The Nuremberg Trials are a series of trials most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military and economic leadership of Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949, at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 24 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany. It was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946. The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT), among them included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see the separate article on the NMT for details on those trials.
Full Text and picture, please click The Free Dictionary
http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/Nuremberg+Trials
We shall not forget!
21 Nov 2008
Call for Taiwan Police to Stop Pressuring Media for Protest Information
2008 Nov 19
Press Release from International Federation of Journalist
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urges Taiwan's National Police Agency (NPA) to stop asking media personnel for information about protesters at a recent public demonstration.
According to the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ), an IFJ affiliate, members of the Taiwan police have reportedly asked media workers to provide photographs of demonstrators who participated in the "Yellow Ribbon Siege" protest against a meeting between Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou and chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Chen Yunlin on November 16. The protest was reportedly organised by the Democratic Progressive Political Party.
The ATJ said there were concerns that police would seek to pressure photojournalists who refused the request for information by approaching their employers.
"The police have put the reporters in grave danger by demanding that they rat on their interviewees," ATJ president Leon Chuang said.
On November 18, Leon Chuang and several reporters requested a meeting with NPA Director-General Wang Cho-chun to resolve the issue, but the request was declined.
"The duty of a journalist is to report the truth and to protect his or her sources. Journalists must not be compelled to act as agents to collect information on behalf of government authorities. Police interference of this kind places freedom of the independent press in jeopardy," IFJ Asia-Pacific said.
"The IFJ urges Taiwan's authorities to respect press freedom and ensure that they do not compromise journalists' integrity. All media outlets are also urged to defend press freedom and refrain from handing over photographs."
Increasing police pressure on Taiwan's media has been reported since early November. An independent documentary film-maker was detained by police while she was filming Chen in a hotel on November 4.. In a separate incident, a television reporter was assaulted by police who reportedly mistook him for a protester during the November 16 rally.
For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 120 countries worldwide
Press Release from International Federation of Journalist
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) urges Taiwan's National Police Agency (NPA) to stop asking media personnel for information about protesters at a recent public demonstration.
According to the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ), an IFJ affiliate, members of the Taiwan police have reportedly asked media workers to provide photographs of demonstrators who participated in the "Yellow Ribbon Siege" protest against a meeting between Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou and chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Chen Yunlin on November 16. The protest was reportedly organised by the Democratic Progressive Political Party.
The ATJ said there were concerns that police would seek to pressure photojournalists who refused the request for information by approaching their employers.
"The police have put the reporters in grave danger by demanding that they rat on their interviewees," ATJ president Leon Chuang said.
On November 18, Leon Chuang and several reporters requested a meeting with NPA Director-General Wang Cho-chun to resolve the issue, but the request was declined.
"The duty of a journalist is to report the truth and to protect his or her sources. Journalists must not be compelled to act as agents to collect information on behalf of government authorities. Police interference of this kind places freedom of the independent press in jeopardy," IFJ Asia-Pacific said.
"The IFJ urges Taiwan's authorities to respect press freedom and ensure that they do not compromise journalists' integrity. All media outlets are also urged to defend press freedom and refrain from handing over photographs."
Increasing police pressure on Taiwan's media has been reported since early November. An independent documentary film-maker was detained by police while she was filming Chen in a hotel on November 4.. In a separate incident, a television reporter was assaulted by police who reportedly mistook him for a protester during the November 16 rally.
For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919
The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 120 countries worldwide
[Free--Partly Free--Not Free] Which status Taiwan will be in?
Status: Countries / Political rights Score / Civil rights Score
Free: Germany, France, Benelux, U.K., U.S.A., Canada, Scandinavian countries,.../1/1
Free: Japan, South Korea /1/2
^
| ? Is Taiwan going upward?
Free: TAIWAN /2/1
| ? Or downward?
ˇ
Partly Free: Hong Kong (China) /5/2
Partly Free: Singapore /5/4
Not Free: China /7/6
Not Free: North Korea, Tibet /7/7
Data from Map of Freedom, Freedom House, Washington
Free: Germany, France, Benelux, U.K., U.S.A., Canada, Scandinavian countries,.../1/1
Free: Japan, South Korea /1/2
^
| ? Is Taiwan going upward?
Free: TAIWAN /2/1
| ? Or downward?
ˇ
Partly Free: Hong Kong (China) /5/2
Partly Free: Singapore /5/4
Not Free: China /7/6
Not Free: North Korea, Tibet /7/7
Data from Map of Freedom, Freedom House, Washington
[Freedom House] Map of Freedom: TAIWAN 2008
Freedom in the World 2008 (Map of Freedom 2008)
Report on Taiwan (2008)
Capital: Taipei
Population: 22,900,000
Political Rights Score: 2
Civil Liberties Score: 1
Status: Free
Overview
Taiwan’s political elite became embroiled in a series of corruption scandals in 2007 that tarnished the reputation of leading figures in both the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the opposition Kuomintang (KMT). Meanwhile, in the run-up to the 2008 legislative and presidential elections, cross-strait relations and the issue of “Taiwan identity” took center stage, much to the alarm of officials in both Beijing and Washington. (Read Details)
Report on Taiwan (2008)
Capital: Taipei
Population: 22,900,000
Political Rights Score: 2
Civil Liberties Score: 1
Status: Free
Overview
Taiwan’s political elite became embroiled in a series of corruption scandals in 2007 that tarnished the reputation of leading figures in both the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the opposition Kuomintang (KMT). Meanwhile, in the run-up to the 2008 legislative and presidential elections, cross-strait relations and the issue of “Taiwan identity” took center stage, much to the alarm of officials in both Beijing and Washington. (Read Details)
Freedom House Calls for Inquiry into Taiwan Clashes [Press Release]
Washington
November 20, 2008
Freedom House urges Taiwan's government to create an independent commission to thoroughly investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin's historic visit and recommend needed reforms.
"A public investigation of the violence—which involved both sides—will send a critical message that the new government of President Ma Ying-jeou is interested in upholding the democratic values of transparency and accountability," said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House executive director. "The inquiry should examine evidence on both sides and recommend any needed reforms to police practices and the legal framework governing demonstrations."
Hundreds of university students are currently staging a sit-in in Taipei's Freedom Square and several other cities to protest the government's handling of the incident. During Chen’s visit, police reportedly used heavy-handed tactics—including physical assault, arbitrary detention and destruction of property—to prevent Chen from seeing symbols of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, as well as broader demonstrations against the Chinese regime. Demonstrators also employed violence against police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs outside Chen's hotel on November 6.
The clashes reveal a need for police to undergo crowd control training that adheres to the standards used in other democracies. Likewise, demonstrators and political advocacy groups must recommit themselves to orderly protests that avoid violence under any circumstances.
The inquiry commission should examine controversial passages in Taiwan's Assembly and Parade Law, such as restrictions on where people are allowed to demonstrate, and determine whether they need to be liberalized to protect citizens' rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The commission should also investigate claims that police are selectively enforcing the law.
The visit by Chen, the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan since it split from China in 1949, and the recent arrests of several opposition party figures are raising concerns that that President Ma and his Kuomintang Party may rollback democratic freedoms.
"The government must renew its commitment to tolerating robust freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, no matter what the cause," said Windsor.
Taiwan is ranked Free in the 2008 edition of Freedom in the World, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and in the 2008 version of Freedom of the Press. (Original page)
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring political rights and civil liberties in Taiwan since 1972.
November 20, 2008
Freedom House urges Taiwan's government to create an independent commission to thoroughly investigate clashes between police and activists protesting Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin's historic visit and recommend needed reforms.
"A public investigation of the violence—which involved both sides—will send a critical message that the new government of President Ma Ying-jeou is interested in upholding the democratic values of transparency and accountability," said Jennifer Windsor, Freedom House executive director. "The inquiry should examine evidence on both sides and recommend any needed reforms to police practices and the legal framework governing demonstrations."
Hundreds of university students are currently staging a sit-in in Taipei's Freedom Square and several other cities to protest the government's handling of the incident. During Chen’s visit, police reportedly used heavy-handed tactics—including physical assault, arbitrary detention and destruction of property—to prevent Chen from seeing symbols of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence, as well as broader demonstrations against the Chinese regime. Demonstrators also employed violence against police, throwing rocks and petrol bombs outside Chen's hotel on November 6.
The clashes reveal a need for police to undergo crowd control training that adheres to the standards used in other democracies. Likewise, demonstrators and political advocacy groups must recommit themselves to orderly protests that avoid violence under any circumstances.
The inquiry commission should examine controversial passages in Taiwan's Assembly and Parade Law, such as restrictions on where people are allowed to demonstrate, and determine whether they need to be liberalized to protect citizens' rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The commission should also investigate claims that police are selectively enforcing the law.
The visit by Chen, the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan since it split from China in 1949, and the recent arrests of several opposition party figures are raising concerns that that President Ma and his Kuomintang Party may rollback democratic freedoms.
"The government must renew its commitment to tolerating robust freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, no matter what the cause," said Windsor.
Taiwan is ranked Free in the 2008 edition of Freedom in the World, Freedom House's survey of political rights and civil liberties, and in the 2008 version of Freedom of the Press. (Original page)
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has been monitoring political rights and civil liberties in Taiwan since 1972.
20 Nov 2008
Rethinking Taiwan's democratization in light of the European experience
As I criticized Taiwanese people so much the last days, I want to show, that there was also some quality in discussions of the past:
Rethinking Taiwan's democratization in light of the European experience
--Speech on the occasion of Europe Day 2005
Li-chiun Cheng
National Youth Commission minister
...
http://blog.roodo.com/lccheng/archives/152998.html
Rethinking Taiwan's democratization in light of the European experience
--Speech on the occasion of Europe Day 2005
Li-chiun Cheng
National Youth Commission minister
...
http://blog.roodo.com/lccheng/archives/152998.html
Today: Nothing happened in Taipei
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Except that some immature lawmakers could not agree to give the people one of the human rights, the right of freedom of assembly. And they were not even able to simply take one of many law examples from more developed democratic countries all over the world.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/20/2003429064
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Except that some immature lawmakers could not agree to give the people one of the human rights, the right of freedom of assembly. And they were not even able to simply take one of many law examples from more developed democratic countries all over the world.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/20/2003429064
19 Nov 2008
Nov 18th Press Release from the Wild Strawberries Movement
The Executive Yuan has raised the issue of revisions to the Parade and Assembly Law recently. However, the new version adopts a “compulsory registration system” whose content preserves restrictions including “assembling without registration is illegal”, “establishing forbidden areas”, “police have the right to alter the time, place, and form of the parade”, “the police can command dissolution of the parade without explicit standards”, and “the criminal and administrative sanctions relating to assembly”. Namely, the revision contains no practical improvements, only the change of name from “permission” to “registration”.
The Wild Strawberries question the statements President Ma made few days ago. What did he imply about the “registration system”? Is it compulsory or voluntary? Or is it that President Ma cannot distinguish between these two completely different systems?
The Wild Strawberries Movement cannot accept the revision. Initially, all the revisions proposed by KMT legislators Chu Feng-tz (朱鳳芝) and Cheng Li-wen (鄭麗文), as well as members of the DPP, were aimed at a voluntary registration system, but these were dropped from the final revisions. The Wild Strawberries urge both parties to support a voluntary registration system.
The Internal Affairs Committee of the Legislative Yuan will draw up modifications of the Parade and Assembly Law on November 19th. In order to supervise the Legislative Yuan’s procedures, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights will hold a large assembly at 8:45 am tomorrow in front of Legislative Yuan (No.1, Chungshan S. Rd). They intend to besiege the Legislative Yuan, and make a detour each hour. Further, there will be a farewell ceremony for the Assembly and Parade Law on 10 o’clock. The activity is expected to be held for at least half, if not the whole day, and the students involved in the Wild Strawberries Movement will come out to support this activity.
The Wild Strawberries want to stress that they never raise funds outside of Liberty Square (自由廣場), for there have been individuals going around Taipei raising money pretending to be Wild Strawberries. Please do not give money to anyone outside of the Liberty Square Demonstration.
The Wild Strawberries question the statements President Ma made few days ago. What did he imply about the “registration system”? Is it compulsory or voluntary? Or is it that President Ma cannot distinguish between these two completely different systems?
The Wild Strawberries Movement cannot accept the revision. Initially, all the revisions proposed by KMT legislators Chu Feng-tz (朱鳳芝) and Cheng Li-wen (鄭麗文), as well as members of the DPP, were aimed at a voluntary registration system, but these were dropped from the final revisions. The Wild Strawberries urge both parties to support a voluntary registration system.
The Internal Affairs Committee of the Legislative Yuan will draw up modifications of the Parade and Assembly Law on November 19th. In order to supervise the Legislative Yuan’s procedures, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights will hold a large assembly at 8:45 am tomorrow in front of Legislative Yuan (No.1, Chungshan S. Rd). They intend to besiege the Legislative Yuan, and make a detour each hour. Further, there will be a farewell ceremony for the Assembly and Parade Law on 10 o’clock. The activity is expected to be held for at least half, if not the whole day, and the students involved in the Wild Strawberries Movement will come out to support this activity.
The Wild Strawberries want to stress that they never raise funds outside of Liberty Square (自由廣場), for there have been individuals going around Taipei raising money pretending to be Wild Strawberries. Please do not give money to anyone outside of the Liberty Square Demonstration.
[Taipei Times] Alternative referendum necessary
By Cho Hui-wan 卓慧菀
Thursday, Feb 21, 2008, Page 8
The US is reportedly continuing to put strong pressure on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and even both parties' presidential candidates in the hope of stopping both the DPP's referendum on applying for UN membership as a new member under the name "Taiwan," and the KMT's referendum on returning to the UN under any practical name.
The two referendums have already harmed cross-strait relations and lead to a new low point in US-Taiwan relations. It is time for the DPP and KMT to reconsider. The two parties should negotiate and then let the legislature come up with a new referendum proposal to replace the proposals now before us.
The new proposal could ask: "Based on every person's human right to participate in international cooperation through their government, and the UN's principle of universality established on this right, do you agree that the UN should not exclude Taiwan?"
The main difference between this proposal and the two proposed referendums is the actor. In the DPP and KMT versions, the actor is Taiwan; in the new proposal, it's the UN. Through such wording, the Taiwanese could clearly tell the international community that the UN should not exclude Taiwan.
Some might ask what the logic is in holding a referendum about the actions of the UN? But if Taiwan wants to be a member of the world body, it not only needs to apply for membership, the UN also has to agree to let Taiwan in. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has said that even if a referendum on UN membership passes, it does not mean that Taiwan will be granted membership. (Full Text)
Thursday, Feb 21, 2008, Page 8
The US is reportedly continuing to put strong pressure on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and even both parties' presidential candidates in the hope of stopping both the DPP's referendum on applying for UN membership as a new member under the name "Taiwan," and the KMT's referendum on returning to the UN under any practical name.
The two referendums have already harmed cross-strait relations and lead to a new low point in US-Taiwan relations. It is time for the DPP and KMT to reconsider. The two parties should negotiate and then let the legislature come up with a new referendum proposal to replace the proposals now before us.
The new proposal could ask: "Based on every person's human right to participate in international cooperation through their government, and the UN's principle of universality established on this right, do you agree that the UN should not exclude Taiwan?"
The main difference between this proposal and the two proposed referendums is the actor. In the DPP and KMT versions, the actor is Taiwan; in the new proposal, it's the UN. Through such wording, the Taiwanese could clearly tell the international community that the UN should not exclude Taiwan.
Some might ask what the logic is in holding a referendum about the actions of the UN? But if Taiwan wants to be a member of the world body, it not only needs to apply for membership, the UN also has to agree to let Taiwan in. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has said that even if a referendum on UN membership passes, it does not mean that Taiwan will be granted membership. (Full Text)
[Taipei Times] Oct 27 Hunger strike continues at the Legislative Yuan
By Flora Wang STAFF REPORTER Monday, Oct 27, 2008, Page 3
Several pro-localization activists led by the Taiwan Association of University Professors (TAUP) continued their hunger strike in front of the legislature yesterday.
Wearing black T-shirts with the slogans “Taiwan is my country” and “Love Made in Taiwan,” the protesters are demanding an amendment to the Referendum Law (公投法).
The law, enacted by the Chinese Nationalist Party-dominated (KMT) legislature in 2003, stipulates that the number of signatures required for a referendum proposal to be reviewed is 0.5 percent of the voters who participated in the most recent presidential election — or approximately 80,000 individuals — with an additional 5 percent signatures from the population needed for a referendum to be held.
The law has long been criticized by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as a “bird cage” law. The DPP has made several attempts to have the law amended over the past several years, but its proposals never clear the legislative floor.
The protesters began the hunger strike after participating in the opposition rally on Ketagalan Boulevard on Saturday. They have remained in front of the legislature since, with posters written in Chinese, Japanese and English demanding an amendment to the Referendum Law.
“I’m protesting against the Legislative Yuan by staging a hunger strike,” TAUP chairman Tsai Ting-kuei (蔡丁貴) said. “I will stay here until the law is amended.”
Tsai called for changes to the high thresholds stipulated in the law for a referendum to be passed.
A participant at the hunger strike surnamed Chueh (闕) said that everyone in Taiwan should stand up and oppose the KMT administration’s pro-China policy, saying it was “a matter of life and death.” (Original Page)
Several pro-localization activists led by the Taiwan Association of University Professors (TAUP) continued their hunger strike in front of the legislature yesterday.
Wearing black T-shirts with the slogans “Taiwan is my country” and “Love Made in Taiwan,” the protesters are demanding an amendment to the Referendum Law (公投法).
The law, enacted by the Chinese Nationalist Party-dominated (KMT) legislature in 2003, stipulates that the number of signatures required for a referendum proposal to be reviewed is 0.5 percent of the voters who participated in the most recent presidential election — or approximately 80,000 individuals — with an additional 5 percent signatures from the population needed for a referendum to be held.
The law has long been criticized by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as a “bird cage” law. The DPP has made several attempts to have the law amended over the past several years, but its proposals never clear the legislative floor.
The protesters began the hunger strike after participating in the opposition rally on Ketagalan Boulevard on Saturday. They have remained in front of the legislature since, with posters written in Chinese, Japanese and English demanding an amendment to the Referendum Law.
“I’m protesting against the Legislative Yuan by staging a hunger strike,” TAUP chairman Tsai Ting-kuei (蔡丁貴) said. “I will stay here until the law is amended.”
Tsai called for changes to the high thresholds stipulated in the law for a referendum to be passed.
A participant at the hunger strike surnamed Chueh (闕) said that everyone in Taiwan should stand up and oppose the KMT administration’s pro-China policy, saying it was “a matter of life and death.” (Original Page)
[David on Formosa] Hunger strike for referendum law amendment
The Taiwan Association of University Professors is currently staging a hunger strike in Jinan Road, Taipei next to the Legislative Yuan. The hunger strike began on Saturday evening after the 1025 Safeguard Taiwan protest that drew half a million people. (Full Text)
Photos on Flickr
Photos on Flickr
[On-going social activity] [TAUP hunger strike sit-in] appeal to the governent to amend the referendum law
Dear readers,
Thanks for your attention and patience on Wild Strawberries Movement for days. In fact, there are a group of profs. from Taiwan Association of University Professors who have been sitting in the Quen-Xian Building (群賢樓) in Legislative Yuan for 15 days too. They request the Yuan to revise and modify the referendum law. Referendum: noun [C] (FORMAL plebiscite) a vote in which all the people in a country or an area are asked to give their opinion about or decide an important political or social question. (Cambridge Dictionary)
I would like to draw you attention on this on-going social activity which is relevant to the revolution should be done in Taiwan as well. If you only want to know about the Wild Strawberries Movement, please feel free to skip this section. However, if you care about Taiwan, this is a good chance to have a further look. Furthermore, the headquarter of Wild Strawberries Movement is so far still very focusing on our three requests. Therefore, This section is only appeared on this blog.
Thanks for your understanding! Hope I inform you sufficiently! Same as the founding of our movement, I also need some volunteers to help with collecting and translating relevant articles on on-going social activities. Please write to taiwanstudentmovement2008@gmail.com
Best to you and to Taiwan,
Thanks for your attention and patience on Wild Strawberries Movement for days. In fact, there are a group of profs. from Taiwan Association of University Professors who have been sitting in the Quen-Xian Building (群賢樓) in Legislative Yuan for 15 days too. They request the Yuan to revise and modify the referendum law. Referendum: noun [C] (FORMAL plebiscite) a vote in which all the people in a country or an area are asked to give their opinion about or decide an important political or social question. (Cambridge Dictionary)
I would like to draw you attention on this on-going social activity which is relevant to the revolution should be done in Taiwan as well. If you only want to know about the Wild Strawberries Movement, please feel free to skip this section. However, if you care about Taiwan, this is a good chance to have a further look. Furthermore, the headquarter of Wild Strawberries Movement is so far still very focusing on our three requests. Therefore, This section is only appeared on this blog.
Thanks for your understanding! Hope I inform you sufficiently! Same as the founding of our movement, I also need some volunteers to help with collecting and translating relevant articles on on-going social activities. Please write to taiwanstudentmovement2008@gmail.com
Best to you and to Taiwan,
The Wind of Change
Rest for a while and listen to it:
People remember, there is a constitution:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/11/19/2003429024
The president feels suddenly the need of a free press:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=791186&lang=eng_news&cate_rss=news_Politics_TAIWAN
Journalists demand this right:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/11/19/2003429018
Do I hear justice?
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=791687&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN
Are there more miracles to expect if the protests continue?
Of course, there are still some of the old moral lessons, which encourage young people to work hard and become a good slave for lets call it THE SYSTEM (oh, actually that is the part they usually do not tell the people):
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/joe-hung/2008/11/17/183539/p3/Back-to.htm
But listen to the Wind of change, the song of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
People remember, there is a constitution:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/11/19/2003429024
The president feels suddenly the need of a free press:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=791186&lang=eng_news&cate_rss=news_Politics_TAIWAN
Journalists demand this right:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/11/19/2003429018
Do I hear justice?
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=791687&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN
Are there more miracles to expect if the protests continue?
Of course, there are still some of the old moral lessons, which encourage young people to work hard and become a good slave for lets call it THE SYSTEM (oh, actually that is the part they usually do not tell the people):
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/joe-hung/2008/11/17/183539/p3/Back-to.htm
But listen to the Wind of change, the song of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The value of a human life.
There is no philosophical discussion needed as it can be be quantified in Taiwan by an exact number:
NT$ 110,000
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/19/2003428994
If someone has further comments on the human right of health-care and medical treatment, he or she shall feel free to speak.
Update:
The health system speaks for itself!
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=792566&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN
NT$ 110,000
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/19/2003428994
If someone has further comments on the human right of health-care and medical treatment, he or she shall feel free to speak.
Update:
The health system speaks for itself!
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=792566&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN
18 Nov 2008
[Taipei Times] Bridging a generation gap through new protest
By Wu Yi-cheng 吳易澄
Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008, Page 8
More than 20 years after the lifting of martial law, we find ourselves in an era exploding with information and ruled by the logic of business.
The younger generation has never experienced a war, but may have experienced the tail end of authoritarian rule. When they were little, they might have heard their parents say: “If you don’t behave, I’ll call the police and have you arrested.”
They now chat on the Internet, absorb knowledge from online forums and flirt with the opposite sex using text messages. The younger generation has also been given a nasty label by arrogant adults — the “strawberry generation” — because of their alleged inability to deal with pressure.
Perhaps no one has considered that behind the “geek” label and the indifference lies a silent protest against a society with too many opinions; the unwillingness to endure hardship could also be a rebellion against the paternal attitudes of society as a whole.
Nobody expected that during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) the government would resort to heavy-handed police tactics to disperse demonstrators and then refuse to take responsibility for police excesses. This vindicates our concern: The specter of authoritarian rule has come back to life.
On Nov. 9, student demonstrators at the gate to Liberty Square in front of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall initiated the “Wild Strawberries Movement,” a name that was arrived at through a democratic voting process on the medium they know best: the Internet.
As the movement formed, CTI-TV broadcast exclusive footage of families of police officers writing a letter to Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), calling on her to ask the students to go home.
I don’t know if CTI was playing dumb, if it had failed to investigate the matter or if it was a simple case of audience manipulation, but the station viewed the students as a motley group of rebels that would dance to the tune of a particular political party. Even now they think the strawberry generation is so vulnerable that it is easily divided. (Full Text)
Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008, Page 8
More than 20 years after the lifting of martial law, we find ourselves in an era exploding with information and ruled by the logic of business.
The younger generation has never experienced a war, but may have experienced the tail end of authoritarian rule. When they were little, they might have heard their parents say: “If you don’t behave, I’ll call the police and have you arrested.”
They now chat on the Internet, absorb knowledge from online forums and flirt with the opposite sex using text messages. The younger generation has also been given a nasty label by arrogant adults — the “strawberry generation” — because of their alleged inability to deal with pressure.
Perhaps no one has considered that behind the “geek” label and the indifference lies a silent protest against a society with too many opinions; the unwillingness to endure hardship could also be a rebellion against the paternal attitudes of society as a whole.
Nobody expected that during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) the government would resort to heavy-handed police tactics to disperse demonstrators and then refuse to take responsibility for police excesses. This vindicates our concern: The specter of authoritarian rule has come back to life.
On Nov. 9, student demonstrators at the gate to Liberty Square in front of the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall initiated the “Wild Strawberries Movement,” a name that was arrived at through a democratic voting process on the medium they know best: the Internet.
As the movement formed, CTI-TV broadcast exclusive footage of families of police officers writing a letter to Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), calling on her to ask the students to go home.
I don’t know if CTI was playing dumb, if it had failed to investigate the matter or if it was a simple case of audience manipulation, but the station viewed the students as a motley group of rebels that would dance to the tune of a particular political party. Even now they think the strawberry generation is so vulnerable that it is easily divided. (Full Text)
A respond to Michael Wu’s Comment
‘How do you know that your opinions represent the public opinions of Taiwan's residents? I think most people in Taiwan feel that we are a free and democratic country. Can anyone offer scientifically reliable and valid figures to prove that most people in Taiwan would like to revise the Parade and Assembly Law? Do not tell me that your voice can represent most people in Taiwan. I don't think so.’
I am not here to represent as I do not represent and as I do not want to represent!
The beginning of every democratic process is discussion.
Some people misunderstand that politics need a leader to follow (or lets him call Führer or Duce) and democracy is if you choose your leader. That is not democracy. That is dictatorship.
I want to discuss as I think discussion is necessary and I want to help people with this, contributing ideas to this process.
So I will not speak for Taiwan as I can not speak for Taiwan, but I will explain you why I consider Taiwan not to be a full democracy.
First of all I want to define what I understand under a Democracy.
Democracy in a literal translation from ancient Greek means power of the people (δήμος [démos], people and κρατία [kratía], power).
Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system.
I don’t want to talk about all the junior high school knowledge about election systems in ancient Greek cities, but go on to a modern interpretation of democracy.
My definition of democracy is a constitutional state based on Montesquieus ideas of separation of power.
In the interpretation of Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès which is the basis of modern theory of constitution, we have to distinguish between pouvoir constituant and pouvoir constitué, the sovereignty in a power separated constitutional state and the souverenity to of the people to give themselves a constitution. All state authority is derived from the people. The people are the sovereign of a democracy.
The basic principle of separation of power was de jure installed by Sun Yes-men in form of a Yuan system in the Republic of China (so we can not blame him for its fail).
There exists a constitution and in principle elections were part of this system.
De facto this system was not existing at least since the Republic of Chinas authority is restricted to Taiwan as there was is no distinction between the powers and no independent control of them in a one party state or in a military dictatorship as it was under the rule of Chiang Kai-shek.
With the occupation of Taiwan by the Republic of China the law was expanded to an area where it never got any legitimating. The authority of the state was not derived from the people who lived in this country! This situation continued for decades, until the end of the, martial law and the first ‘free’ presidential elections.
I think the step from a dictatorship to democracy needs an initial singularity in a countries history, an hour zero.
This might be a revolution (like in France) or a lost war (like in Germany).
Taiwan’s development to ‘democracy’ was a top – bottom approach. The leading party of the one party system reacted on the pressure of the people, but did not fundamentally change the system.
How many of the laws from the old time were never changed?
How many of the people in charge, responsible for the misery of so many families never lost their position?
Was there a Taiwanese Nurnberg trial, to charge the ones responsible for death and detention of thousands of Taiwanese during the dictatorship?
Didn’t the KMT still control many of the positions in the administration?
Wasn’t the KMT the richest party in the world, with a multi billion-dollar asset and ownership of companies in sensible areas like the mass media?
Isn’t the KMT still controlling direct or indirect most of the media in Taiwan?
Isn’t the national anthem still singing about the party who ruled the country alone once?
Isn’t it true that in Taiwanese TV, little girls can still sing about Chiang Kai-shek, who is in the rest of the world considered to be one of the little brothers of Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
What about the dignity of his victims? How is Taiwan honouring them?
Who is bowing to their families?
Aren’t people very creative in calling massacres or dictatorship incident or white terror?
….
There are so so many other questions, people should start to ask.
If you say, that you think most people in Taiwan feel that they are a free and democratic country, I will answer you with a quote:
‘She can talk beautifully about democracy. But she does not know how to live democracy.’
It is a famous quote by the former first lady of he United States Eleanor Roosevelt about Taiwan’s former first lady Soong May-ling.
The she could be lady Taiwan too.
If you ask many Taiwanese students about what democracy is, you will have almost no chance to get a proper answer. You cannot even get a correct definition and I am not talking about interpretations.
How can a country be a democracy, if even the best-educated persons in this country do not know what it is?
But how could they know? Who told them? How much time in their education is spent on it? Do they learn about the theory of constitutions? Do they learn about constitutional models in different times and countries? Do they learn about the political system, about the role of separated powers, about the importance of the press and about the role of political parties in a parliamentary system, …
This is what students at other places learn in high school! You should expect University students to know about this.
What about the media? Isn’t it the role of the press in a democracy to inform and educate the people in the spirit of the constitution? Isn’t the freedom of press a mayor human right that should be the basis for every constitution?
There is more or less no press qualified to fulfil this idea in Taiwan. The quality is a shame for an industrial nation and a mayor part is controlled direct or indirect by the KMT.
The people of Taiwan lack the maturity and the education as to understand their own political situation as a result of decades of government controlled and manipulated information.
It is the responsibility of a countries students and academics, to fight against this situation and to install a democratic constitutional state and a free society.
The revision of the Parade and Assembly Law will be an example how this can be done successfully and might be the beginning of a revision of the whole Taiwanese law and its parts made in a dark time in history
What are the people of Taiwan? Everything. What have they been hitherto in the political order? Nothing. What do they desire? To be something.
In inspiration of Sieyès ‘Qu’est-ce que le tiers état?’
1° Qu'est-ce que le tiers état ? Tout.
2° Qu'a-t-il été jusqu'à présent dans l’ordre politique ? Rien.
3° Que demande-t-il ? À y devenir quelque chose.
I am not here to represent as I do not represent and as I do not want to represent!
The beginning of every democratic process is discussion.
Some people misunderstand that politics need a leader to follow (or lets him call Führer or Duce) and democracy is if you choose your leader. That is not democracy. That is dictatorship.
I want to discuss as I think discussion is necessary and I want to help people with this, contributing ideas to this process.
So I will not speak for Taiwan as I can not speak for Taiwan, but I will explain you why I consider Taiwan not to be a full democracy.
First of all I want to define what I understand under a Democracy.
Democracy in a literal translation from ancient Greek means power of the people (δήμος [démos], people and κρατία [kratía], power).
Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system.
I don’t want to talk about all the junior high school knowledge about election systems in ancient Greek cities, but go on to a modern interpretation of democracy.
My definition of democracy is a constitutional state based on Montesquieus ideas of separation of power.
In the interpretation of Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès which is the basis of modern theory of constitution, we have to distinguish between pouvoir constituant and pouvoir constitué, the sovereignty in a power separated constitutional state and the souverenity to of the people to give themselves a constitution. All state authority is derived from the people. The people are the sovereign of a democracy.
The basic principle of separation of power was de jure installed by Sun Yes-men in form of a Yuan system in the Republic of China (so we can not blame him for its fail).
There exists a constitution and in principle elections were part of this system.
De facto this system was not existing at least since the Republic of Chinas authority is restricted to Taiwan as there was is no distinction between the powers and no independent control of them in a one party state or in a military dictatorship as it was under the rule of Chiang Kai-shek.
With the occupation of Taiwan by the Republic of China the law was expanded to an area where it never got any legitimating. The authority of the state was not derived from the people who lived in this country! This situation continued for decades, until the end of the, martial law and the first ‘free’ presidential elections.
I think the step from a dictatorship to democracy needs an initial singularity in a countries history, an hour zero.
This might be a revolution (like in France) or a lost war (like in Germany).
Taiwan’s development to ‘democracy’ was a top – bottom approach. The leading party of the one party system reacted on the pressure of the people, but did not fundamentally change the system.
How many of the laws from the old time were never changed?
How many of the people in charge, responsible for the misery of so many families never lost their position?
Was there a Taiwanese Nurnberg trial, to charge the ones responsible for death and detention of thousands of Taiwanese during the dictatorship?
Didn’t the KMT still control many of the positions in the administration?
Wasn’t the KMT the richest party in the world, with a multi billion-dollar asset and ownership of companies in sensible areas like the mass media?
Isn’t the KMT still controlling direct or indirect most of the media in Taiwan?
Isn’t the national anthem still singing about the party who ruled the country alone once?
Isn’t it true that in Taiwanese TV, little girls can still sing about Chiang Kai-shek, who is in the rest of the world considered to be one of the little brothers of Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
What about the dignity of his victims? How is Taiwan honouring them?
Who is bowing to their families?
Aren’t people very creative in calling massacres or dictatorship incident or white terror?
….
There are so so many other questions, people should start to ask.
If you say, that you think most people in Taiwan feel that they are a free and democratic country, I will answer you with a quote:
‘She can talk beautifully about democracy. But she does not know how to live democracy.’
It is a famous quote by the former first lady of he United States Eleanor Roosevelt about Taiwan’s former first lady Soong May-ling.
The she could be lady Taiwan too.
If you ask many Taiwanese students about what democracy is, you will have almost no chance to get a proper answer. You cannot even get a correct definition and I am not talking about interpretations.
How can a country be a democracy, if even the best-educated persons in this country do not know what it is?
But how could they know? Who told them? How much time in their education is spent on it? Do they learn about the theory of constitutions? Do they learn about constitutional models in different times and countries? Do they learn about the political system, about the role of separated powers, about the importance of the press and about the role of political parties in a parliamentary system, …
This is what students at other places learn in high school! You should expect University students to know about this.
What about the media? Isn’t it the role of the press in a democracy to inform and educate the people in the spirit of the constitution? Isn’t the freedom of press a mayor human right that should be the basis for every constitution?
There is more or less no press qualified to fulfil this idea in Taiwan. The quality is a shame for an industrial nation and a mayor part is controlled direct or indirect by the KMT.
The people of Taiwan lack the maturity and the education as to understand their own political situation as a result of decades of government controlled and manipulated information.
It is the responsibility of a countries students and academics, to fight against this situation and to install a democratic constitutional state and a free society.
The revision of the Parade and Assembly Law will be an example how this can be done successfully and might be the beginning of a revision of the whole Taiwanese law and its parts made in a dark time in history
What are the people of Taiwan? Everything. What have they been hitherto in the political order? Nothing. What do they desire? To be something.
In inspiration of Sieyès ‘Qu’est-ce que le tiers état?’
1° Qu'est-ce que le tiers état ? Tout.
2° Qu'a-t-il été jusqu'à présent dans l’ordre politique ? Rien.
3° Que demande-t-il ? À y devenir quelque chose.
17 Nov 2008
[11/16] President Ma, please immediately put into action your support for amendment to the Assembly and Parade Law!
This morning at the ROC Constitutional Law Association, President Ma made four statements regarding the Assembly and Parade Law. The Wild Strawberries Movement’s responses to these statements are as follows:
First, President Ma pointed out that for the past eight years, he supported amending the Parade and Assembly Law under which event organizers are obliged to obtain police permission before holding rallies, to enable an application-only process. We ask the President to immediately put into action his support.
Second, President Ma said that even under current regulations, 99.2% of applications are approved, which does not differ substantially from systems where approval is unnecessary. However, who are those 0.8 percent of people prohibited from demonstration? Who is authorized to decide whether to approve certain events or not? In reality, .08% is an underestimation, since many disadvantaged groups are unable to gain approval due to the practical difficulties of application.
Third, President Ma claimed that even though he supports the amendment to the Parade and Assembly Law, after the conflicts during the visit of Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), public attitudes toward the issue have become more conservative. Thus, Ma said that now the public consensus on this issue should be considered. However, we want to ask on what evidence the Presidents claim that “public attitudes have become more conservative” is based. In addition, we believe that this issue has become a focus of public attention. Given all this, the Legislative Yuan should have an official mechanism to channel the public consensus into legislative action, rather than having citizen attendance at meetings that offer no substantive engagement with the citizenry.
Finally, President Ma said that he will invite the sit-in students to participate in the discussion held by the Legislative Yuan on the amendment to the Assembly and Parade Law. We appreciate the President’s response, but we have not received an official invitation from the Legislative Yuan. We hope that under the conditions of equality and mutual trust, we will participate as citizens and have the right to a voice in the meeting.
First, President Ma pointed out that for the past eight years, he supported amending the Parade and Assembly Law under which event organizers are obliged to obtain police permission before holding rallies, to enable an application-only process. We ask the President to immediately put into action his support.
Second, President Ma said that even under current regulations, 99.2% of applications are approved, which does not differ substantially from systems where approval is unnecessary. However, who are those 0.8 percent of people prohibited from demonstration? Who is authorized to decide whether to approve certain events or not? In reality, .08% is an underestimation, since many disadvantaged groups are unable to gain approval due to the practical difficulties of application.
Third, President Ma claimed that even though he supports the amendment to the Parade and Assembly Law, after the conflicts during the visit of Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), public attitudes toward the issue have become more conservative. Thus, Ma said that now the public consensus on this issue should be considered. However, we want to ask on what evidence the Presidents claim that “public attitudes have become more conservative” is based. In addition, we believe that this issue has become a focus of public attention. Given all this, the Legislative Yuan should have an official mechanism to channel the public consensus into legislative action, rather than having citizen attendance at meetings that offer no substantive engagement with the citizenry.
Finally, President Ma said that he will invite the sit-in students to participate in the discussion held by the Legislative Yuan on the amendment to the Assembly and Parade Law. We appreciate the President’s response, but we have not received an official invitation from the Legislative Yuan. We hope that under the conditions of equality and mutual trust, we will participate as citizens and have the right to a voice in the meeting.
2008/11/07 A TV talk show: The Hacker Mr. Chao (CTI TV)
The host and guests on the talk show smear that the students are manipulated by DPP. It is a peculiar phenomenon in Taiwan that this kind of so-called political talk show discusses usually nothing, but evoking and distorting the fact. It seems that they are debating and they could even show some so-called evidence. However, read it on; you will see what I am referring to.
5:19~5:34 Mr. Chao (趙少康): I believe that most of those students support the DPP.
6:00~6:50 Wang Mei-Yu (王美玉): I agree. Unless they mobilized members of DPP, Professor Tin would not bring up the fourth demand.
8:31~10:51 Tang Hsian-Long (唐湘龍): Do not use your status as a political stance even if you are students. The students also stand for a certain political view, as do the teachers serving as leaders. Among those teachers, many are members of Frank
Hsieh's(謝長廷) Army Cockerel(青年軍), who engaged in DPP activities on campuses. I don't mean they took advantage of you; however, you should face your attitudes and viewpoints toward politics honestly. Do not blur the focus of the event through innocence and youth, as if you are too pure to have any political requests.
10:51~11:40 Mr. Chao: Furthermore, I wonder about the motivation of the students. I think it is not so simple, for many of those who were caught today are people who had joined Wild Lilies(野百合) in the past. Third, I think the resistance at noon yesterday was reasonable because of the excessive enforcement of the law by the police few days ago. However, now the students are still there. Do you think Tsai Ing-Wen (蔡英文), DPP, and the crowd were right in regarding the police as being rude? Can't you make it clear after last night? In my opinion, those who are still sitting there may intend to make trouble.
16:22~18:48 Tang Hsian-Long: It's different from the Wild Lily movement. In the Wild Strawberries the professors directly in front without fear, then the crucial time starts. The leading professors are Fung Yun (范雲), Wu Rei Ren(吳叡人), and Wu Jieh Ming (吳介民). The first was my schoolmate while both of the latter two were my classmates at the university, and their attitudes toward politics are obvious. As a scholar, I think it is fine to stand for any political party. Nevertheless, these scholars should face their consciences with frankness and reveal their political stances. In addition, there is a distinct difference between the student movement now and in the past. In the past, the KMT monopolized the power; therefore we could spontaneously support student movement because we did not consent to one-party rule. But now, in a generation in which democracy has been in operation for a long time, it is unreasonable for students to engage in a political movement just because they disagree with the law. Try to resort to the two parties and be more practical. It makes no sense to organize a resistance like the Wild Lilies. The time is different.
18:49~19:18 Mr.Chao: Frankly speaking, it is their right to sit in Liberty Field(自由廣場). However, what I want to say is that they should state their political stance clearly rather than disguising it by being students, who are regarded as innocent and pure. I believe that the leaders and the main cadre members must advocate for certain party.
19:45~20:06 Mr.Chao: It is evident that they exploit their status as students. People might have sympathy toward students so that they won't be severely punished. Therefore, is it just a simple event? Is it really true that they don't belong to any party? This is my question.
20:11~21:18 Wang Mei-Yu: Taiwan has been localized, so has KMT. We have already elected presidents for four times. It is different from the time when Wild Lilies asked elder congressmen to retire and to abolish Penal Code, 100. In Taiwan, everyone definitely has freedom of speech. People deserve to have the right; it is not the charity Government serve with. As Professor Tin mentioned, this time Chen Yuen Lin (陳雲林) came to Taiwan, people were restricted from playing music, staying in Grand Hotel (圓山飯店). Those events provoke students to have a resistance. However, at 5pm yesterday, all the leaders were gone. Afterward they were regarded as rioters. Then, how do you look upon the responsibility of DPP?
21:18 Mr. Chao: Thus, he won’t show up to explain this time, then what wrong with my doubt toward him?
5:19~5:34 Mr. Chao (趙少康): I believe that most of those students support the DPP.
6:00~6:50 Wang Mei-Yu (王美玉): I agree. Unless they mobilized members of DPP, Professor Tin would not bring up the fourth demand.
8:31~10:51 Tang Hsian-Long (唐湘龍): Do not use your status as a political stance even if you are students. The students also stand for a certain political view, as do the teachers serving as leaders. Among those teachers, many are members of Frank
Hsieh's(謝長廷) Army Cockerel(青年軍), who engaged in DPP activities on campuses. I don't mean they took advantage of you; however, you should face your attitudes and viewpoints toward politics honestly. Do not blur the focus of the event through innocence and youth, as if you are too pure to have any political requests.
10:51~11:40 Mr. Chao: Furthermore, I wonder about the motivation of the students. I think it is not so simple, for many of those who were caught today are people who had joined Wild Lilies(野百合) in the past. Third, I think the resistance at noon yesterday was reasonable because of the excessive enforcement of the law by the police few days ago. However, now the students are still there. Do you think Tsai Ing-Wen (蔡英文), DPP, and the crowd were right in regarding the police as being rude? Can't you make it clear after last night? In my opinion, those who are still sitting there may intend to make trouble.
16:22~18:48 Tang Hsian-Long: It's different from the Wild Lily movement. In the Wild Strawberries the professors directly in front without fear, then the crucial time starts. The leading professors are Fung Yun (范雲), Wu Rei Ren(吳叡人), and Wu Jieh Ming (吳介民). The first was my schoolmate while both of the latter two were my classmates at the university, and their attitudes toward politics are obvious. As a scholar, I think it is fine to stand for any political party. Nevertheless, these scholars should face their consciences with frankness and reveal their political stances. In addition, there is a distinct difference between the student movement now and in the past. In the past, the KMT monopolized the power; therefore we could spontaneously support student movement because we did not consent to one-party rule. But now, in a generation in which democracy has been in operation for a long time, it is unreasonable for students to engage in a political movement just because they disagree with the law. Try to resort to the two parties and be more practical. It makes no sense to organize a resistance like the Wild Lilies. The time is different.
18:49~19:18 Mr.Chao: Frankly speaking, it is their right to sit in Liberty Field(自由廣場). However, what I want to say is that they should state their political stance clearly rather than disguising it by being students, who are regarded as innocent and pure. I believe that the leaders and the main cadre members must advocate for certain party.
19:45~20:06 Mr.Chao: It is evident that they exploit their status as students. People might have sympathy toward students so that they won't be severely punished. Therefore, is it just a simple event? Is it really true that they don't belong to any party? This is my question.
20:11~21:18 Wang Mei-Yu: Taiwan has been localized, so has KMT. We have already elected presidents for four times. It is different from the time when Wild Lilies asked elder congressmen to retire and to abolish Penal Code, 100. In Taiwan, everyone definitely has freedom of speech. People deserve to have the right; it is not the charity Government serve with. As Professor Tin mentioned, this time Chen Yuen Lin (陳雲林) came to Taiwan, people were restricted from playing music, staying in Grand Hotel (圓山飯店). Those events provoke students to have a resistance. However, at 5pm yesterday, all the leaders were gone. Afterward they were regarded as rioters. Then, how do you look upon the responsibility of DPP?
21:18 Mr. Chao: Thus, he won’t show up to explain this time, then what wrong with my doubt toward him?
[Wanted] Join in a Google Group initiated by NATPA/ TAUP
I am experimenting with ways to connect Taiwan-loving people. I
created a google group named i_love_taiwan@googlegroups.com.
Currently, I envision only a few group members can post, while others
can only read. I hope the group to have more than 100,000 members in
a few weeks. The initial member pool comes from NATPA/TAUP (The two Taiwanese Professors associations in Taiwan and the States) members and wild stawberries and their friends and families. One reason it could expand very quickly is that members can invite others by visiting http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan?hl=en and click on the 'invite members' link. I encourage every Taiwan-loving person to
give the group a try. You can unsubscribe any time for any or no reason. Let us hang together for a better Taiwan.
Initially, I expect this mailing list to be a low traffic list disseminating important information. I will give you frequent updates on the direction the group is taking as it evolves. Each message you receive will include clear instruction as to how you can unsubscribe, or change the way messages are delivered, e.g., instead of receiving a message as it is sent, you can opt for a daily digest, etc. For question, please write Luby Liao at lubyliao@gmail.com
created a google group named i_love_taiwan@googlegroups.com.
Currently, I envision only a few group members can post, while others
can only read. I hope the group to have more than 100,000 members in
a few weeks. The initial member pool comes from NATPA/TAUP (The two Taiwanese Professors associations in Taiwan and the States) members and wild stawberries and their friends and families. One reason it could expand very quickly is that members can invite others by visiting http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan?hl=en and click on the 'invite members' link. I encourage every Taiwan-loving person to
give the group a try. You can unsubscribe any time for any or no reason. Let us hang together for a better Taiwan.
Initially, I expect this mailing list to be a low traffic list disseminating important information. I will give you frequent updates on the direction the group is taking as it evolves. Each message you receive will include clear instruction as to how you can unsubscribe, or change the way messages are delivered, e.g., instead of receiving a message as it is sent, you can opt for a daily digest, etc. For question, please write Luby Liao at lubyliao@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
