰略卻是「愛台」。

他整天把愛台灣、為台灣好、生死為台灣 。。。掛在嘴上。他對付台灣人的「戰略」就是「愛台」，跟他的理想南轅北轍。

他這些是說給泛藍聽的，還是說給泛綠聽的？

以這個角度看阿扁與馬英九的差別 :

阿扁是「選前喊給自己人爽，選後做給敵人爽」;

馬英九剛好反過來：「選前喊給敵人爽，選後做給自己人爽」。

哪一種「戰略」比較可以達到所要的「理想」？

阿扁之所以不得不「喊給自己人爽」，還不是因為泛綠（尤其是深綠）只要他們的候選人不把理想當口號喊在表面上，就不支持他？

把理想當口號，把戰略當次要，恐怕不被打趴也很難吧？

深綠這種心態，使得泛綠從政者不得不選擇一個敗戰的戰略，那到底是正面的還是負面的？

有疑慮的讀者，請花一點時間研究一下 Freddy 閃靈樂團的戰略。他們在去年總統大選時負責謝長廷的年輕選票。選舉結果，泛綠在所有年齡階層只有 Freddy 負責的年輕選票贏過馬英九。

為什麼以所有媒體攻勢與國民黨龐大資金所塑造的馬英九形象，會在年輕階層中敗給 Freddy 的團隊呢？

讀者如果不想從馬英九的勝利中學到教訓，也許多接觸一下閃靈樂團，想想為什麼他們能逆勢得勝，可以幫助我們瞭解：有些事「能說不能做」，有些事「該做但是不能說」。

這是攸關輸贏的「戰略」問題，不是「理想」的問題。

Chronicle of Taiwan Classic Literature Milestones

After 7 years of studies, "Chronicle of Taiwan Classic Literature Milestones - Ming & Qing" (my translation of "台灣古典文學大事年表．明清篇"), was published by National Cheng Kung University (成功大學) professors Shih Yi Lin (施懿琳) and Liao Mei-Yu (廖美玉).

With total of 800 pages and a time span of 244 years (from 1651 to 1895, 明朝永曆5年 to 清朝光緒21年）, the Chronicle follows the time line of Taiwan literatures but also covers writers, critical literal education events, cultural activities, major social events, Qing's Taiwan administrative policies, international major events, important diplomatic polices, etc, under its 5 parts of "Literati", "Literal Education", "Taiwan Major Events", "Qing Major Events", and "Global Major Events" (文人記事、文教記事、台灣大事、清朝大事、世界大事).

It is the first reference book ever published in the field of Taiwan classic literature studies.

Ref: 全球第一本 台灣古典文學大事年表問世

Ma Govt to Extend Thought Control to Elementary Schools

The military officers in colleges and senior high schools, installed by KMT decades ago, have always been the tool for KMT to conduct "thought monitoring" on students. When I was in school back in Taiwan, those military officers represented the terror of KMT's authoritarian power and were the most feared by students.

Now, in the name of "defense education," Ma Ying-jeou government's Ministry of Education's Department of Students' Military Training (DSMT, 軍訓處) is amending a "Plan of Improvement and Adjustment of Military Training Officers Missions in High Schools" (my translation of 高級中等學校軍訓教官工作精進與調整方案) to include junior high and elementary schools into the radar of their thought control ((員額不減 教官擬轉進國中小). It is criticized as 'shameless and turning Taiwan into a military state" (教官進國中小 教師家長批可恥).

DSMT denied such a plan but the whole document (in MS Word format) of their plan can be found on their own site.

Update_09.2.24:

Tim Maddog of Taiwan Matters pointed out to me in a private contact that, in less than 24 hr after this post, DSMT removed the entire page from their web site. Tim took a snapshot of that page from google cach, and the DSMT's proposal to put elementary schools to military education (word doc) can be found here: 教官工作精進與調整方案-980202(含完整附件).

Meanwhile, Ministry of Education puts up an announcement in this regard, saying that the content of proposal is distorted by people, that military officers will not be installed in elementary schools. They will just go there to "teach those kids lessons" because "the teachers in junior high and elementary schools don't have the profession to handle defense education." (國民中小學絕對不會建置教官員額 -- 教育部有關推動全民國防教育相關說明)

What on earth do elementary kids need "defense education" for ????

And if it is so justifiable, why did they remove the webpage ?

With KMT's notorious past of brain-washing, I can't wipe out the fear that they are now doing it all over again from the elementary level.

Taiwan to make Notorious Chery car for China

Made-in-China small car Chery Amulet, or Chery QQ, was ranked "the worst ever seen" in a crash test (Chery Amulet - almost no chance to survive). Chinese claimed that the test is biased, but comparison of several cars seems to confirm that, and an accident in which a Chery was turned completely into a small pile of unrecognizable waste (Chery(奇瑞) QQ crashed into a piece,terrible car accident) testifies tragically how terribly unsafe this car is .

A report from carnews.com says that Taiwan auto manufacturer Prince Motor ( 太子汽車 ) will start making Chery for China for both domestic (uurrhhh ... which country?) and overseas buyers.

The report says that it might create more jobs in short term, but wonders if the long-built reputation of "Made in Taiwan" good quality be sacrificed in the future.

Nazi-based Prosecutorial Style in Taiwan

Professor Luby Liao in California reminded us a nice article in NYTimes (Case Against Ex-Leader Stirs Unease in Taiwan).

Emphasizing the circus skit performed by prosecutors involved in Chen's case, the author Keith Bradsher raised global concerns about the fairness in Taiwan's judiciary processes. In one paragraph mentioned is Taiwan's judiciary code is based on Nazi's:

The case has prompted broader concerns about Taiwan's legal code. Its detention and criminal procedure laws were drafted in the 1930s and early '40s by Chinese Nationalist legal scholars who mainly looked to Nazi Germany for ideas. The Nationalists lost China's civil war to the Communists and retreated to Taiwan, which they ruled under martial law until 1987, but essentially the same laws remain on the books.

It's a good thing that NYTimes to have noticed this.

One paragraph of the article mentioned:

But detention centers will no longer record defendants’ conversations with their defense lawyers unless specifically directed to do so by a judge or prosecutor.

It presents a common misconcept that the court ruling has prevented Chen's case from being taped.

The court did say (on 1/20/09) that the taping is ruled as illegal. But it also said that the ruling will NOT take effect until May, 2009. That is, this ruling makes it legal to record defense conversations before then. By the time it takes effect, the prosecutors will most probably have taped everything they want to hear about Chen's defense strategy.

The question is, if it is illegal, why not take effect immediately? Does it take 3 to 4 months for the prosecutor office to NOT RECORD IT ? I just can't think of any logical reason other than Chen's case for the judges to delay the execution of the new ruling. Can you ?

So the court ruling -- contrary to what is commonly believed that it has prevented prosecutor office from jeopardizing Chen's defense -- has in fact provided a legal coverage for prosecutors to tape the conversations between Chen and his visitors. Judging from their blatant Nazi-style prosecutions, the prosecutors would most probably do so, but now in secrecy. If in case the recording is exposed later, or the prosecutors blatantly use the recording as incriminating evidence in the court, the defense will have no legal base to argue that those recordings be excluded -- hey, the court did rule that it's legal before May, remember?

Update_090223:

Just found the related TT report (Justices pull plug on supervised meetings), which says,

"The interpretation also says that information gained from the recordings of such a meetings shall no longer be admissible as evidence after May 1."

What is also mentioned in the article: this "inadmissible" ruling actually was in response to a request of a pan-blue defendant who thinks his right is violated by the recording.

IT IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO THE OVERWHELMINGLY INTERNATIONAL CRITICS ABOUT CHEN'S CASE !!!

In fact, the Council of Grand Justices made such a ruling that the recording on pan-blue's defendant is inadmissible, but in that same ruling made the recording about Chen as admissible !!!

What a judiciary impartiality the honey-tongued Ma Ying-jeou swears to uphold !

Taipei Court Exonerates Shih for 2006 APA Violation

Shih Ming-teh (施明德), together with other 16, were ruled "not guilty" on 2/20/09 by Taipei District Court for launching the anti-Chen siege without pre-approval in 2006, which is a clear violation of Assembly and Parade Act (APA, 集會遊行法).

The APA says that any parade or demonstration should be approved by the police 6 days in advance. But Shih's large-scale anti-Chen protest, aka Red Army, did not get the approval for their extended large-scale protest.

It's a clear violation, but Ma Ying-jeou, Taipei Mayor at that time, didn't shy away from their illegal actions. Instead, the "you-should-follow-the-law" Ma sent breakfast to Shih's headquarters and allowed the Red Army to use the public area in front of Taipei Train Station illegally, causing a lot of troubles for daily traffic.

Even worse, Ma abused his Mayor power to press Taipei police chief Wang Cho-chun (王卓鈞) to ignore APA and to grant the Red Army "legalized on-site" (就地合法), causing not so minor confrontations between Mayor Ma and Taipei police. ( 假學運馬支持 真學運馬不屑)

To exonerate the illegal Red Army, the court sentence issued yesterday says:

判決指出，倒扁集會雖未經許可，或造成民眾些許不便，但確實引起許多迴響，仍在民主社會得以忍受之範圍，國家自應予以尊重。

Although the anti-Chen assembly was not approved, and it might have caused some inconvenience of people, but it did have some support, so it is within the tolerable range of a democratic country. As a result, the state should pay respect.

It seems to be normal in Taiwan to use the absolute power to interpret the law in favor of your case -- especially when it is the "legalized-on-site" supported by Ma Ying-jeou.