2012年4月20日 星期五

立院初審// 核事故應變區 擴大至30公里

涵蓋人口數 增至近600萬
〔記者顏若瑾、陳怡靜、湯佳玲/台北報導〕立法院教育及文化委員會昨將「核子事故緊急應變區」從目前的八公里大幅放寬為三十公里,四個核電廠應變區涵蓋的人口數將從十五萬七千人增加到近六百萬人,台北市、基隆、四分之三的新北市、大半屏東及宜蘭北部等都將納入緊急應變區。
立委昨天初審通過「核子損害賠償法第十三條修正草案」及「核子事故緊急應變法部分條文修正草案」,將核能事故賠償的請求權時效延長為三十年;至於核災賠償額度,行政院提案由現行的四十二億元提高到一百五十億元,民進黨立委主張核災賠償不應訂上限,最後決定交付朝野協商。
核電廠的緊急應變計畫區範圍原本為五公里;福島核災後,擴大成為八公里,昨天在立委提案下再度擴大為三十公里。
原能會:恐造成資源浪費
原能會核能技術處處長徐明德認為,越靠近電廠的民眾可能受到輻射污染的風險越高,緊急應變計畫區就是為了確保區域內的民眾不會受到確定性的輻射傷害,擴大緊急應變區雖是好意,但反而可能造成資源浪費。以碘片存放為例,原本只要準備八公里每個人四天份的量,現在變成要準備三十公里的存量,但很可能大多數的碘片都用不到。
此外,擴大區域後,政府還要安裝預警系統、辦理演習與研習說明、規劃輻射偵測路線、設置輻射監測站、檢討集結點與收容站、修訂告示牌等,經費與人力都需更多,位在電廠周遭,真正需要的人,資源反而變少了。
據估算,放寬至三十公里後,目前僅涵蓋新北市的核一廠,將擴及台北市與基隆市,影響人數從三萬多人激增到四百多萬人;核二廠影響人口達五百八十萬人;核三廠涵蓋人口則從三萬四千多人增加為六萬人,尚未商轉的核四廠影響人口則從兩萬四千人增加為七十四萬人。
「台灣承受不起核事故」
綠色陣線協會常務理事林長茂則認為:「短期來看,三十公里是有進步;但事實上是,台灣根本承受不起核子事故。該思考的是零核電。」
外傳大屯山能阻擋北部核電廠發生事故的輻射塵,中研院環境變遷研究中心主任劉紹臣表示「沒有太大用處」,大屯山標高只有一千多公尺,輻射不只是翻過山頭而已,還可以經由風勢四散,不論是從淡水河口,或是從基隆山谷,都能進入台北地區。

旺中寬頻購,學者爆:名嘴被下封口令

外界憂心旺中寬頻購併中嘉後,恐因跨媒體壟斷影響言論自由。學者黃國昌昨在壹電視《就是要問》的談話性節目中更驚爆,已聽說部分電視名嘴被下達封口令,不得在電視新聞或談話性節目中討論旺中購併案,他要求國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC)介入調查。NCC昨則僅稱無從回應。

「台灣言論將被壟斷」

旺中購併案是國內最大規模媒體購併案,引發外界爭議,壹電視《就是要問》節目昨邀請中研院法律研究所副研究員暨澄社社長黃國昌、國民黨立委羅淑蕾、中廣新聞部主播鄭師誠及「宅神」朱學恒參與討論。
黃國昌在節目中表示,上百名專家學者反對旺中寬頻購併中嘉系統台,因擔心購併案通過後,台灣言論將過於集中化、壟斷化,且旺中集團購併系統台後,因握有系統台資源,可向電視台施壓,進而影響電視台對新聞播報的選擇,或是將部分與該集團相關的新聞忽略。
黃國昌還說,部分電視名嘴是他的學長,已聽說有部分電視名嘴被下達封口令,不得在電視新聞或談話性節目中談論此購併案,他建議NCC介入調查。
黃國昌上完節目後、接受《蘋果》訪問時,表示名嘴上電視談話性節目被下達封口令一事,是部分名嘴親口跟他說的,他不會透露是哪些名嘴在哪些談話性節目被下封口令,正如同記者不會洩露新聞。但黃國昌認為,若在旺中購併案未通過前,就出現此種類似限制言論自由情形,一旦購併案通過,電視台將無法擺脫系統台控制。

促NCC介入調查

羅淑蕾則在節目中說,系統台絕對可控制電視台,因系統台可利用更換頻道、提高上架費等手段,讓電視台配合系統台意見,「不樂見台灣媒體出現托拉斯集中、壟斷。」中廣新聞部主播、名嘴鄭師誠說,NCC應直接審查此案,並對通過與否的條件制定規則,不應再開公聽會拖延。朱學恒也說,NCC應盡速審理案件。
三立電視台行銷公關副總張正芬與TVBS發言人葉毓君昨均說,並無對談話性節目議題施壓一事。NCC則表示對此無從回應。記者沈能元
編者按:壹電視正向旺中購併的中嘉系統台申請上架,壹電視與《蘋果日報》同屬壹傳媒集團。



李慶元指扁外遇 被判登報道歉


2012/04/20, Friday
〔記者項程鎮、黃忠榮/台北報導〕國民黨台北市議員李慶元在八十九年總統大選前夕,與他人出版「陳水扁的真面目」一書,指陳水扁與立委高金素梅、女助理、化妝師等人外遇,扁向法院提告,最高法院維持高院民庭更二審見解,判決李慶元敗訴確定,必須在自由時報等四大報頭版刊登道歉聲明一天。刑事責任部分,法院先前已判李無罪確定。
庭訊時,李慶元表示,當初只是應邀寫文章賺取微薄稿費,文章內容指扁有外遇等流言,皆引用其他媒體報導,不是他自行捏造,他已就傳言善盡查證義務,且書中內容可受公評,未故意妨害扁的名譽。
合議庭認為,李慶元在書中指稱扁與高金素梅恐有緋聞,已寫出「金素梅已公開否認」等文字,媒體也多次報導她否認,這部分言論不至影響扁名譽;但有關扁與助理、化妝師等人的緋聞,都未經證實,李也未找到證據,這些內容已妨害扁名譽。
合議庭強調,扁曾任總統,具有全國知名度,但李慶元批扁文章被集結出書後,在市場流通與銷售,讓扁名譽不斷受到侵害,李未採取措施防範,應對扁的侵權行為負責。
李慶元昨天表示:「我要道什麼歉?我要是道歉,為什麼陳水扁會關在牢裡?陳水扁才該向全民道歉。」
李慶元說,他這本書引用的都是媒體報導的相關資料,他在刑事庭的判決是無罪,「為什麼無罪?就是法官認為我有所本,提出的質疑是可受公評之事」,「陳水扁貪污、洗錢、亂搞,還不知道要向全民道歉,最好關在牢裡關到死最好」,如果馬英九敢特赦阿扁,「我看馬英九也不必幹了」。
Source: 自由時報

政治迫害的扁案、何時雲開見明月?


新聞報導 - 自由論壇
作者 John Hsieh   
2012/04/20, Friday
扁案自從阿扁,在未審判前就先遭扣押,被強制塞進囚車關入大牢的那一刻起,就充滿了政治迫害。馬英九為了要讓陳水扁死得很難看,根本就漠視一芥草民,即使犯罪也應具有的基本人權。馬政府於陳水扁被監禁期間,餵食足以讓人鬱抑而終的處方藥阿提凡,這已嚴重構成酷刑迫害。我們特此呼籲台美人,人人致函美國國會議員,敦促依據酷刑受害者保護法Torture Victim Protection Act TVPA給予陳水扁救援,並將馬英九等一干、令人不齒的酷刑加害者繩之以法。


1. 未審先判 2. 押進大牢 3. 再栽罪證 4. 獄中毒害


5. 致令錯亂 6. 未老先衰 7. 終致瘋癲 8. 折磨至死


9. 司法正義 10.喚醒國際 11.共同捍衛 12.保障人權


http://taiwanus.net/news/press/2012/201204030957481778.htm


抗議台灣人遭受酷刑 – 請願運動


http://taiwanus.net/news/press/2012/201204042032371042.htm


請支持FAPA「陳水扁保外就醫請願活動」


以下是陳水扁於2012年2月9日寫的手札,原在網路上的英文版翻譯,係由北卡大學凃瑞峰教授主筆,因一、八、九、十、十二段部份缺如,至未能讓英文讀者全盤了解阿扁的訴求,特予補齊,旨在拋磚引玉、希望能讓更多英文讀者知道,扁案的惡質、迫害、羅織罪名,及整個案情發展的來龍去脈,拿台灣與共產中國文革相比,人權迫害更見猖狂,實在令人氣憤,進而能共同來譴責,迫害台灣人權的馬九流亡政府,讓公平正義得以伸張。


扁案何時雲開見月明


1. 敗選推給扁案毫無道理
除了獨裁國家,只要有民主選舉,絕對沒有萬年執政黨。選舉有輸贏,原因也不會單一。美國總統大選,每四年、八年或十二年政黨輪替一次,都是兵家常事。二00 八年共和黨輸掉政權,麥肯不會把敗選責任推給小布希;同樣地,二000年民主黨敗給共和黨,高爾也不會將責任怪罪柯林頓。唯獨台灣,才有人會把二00八年、二0一二年本土政權敗選責任全推給「扁案」,甚至要求民進黨要和「扁案」確實切割乾淨,不該再由扁家及扁迷,一味地企圖以「扁案」緊緊綁住民進黨。


「扁案」開庭期間,獲准旁聽的民眾不到二十人,媒體的相關報導少之又少,忠實而客觀的報導更絕無僅有。我的答辯、律師的辯護,試問又有幾個人聽到、看到?大家談「扁案」,又有多少人瞭解「扁案」?「扁案」可以判無期,也可以判無罪;「扁案」可以判無罪,也可以改判十幾年的重刑,落差之大,令人髮指!


2. 國務費案更一審已改判無罪


二 00八年選後的「扁案」就是二00六年十一月高檢署查黑中心檢察官起訴的國務機要費案,但馬英九市長的特別費案也在二00七年二月同樣被高檢署查黑中心檢察官起訴。國務機要費是最早的特別費,只差在馬市長貪污起訴時,國民黨全黨力挺,並提名為總統候選人;國務機要費案被起訴時,民進黨採取切割策略,事後証明國務機要費和特別費都是「歷史共業」。


特別費案與國務機要費案都有使用他人發票及不實犒賞清冊的情形。馬英九將特別費存入自己的帳戶,並挪為私用,匯給太太周美青每月二十萬元、匯給姊姊馬以南三百萬元、支付女兒馬唯中在美刷卡消費,蔡守訓的合議庭以「金錢混同」及「大水庫理論」,判處馬英九無罪,但國務機要費用在機密外交等因公支出高達一億三千萬元,大於因公收入,則被蔡守訓的同一合議庭判處無期徒刑。二0一一年八月二十六日高院更一審改判貪污部分全部無罪。因國務機要費而起的「扁案」又如何會賠掉蔡英文二0一二年選舉?


3. 外交零用金案已還扁清白


「扁案」無罪定讞的外交零用金案,特偵組也是起訴侵占公物涉及貪污犯罪,可處無期徒刑,案經查明是檢察官拼湊、比附、臆測的羅織成獄,已還「扁案」的清白。


4. 龍潭案屬違憲無效之判決


「扁案」除涉特別費的國務機要費外,其餘各案都是「選舉錢」,和「政治獻金」有關。差別卻是國民黨收取政治獻金是合法的選舉錢,「扁案」的政治獻金,不管是自己選總統或為黨所提名公職候選人募集的政治獻金,就被推定、擬制成有對價關係的貪污收賄。為了總統是否應到立院做國情報告,馬英九也說總統職權都規定在憲法裡頭。司法院大法官六二七號解釋釐清我國憲政體制下的總統與閣揆的職權,其中行政權概括授與行政院,總統職權以憲法及增修條文有列舉者為限。因此有關科學園區的開發、民營機構人事的決定、金融機構的合併均非總統的法定職權,「龍潭案」、「陳敏薰案」認定為總統職權判決有罪確定,顯屬違憲而無效之判決。


5. 一手拿扁獻金、一手與扁切割


至「二次金改案」一審以非總統職權,無對價關係的單純政治獻金判決無罪,二審則認定為總統職權,有對價關係的賄款,改判有罪並處重刑。事實上國泰蔡家及元大馬家的政治獻金都是選舉期間對外的募款,除二00四年總統大選的一億元外,其他全部用於二00一年縣市長、立委;二00二年北高市長及議員;二00四年立委;二00五年縣市長;二00六年北高市長及議員;二00八年立委等選舉的贊助款,包括二00一年、二00四年贊助台聯黨六千萬元,合共十三億元以上。對北高市長及縣市長競選經費挹注,有高達六千萬元、五千萬元、三千五百萬元、兩千萬元者。結果我拿的政治獻金是貪污的黑錢,我轉發給黨公職候選人及友黨的贊助款,似乎是應該的,不但自鳴清高,又要切割!


6. 南港案與扁無關


「扁案」的南港展覽館案,和我無關,既未起訴,也沒判罪。全案余政憲、吳淑珍改判圖利罪,尚未定讞。


7. 錢匯海外為了卸任後作外交


所謂「海角七億」經判「洗錢」有罪部分,連同蔡銘哲姊弟七千萬元,不到三億元,其餘均非「不法所得」。監察院有關宋楚瑜興票案的調查報告明確指出,政治獻金的選舉剩餘款是候選人的個人財產,縱使宋楚瑜用三、四十個人頭匯到海外三億八千萬元,亦不成立洗錢犯罪。宋楚瑜選省長未據實申報競選經費,只報了一億元,卻剩餘六億二千萬元,其中三億八千萬元匯往國外,宋辯稱是夫人理財。吳淑珍將選舉剩餘款匯存海外,是為了方便未來作為台灣國際外交及公共用途的使用,其中一筆未遭扣押的一百九十萬美元交給吳澧培資政推動機密外交之用,特偵組起訴吳澧培參與洗錢,業已獲判無罪確定。


8. 扁案是中共的統戰分化陰謀


「扁案」的政治本質,是國共兩黨聯手打扁的政治追殺。胡錦濤於二00八年六月召開政治局擴大會議時就說,從二00六年起中國國安部就發現扁家在海外存款證據,並轉交給台灣當局;又說「根據我們掌控的情況,陳水扁很快就會被逮捕,他的被捕將給台獨勢力造成重大打擊」。二00八年七月,中共對台工作辦公室為實施《解決台灣問題的政治戰略》,定出具體方案要打擊陳水扁及其親信團夥,加深民進黨內部的思想裂痕,使民進黨長期處於政治思想的混亂狀況,極大減弱其阻碍「我們二0一二年解決台灣問題的政治動力」。特別強調陳水扁是台獨勢力最主要的政治象徵之一,打擊陳水扁不僅可以將其本人釘在歷史的恥辱柱上,而在社會道德意義上,可以給台獨意識沉重的打擊。遺憾的是,民進黨的切割派對中國以胡錦濤為首的倒扁陰謀竟然視若無睹,落入中共的統戰分化而不自知。


9. 北檢檢察官認定馬金干預司法


民視《頭家來開講》主持人謝志偉及來賓游盈隆、洪裕宏、陳立宏、王時齊,在二0一0年的節目中指述馬英九與金溥聰以政治力影響「扁案」、國民黨立委以刪除預算干預司法個案,遭到國民黨提告加重毀謗、妨害選舉。台北地檢署檢察官日前認定,當年馬英九的確在「扁案」宣判前(十一月八日)宴請司法檢察高層,並發布新聞稿指「尊重司法不等於漠視人民對於部分法官作出違背人民合理期待判決的失望與憤怒」,謝志偉等人以總統邀宴動作與聲明質疑總統干預司法,並非沒有相當理由,因而處分五位電視名嘴不起訴。益証連檢察官也肯認金馬干預司法,介入「扁案」的偵審,我才會在「二次金改案」一審無罪六天後,最高法院旋即自行判決確定「龍潭案」及「陳敏薰案」並發監執行。


10. 文革的扁案:毛澤東鬥爭劉少奇


回顧「扁案」的偵辦過程,不難聯想文革期間毛澤東清算鬥爭他內定的接班人劉少奇,儘管「劉案」與「扁案」相隔四十年,一在「中國」一在「台灣」,但兩個中國黨對付政治異己的殘酷手段並無二致。


一九六六年毛澤東在一張報紙寫上「炮打司令部─我的一張大字報」,接著紅衛兵就到被打成「黨內最大的資本主義道路和當權派」的劉宅,貼大字報、掛標語、呼口號,並將他和妻子王光美拖出去批鬥。為了置劉少奇於「永世不得翻身」的死地,江青等獲悉劉少奇在一九二九年、三十一歲時曾從事工人運動,於奉天紗廠被捕過,硬扣上「判徒、內奸、二賊」三頂大帽子。一九六七年花了五十天大查一九二九年前後的檔案資料,並未發現劉少奇所謂「叛變」的証據。遂成立專案小組,虛構劉的叛變情節,只要活著又任過職務的就列為重點「知情人」(証人),即使神智不清的人也找來作証,專案小組尚未調查,就先劃框框、定調子,先想定劉少奇「叛變自首」有罪,不是有沒有的問題,而是查出來查不出來的問題。辦案人對証人威逼恫嚇、疲勞審問、押人取供、教唆偽證,直到証人俯首就範,先後有四位証人因受不了而自殺未遂。一份劉少奇被捕後叛變的偽証就這樣出籠,二年後劉少奇含冤而死,文革結束才獲得平反。


11. 辜、杜兩人證實特偵組脅迫咬扁


「扁案」在二00八年政治追殺時,特偵組檢察官一字排開召開記者會,宣示扁案「辦不出來就走人」;接著法務部長王清峰向國民黨秘書長吳敦義報告,隨即大肆搜索、押人取供;行政院長劉兆玄更在立法院答詢時預告陳水扁很快會被收押。檢察官涉嫌教唆証人咬扁,杜麗萍在法庭坦承她的自殺未遂是檢察官以收押脅迫的結果;辜仲諒在紅火案高院庭訊時和他的律師及財務長供述,他在特偵組時,檢察官要他作不利扁的偽証,事實上紅火案的三億未流入扁家;李界木也被檢察官威脅利誘,如不配合,將讓他傾家蕩產。特偵組起訴後,承審周占春合議庭兩次無保釋放我,卻以人為方式,公然違背法官法定原則,硬給換了下來,改由判決馬英九特別費案無罪的蔡守訓合議庭審理,無視對我有利証據,甚至隱匿「奉天專案」的機密文件,鎖在保險箱不拿出來;共同被告及証人都說我有政治獻金,並有選舉剩餘款,蔡守訓硬拗說「沒有」,就是要定我的罪,先判無期徒刑再說。


12. 扁案何時雲開見月明


劉少奇在共產中國,再大的冤抑還能平反;在民主台灣的「扁案」,何時可以雲開見月明?「民進黨那裡努力不夠?」答案就在這裡。


陳水扁 2012. 02. 09


When can Abian Case be clear?


1. Abian Case is not the cause of election failed.
Except in the authoritarian state, there is no ruling party forever under the democratic election. One can win or lose in election the outcome is subject to by various reasons. In United States it is not surprised the presidential election will be wined by Republican or Democrats every 4, 8 or 12 years.


In 2008 the Republican did not ask Bush to responsible for McCain lost in election. Same as the Democrats did not blame Clinton for Al Gore’s failure in 2000. But only in Taiwan, people accused Abian Case should responsible for DPP’s failure in 2008 and 2012 presidential election. They even ask


DPP clearly cut with Abian Case don’t let Abian’s family or fans attempt to tie closely with DPP.


During the trials of the “Abian Cases”, only less than 20 people were allowed to attend the court hearing. The coverage by the news media was very limited. Impartial and accurate reports almost did not exist. How many people actual got to listen to the defense by myself and the rebuttal and cross-examination by my lawyers? For those who comment on “the Abian case” loosely, how many of them really know enough about “the Abian cases”? (note: “the Abian cases” is a term for all court cases against President Chen Shui Bian.) For one “Abian Case”, some judges sentenced to life in prison, but some acquitted me; for another “Abian Case”, some judges acquitted me, while others sentenced me to over 10 years in jail. With the verdicts this disbelievingly far apart, it is unacceptable.


2. State Affairs Fund of first instance has been adjudged not guilty.


The first “Abian case”, which was charged against me right after the 2008 presidential election, started out with an indictment in Nov. 2006 by Taiwan High Prosecutors Office (THPO) regarding the use of presidential discretionary fund for national affairs. However, Ma, who was Taipei Mayor, was also indicted by THPO for his embezzlement of mayor discretionary fund. The presidential discretionary fund for national affairs is the earliest discretionary fund for government executives. The difference between the two cases is that when Mayor Ma was indicted, the whole KMT stood firmly behind him and nominated him as the presidential candidate for their party, while DPP chose to distant themselves by adopting a “sever-the-ties” tactic. Now, it has become clear that the use of both discretionary funds were governed by loosely defined rules (2a). They were the common historical practice.


In both cases, there was false bookkeeping with bogus receipts. Ma Yin-Jeou deposited the mayor discretionary fund into his private bank account. Each month, he wired NT$200,000 to his wife Chou Mei-Ching. He wired NT$3,000,000 to his sister Ma I-Nan. He paid for his daughter’s credit card charges with his discretionary fund. Tsai Sho-Shiun (the presiding judge) and his joint court acquitted Ma in the name of “mixed use of the fund” and “the Big Dam Theory” (2b). However, the same joint court sentenced me to life in prison even though I provided proof for legitimate fund uses to conduct classified diplomatic missions, whose expenses totaled NT$130,000,000, an amount far exceeding the total amount of the presidential discretionary fund. On August 26, 2011, I was cleared for all the embezzlement charges by the first retrial ordered by the High Court. How did Abian Case initially charged with the state affairs fund been the cause of Tsai Ing-wen’s failure in 2012 election?


3. Diplomatic Fund Case has proved me innocence.


I was acquitted for he charges of misuse of Diplomatic Mission Miscellaneous Fund


This embezzlement charge was pressed against me by the Special Prosecutors Panel (SPP) without merits, building on speculative and falsified evidences.(3a)


4. Longtan Land Case is an unconstitutional invalid judgment.
Other “Abian Cases”, in addition to the one related to the presidential discretion fund, are all related to “campaign funds” and “political contributions”. The difference is that the political contributions accepted by KMT are considered as legitimate campaign funds, while all my campaign funds, either raised for two of my presidential elections or for candidates nominated by DPP for local elections, are considered as corruption and bribery money in exchange for equal valued political and policy favors from me. The Supreme Court Decision #627 clearly defined the powers of the President and the Premier of Executive Yuan under the current ROC Constitution. The Premier of Executive Yuan is in charge of executive functions of the government, while the President is in charge of those specific functions defined by the Constitution and Amendments. Consequently, the executive powers overseeing, for example, the development of research parks, personnel decision of private enterprises, and mergers of financial institutes are not parts of the presidential powers. In both the Longtan case (4a) and the Chen Min-Shin case (4b), the judge reached guilty verdicts because the judge asserted that presidential powers were exercised in the decision makings of these two cases. This assertion is clearly unconstitutional and the guilty verdicts are therefore invalid.


5. One hand accepts Abian’s donation and one hand cut off relation with me.
As for the case of “Second Financial Reform”(1), I was acquitted in the first trial because the judge decided that my presidential powers were not directly involved in the decision making of the above “Financial Reform” and there were no promises of favors in exchange for political contributions from two banks involved in the “Financial Reform.” In fact, the political contributions from these two banks, Cathay Financial Holdings and Yuanta Financial Holdings, were parts of campaign contributions raised and used for election campaigns over the years. Among them, NT$100 million was used for the 2004 presidential election, while NT$1.3 billion was used for various elections, including county and city mayors elections in 2001, legislators election in 2002, 2005, and 2008, Taipie and Kaohsiung city mayors and city councilors elections in 2002 and 2006 for DPP candidates, as well as pledges to sponsor the candidates of the allied party, Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), in 2001 and 2004 (NT$60 million). Specifically, the campaign funds I contributed to several Taipei and Kaohsiung mayors elections were as high as NT$60 million, 50 million, 35 million, and 20 million, respectively. However, these campaign funds I raised were all denounced as corruption and bribery “dirty money” by the prosecution. Some DPP and TSU candidates, while considering the same campaign funds that I contributed to them as their fair share, attempted to sever the ties with me to distinguish themselves as “clean” politicians.


6. I am not related to the Nan-Kong Case.


I have nothing to do with the Nan-Kong Exhibition Hall case, even though it is counted as one of the “Abian cases”. Neither I was not indicted, nor was I sentenced for it. The court found Yu Chan-Shen and Wu Shu-Jen guilty of attempting to profit from others, but the case is currently under appeal.


7. Funds stashed overseas were intended for diplomatic missions after my presidency.
Among the so called “Oversea NT$700 million”, the court decided that only less than NT$300 million was involved with money laundering, including NT$70 million which was related to Tsai Ming-Tse and his sister. The rest of the fund is found to be legal. When the Examination Yuan investigated James Soong for his role in the Shin-Piau Money Laundering case, the Examination Yuan affirmed that unspent campaign fund legally became personal property of the candidate after the election. Because of this legal affirmation, James Soong was not found guilty of money laundering even though he wired NT$380 million to the US using the identities of thirty to forty people. James Soong, the former Governor of Taiwan, reported to the election board that he only raised NT$100 million campaign fund. In fact, his unspent campaign fund alone exceeded NT$620 million. Soong claimed that he was unaware of it because it was his wife who managed the campaign fund. My wife, Wu Shu-Jen, wired unspent campaign funds to the oversea banks with an intention to use them for diplomatic missions for Taiwan and for public affairs. In fact, a sum of US$1.9 million was given to Mr. Wu Li-Pei, a former member of National Affairs Council, for classified diplomatic missions. The Special Prosecution Panel indicted Mr. Wu Li-Pei for participating in money laundering but he was acquitted of any wrong doings.


8. Abian Case is PRC’s United Front differentiation conspiracy.


The political essence of the “Abian Case”is the political persecution by the join hands of KMT and CCP. While Hu Jintao convened the extended Political Bureau meeting in June of 2008 said China noticed the evidence of Chen Shui-bian’s oversea deposit and we forwarded it to the authority of Taiwan. Added, “Based upon our reliable source Chen Shui-bian will soon be arrested and his arrest will be a big hit to the Taiwan Independence forces.”  In July 2008 the PRC State Council Taiwan Affairs Office for the implementation of “the political strategy to settle Taiwan issue”, set specific program to crack down Chen and his close associates and deepen the ideological rift within DPP and trap DPP into a long term political ideological confusion, greatly weaken their potential obstacle to “our political momentum to solve Taiwan issue in 2012”.  Special emphasis that Chen Shui-bian is one of the most important political symbols of the Taiwan independence force, beating Chen not only can nail him to the history of shame also the social and moral sense can give a big blow to Taiwan independence. Unfortunately, DPP ignored Hu Jintao’s down Bian scheme, cut off me and trapped into PRC’s united front differentiation even without consensus.


9. Taipei District Prosecutors found Ma and Kim (9a) interfered with the judicial independence.


The host of FTV “Head to Opening” Daniel Tse and his guests You Yinglong, Hong Yuhong, Chen Lihong, Wang Shihgi in one of the talk show 2010 talked about Ma Yingjeou and Kim Putsung’s political powers influenced the Abian case, and KMT legislators played deleting budget to intervene judicial cases they indicted Tse et al for aggravating slander and prejudice the election.  In that year before Abian Case was sentenced on November 8, Ma did banquet the high level of High Court and released news “Respect for justice is not equal to disregard the people’s disappointment and anger to the violation of expecting a reasonable fair judgment.” Because Tse’s doubt “president Ma banqueted the High Court and made news release was an obvious intervene of justice” made sense so the five talk show participants were sentenced not to prosecute. Prosecutor Yi Chenlien acknowledged Ma and Kim intervened in justice and involved in the prosecution of Abian case and sentenced me not guilty at the first trial of “Second Financial Reform Case”. But, six days later the Supreme Court unilaterally (9b) reached two guilty verdicts for the “Long-Tiang Case” and the “Chen Min-Shin Case” and sent me to jail immediately without giving me rights to appeal.


10. Abian Case of the Cultural Revolution: Mao Zedong struck Liu Shaoqi.


Review the investigation process of Abian case, it is easily to associate with Mao Zedong struck his designated successors Liu Shaoqi during the Cultural Revolution even though Abian  case and Liu case are 40 years apart the brutal means against political dissidents these two Chinese parties have no difference.


In 1966 soon after Mao Zedong wrote “Bombard the HQ – one of my big character poster” on newspaper, the Red Guard went to


The party most powerful capitalist Liu’s house, post sharp critic, labeled banners and shouting slogan and dragged out Liu and his wife Wang Guangmei to the political struggle meeting.


In order to set Liu to perdition death Jiang Qing manipulated the case of Liu’s capture in 1992 while he was 31 years old engaging workers’ movement in Fengtien Spinners and put on the “traitor, spy and two theft” three big hats. In 1967 they spent 50 days to search files of 1929 could not find any evidence of Liu’s mutiny. So, they formed a special unit to fabricate the story of mutiny. Any alive person even who intoxicated or unconscious were asked to testify as a key insider (witness) as long as they served in the related field before. The special unit judged without trial cooked up the charge and convicted Liu “Mutiny Surrendered” guilty first, it is not a matter of problem but how to create a problem. The prosecutor coerced, intimidated, fatigued up, interrogated, detained to extract evidence and abetted perjury until the witness bow into submission and there were four witness could not stand the torture and attempted suicide.


Liu was arrested and sentenced guilty of mutiny under the fabricated perjury, Liu died with grievances two years later, he was vindicated after the end of Cultural Revolution.


11. Koo and Du testified that they were threatened and coerced to testify against me.
In 2008, in the beginning of the prosecution of the “Abian Cases”, the prosecutors of the Special Prosecution Panel called a news conference and boldly pledged that they would resign if they could not bring a conviction of me. Following this news conference, the Justice Minister, Wang Ching-Feng, briefed the case to the secretariat of KMT, Wu Dun-I. Soon after, the prosecutors started an all-out investigation and placed witnesses under custody to build their case against me. The Premier of Executive Yuan, Liu Chao-Shien, even predicted, in response to legislators’ questioning, that I would be soon placed under custody. It is evident that prosecutors harassed and coerced witnesses to testify against me. For example, Du Li-Ting admitted, during a court hearing, that her attempted suicide was a result of harassment and threats by the prosecution. Jeffrey Koo Jr., his lawyer and CFO of his company testified in a High Court hearing of the “Red Fire Case” that the Special Prosecution Panel asked Koo to testify against me. Koo’s lawyers confirmed that Koo did not remit NT$300 million bribe money to me as accused.(11a)


Lee Tsei-Mu (11b) was threatened by the prosecution to testify against me or he would be severely punished to an extent that he would lose all of his estates.


After the Special Prosecution Panel brought the charges against me, Judge Chou Chan-Tsun twice released me without bail, but Judge Chou was replaced by Tsai Sho-Shiun and the joint court he assembled through an executive order, a violation of the principle of “Legally Assigned Judge” (11c). Tsai Sho-Shiun, who acquitted Ma of the Mayor Discretion Fund case, intentionally ignored the evidences in favor of me and even hid an important piece of evidence related to classified documents of “Fong-Ten Project”, locking it away in a safe to keep it out of the court hearing. Despite all witnesses testified that I owned substantial unspent campaign funds and political contributions, Tsai Sho-Shium simply proclaimed “There were none!” and sentenced me to life in prison, fulfilling his guilty prejudgment.


12. When can Abian Case be clear?


Liu Shaoqi suffered big injustice suppression in communist China, but he had been vindicated; I trapped in the so call democratic Taiwan, when can the Abian case be clear? The answer relies on “Where does DPP need more effort?”


Chen Shui Bian, 2-9-2012


Note (2a): The congress controlled by KMT passed a new law to “forgive” all the misuse of discretionary funds by all high officials (mostly past KMT high officials), except President Chen and Vice President Lu. The law denotes the misuse as a “historically common practice”.


Note (2b): “The Big Dam Theory” was invented by a pro-KMT attorney, Chen C-V, Managing Partner & Chief Counselor of Lee & Li Attorneys at Law to defend Ma. After Ma was found to deposit half of the discretionary fund to his personal bank account, he "denoted" the money he embezzled to his own foundation. “Judge” Tsai accepted his after-being-caught donation as a legitimate expense and adopted this “Big Dam Theory” to acquit Ma, claiming that as long as the total amount of legitimate expenses exceeds the total of the discretionary fund, it was legal. However, this Big Dam Theory was not applied to President Chen’s case by the very same judge even though there was no evidence that any money from the presidential discretionary fund was wired into the private bank account of President Chen.


Note (3a): The Supreme Court acquitted President Chen of guilt in US$330,000 Diplomatic Mission Miscellaneous Fund, supporting the decisions by the Taipei District Court and the Taiwan High Court on April 29, 2011.


Note (4a): The Longtan case is related to the development of a research park.


Note (4b): The Chen Min-Shin case is related to the appointment of Chen Min-Shin as the head of Taipei 101 tower.


Note (5): There were bank mergers involved in “Second Financial Reform” .


Note (9a): Kim was the head of KMT at the time. He is a close friend of Ma.


Note (9b): The Taiwan High Court reached the guilty verdicts for these two cases in a unprecedented manner. Usually, the High Court returns the case back to a lower court for retrial if it does not agree with the verdict of the lower court.


Note (11a): Koo’s lawyers admitted Koo’s false testimony in May 2011.


Note (11b): Lee Tsei-Mu was convicted of accepting bribery money for the development project of the Long-Tiang Research Park. There are video recordings of his questioning and interviewing by the prosecutors in which the prosecutors clearly threatened him to provide damaging testimonies.


Note (11c): Article #16 of Taiwan Constitution provides constitutional litigation right to people. This Article emphasizes that in order to protect the constitutional litigation right, the selection process to assign a presiding judge must follow an impartial and open drawing procedure. This is the core value of the principle of legally assigned judge. It is unconstitutional to remove the legally assigned judge through an executive order. Taipei District Court removed the legally assigned judge Chou Chan-Tsun and installed Judge Tsai Sho-Shuin by an executive order based on the decision of a meeting among chief justices subject to external influences without abiding by the rule of law.

違反UN人權宣言的政府


新聞報導 - 自由論壇
作者 張銘祐 | 贊升   
2012/04/20, Friday

二次大戰後,美國羅斯福總統提出四大自由,也是後來聯合國人權宣言的基本精神,就是:表達的自由、信仰自由、免於匱乏的自由、免於恐懼的自由,孫文也說過:『自由的定義就是不侵犯他人的自由為範圍』,馬英九政府每次中常會,後面正好掛著孫文的畫像,但他已經違反相對自由理論。


國際人權組織往往拿聯合國的人權宣言來做民主國家的基本標竿,但是台聯申請520的路權,卻被許多理由否決了申請,然而台灣想對的還存在集會遊行法,在陳雲林來台,台灣人民不斷被政府監控、攻擊,甚至本人及蔡教授的夫人,在台中表達反對陳雲林來台,被警方以防狼噴霧器攻擊,不斷的法律訴訟中,拿違禁配備的警方無罪,這已經違反『表達的自由』。


然而台灣的信仰相當多元,然而一再重申『一個中國』的馬英九政府卻無視中國政府無情的打壓達賴喇嘛、欺壓法輪功,甚至中國蠻橫的任由藏人追求信仰上與生活的自由,然而在許多藏人與法輪功信徒被屠殺,而藏人自焚,也不見馬英九政府出面說一句話,並且與中國集權政府交娓,一個中國架構下已經失去『信仰的自由』。


馬英九政府在未上任第二屆總統時,已經將油電強硬漲價,使得台灣的百姓日不傅出,每日都有人因為經濟壓力自殺,生活相對的匱乏,而台灣人民卻混然不知未來在哪裡,雖然政府口號似的呼籲生育,光住屋就無法擁有,出門都需要錢,而薪水根本沒有增長,想對的活在相當匱乏的社會,光年輕人的未來就已經茫茫,誰敢結婚生子,連基本的生存都將出現問題,已經違反『免於匱乏的自由』。


馬英九政府操弄司法不尊重國際人權的呼籲、干涉司法公正,在沒相對證據的情形下,以殺雞儆猴的方式將重病陳水扁總統監禁在1.38坪的監獄中。而馬英九為了與拉攏美國,想盡辦法要進口美國的毒豬牛,造成人民恐慌。為了圖利都更建商與財團,強制拆取私人住屋,強徵農民土地。馬英九政府不斷的親中賣台,更在中國強調『一國兩區』,人民卻無力對抗馬英九政府賣台。在日本本土發生福島核災,造成無限傷害,核能資源已經是到該廢止的階段,尤其地震帶的台灣核能廠又常常出狀況,核廢料無法處理,人民活在核災恐懼之中,政府相當漠視『免於恐懼的自由』。


這樣的政府無視人民的生活,連基本生活權都出現問題,讓人不覲想問台灣就要像菲律賓一樣,面臨經濟崩潰與民主倒退,活到第三世界的國家當中,而台灣如同被鎖鍊層層綑綁,這個政府發揮一個流亡政府的本質,只顧著與中國瓜分台灣利益,無視人民生活與民主自由,足以用革命手段推翻政府。

西藏之聲:又有兩名藏人在西藏壤塘縣自焚


新聞報導 - 自由論壇
作者 西藏之聲   
2012/04/19, Thursday

又有兩名藏人在西藏壤塘縣自焚

【西藏之聲4月19日報導】為了抗議中共高壓統治,今天(19日)又有兩名年輕藏人點火自焚。

達蘭薩拉西藏覺囊協會會長倉央嘉措引述境內可靠消息向本台介紹說,(錄音)今天(19日)西藏時間下午1點至2點鐘之間,西藏安多阿壩州壤塘縣20 多歲的青年藏人曲培傑和索南,為抗議中共高壓統治,在壤塘大寺附近點火自焚,雖然當場沒有身亡,但當地藏人透露,兩人生還希望渺茫,截至目前還沒有落入中共軍警的手中。

倉央嘉措表示,兩名自焚者是阿壩州壤塘縣人,都是俗人,其中曲培傑的父親叫格果松塔,母親叫白乃;自焚藏人索南的母親叫森吉。

據瞭解,兩個月前,即2月19日西藏時間下午2點鐘左右,阿壩壤塘縣中壤塘鄉藏人囊卓高呼「西藏自由」和「允許達賴喇嘛返回西藏」等口號,也在壤塘大寺附近自焚犧牲,終年18歲。

自焚藏人囊卓當時還留下遺書表示,他為西藏民族的自由事業選擇自焚,因此,家人與親朋好友不必為他傷心難過。

理塘藏人拒絕愛國教育60多人遭捕
【西藏之聲4月19日報導】西藏康區甘孜州理塘縣藏人因拒絕在反對達賴喇嘛的文件上籤字,拒絕接受所謂的愛國主義教育,已有60多人遭捕,此外,當局以指控張貼抗議中共標語為罪名拘捕了西藏那曲索縣赤多鄉藏人丹嘎。

一位不願透露姓名的康區藏人向本台介紹說,(錄音)中共政府於本月5日,派遣大批工作人員到西藏康區甘孜州理塘縣亞火鄉境內,強行開展所謂的愛國主義教育,要求藏人在一份反對達賴喇嘛的文件上籤字,而當地藏人一致拒絕簽字並與工作人員間發生衝突後,中共當局增派更多的武警、公安和特警部隊到亞大鄉,強行拘捕了60多名藏人,其中15人當場被帶到理塘縣,剩餘的都被扣押在亞火鄉境內。

當局還威脅說,若不簽字將會打壓其他家屬。消息人士表示,(錄音)中共公安對被捕藏人威脅說,必須在文件上籤字,若不簽字,你們的妻子也會抓捕;而另一方面,當局對被捕藏人的妻子和家屬做思想工作指出,若不簽字,被捕的親屬最少會判行三年等,迫使部分家屬在文件上籤字,但遭捕藏人至今沒有被釋放。

另據《西藏快報》消息,中共當局於本月9日,以指控涉嫌在索縣珍達寺中張貼西藏自由傳單為罪名,強行拘捕了索縣赤多鄉現年17歲的藏人丹嘎,目前被關押在那曲地區。

今年2月16日,西藏康區索縣赤多鄉的中共工作人員強迫赤多鄉珍達寺將部分中共宣傳文件張貼在該寺大門上,兩天後,珍達寺門上的中共文件被人撕下,取而代之的是「西藏要自由」的標語,隨後中共當局一直在追查張貼標語的藏人,珍達寺也處於嚴密管控中。

消息指出,曾為索縣珍達寺創建付出巨大貢獻的珍達寺僧人洛桑班丹,因為2007年到印度朝聖,中共當局強行將其驅逐出寺,並時常進行騷擾後,這名僧人於2010年11月15日被迫上弔身亡。

此外,本月初,中共公安還以破壞珍達寺中共工作組門牌為理由,隨意拘捕並毒打索縣藏人普布、熱賽和丹扎,他們被關押約一週後釋放。
source: 西藏之聲

李先生出手 令後生汗顏

記者鄒景雯/特稿
李登輝每次一出手,就會讓人感嘆台灣政治人才的斷層何以這麼嚴重?陳水扁與馬英九是一九四九年國民黨敗逃台灣後成長的一代,受到完整的國民黨黨國教育,然一個被人逮到把柄關進牢裡,一個是假道學正在台上胡搞。下一個世代,又沒一個能超越現在大家所嫌棄的。孕育不出像樣的領袖,才會發生九十歲老人家還要如此操勞的反常現象。
李先生昨天講了幾句令後生汗顏的話,一句是:有人選上總統,以為是在當皇帝;第二句是每樣漲,老百姓要怎麼生活?第三句是:台灣民主的下一步,要落實地方自治一一四選後迄今,檯面上的朝野菁英,哪個人講過這麼切中要害的話?為什麼講不出來?高度不夠,全是些政治矮仔?
在野的不行,也就算了,在朝的虛矯濫權,人民就要倒楣。何以稱其虛矯?最近又有新事例update。馬英九在國民黨中常會宣稱要找省油省電的達人,來教大家省點錢結果呢?立委公布馬政府居然編了四千三百多萬元來籌辦馬英九的就職大典,財政部國債鐘的最新數據每位國民承擔中央政府負債已突破廿二萬元,在政府債台高築的時候,這筆錢為什麼不想辦法節省?其實,達人不假外求,馬英九大可現身說法他是如何一年光存款就能增加三一○萬的?大家肯定能獲益良多,但千萬別說是「花公家省自己」才好。
最近的瘦肉精、油價、電價、甚至房價,只是「當皇帝」的一系列起身炮而已,預示了馬英九不再選舉後的決策模式。準備要全國繞一圈的李先生主張地方團結起來,減少中央的集權;老實講,在缺乏領袖、失去典範的年代,不僅地方要團結起來,所有的公民更要團結起來,一流的國民不必受三流政客的支配,由自己來當人民英雄,怎麼當?就從表示反對開始吧!

出處:自由時報電子報

無語問蒼天 可否讓我活下去

◎ 吳憫慧
在僅僅十年甚至之前,中輟了學業,五專都沒有讀完,便投入了職場工作。當初先是因為父母收入銳減,弟、妹都還在唸書,加上自己真的找不出人生的方向,索性就先就業再說了!
在大約民國八十八—九十年間,雖然專科肄業,隨便找一份工作,也都兩萬五起薪,再繼續累積年資,遠遠超過這個數字…。在當時,隨隨便便也有這樣的薪資,後來轉去做製造業,最高峰的時期,每月平均薪資也有五萬三左右。但是,總想著應該要完成基本的學歷,也才好在社會上與人競爭。於是,一頭栽進了夜間部就讀。
完成了高中,竟也順利的考上了大學的進修部,想著咬著牙撐下去吧!想花幾年的時間,看看畢業後能不能找個穩定又符合興趣的工作。孰知,在未畢業的時候,就已經爆出廿二K的薪資。我們的政府為了搶救失業率,居然做出那麼荒唐的提議,那不就是爽了企業、苦了百姓?
我們的上一輩,年輕的時候正值台灣經濟起飛階段,每個人只要肯做,就可以賺到足夠生活的薪水,若省吃儉用點,還可以小有積蓄。多少大企業、集團、財團的老闆,不是這個階段起來的?回頭看看,只批評著現在時下的年輕人,先是揶揄大家是草莓族、水蜜桃族,後是拚了命像挖祖墳似的把年輕人吃乾抹淨。教我們情何以堪?
薪資水準下降,物價飆升,油、電、瓦斯、民生必需品無一不漲!我們可以節能減碳,但可以不吃、不喝嗎?哪一個人可以做到?
現在,我們真的步向菲律賓的後塵,到時候逼得我們這些青年人,離鄉背井去外國當「台傭」?這難道是馬政府的治國方向?
我們小老百姓要的,就是安安穩穩的過生活,不用酒足飯飽、也不用大魚大肉,只求餐餐有飯可吃、有水可飲、人人有個遮風蔽雨的地方。不用整天提心弔膽,會不會被資遣?這頓飯吃完下一頓?政府還鼓吹生育,請問:每天都過著朝不保夕的生活,怎麼有信心可以照顧好下一代? (作者從事服務業)

出處:自由時報/自由廣場

人民再起 民主再改革

◎ 李登輝
近來,全國民眾心情應該很鬱悶,因為馬政府除了提出「一國兩區」這種形同放棄主權的主張外,更罔顧民意與人民健康,執意開放進口含瘦肉精牛肉;同時,政府帶頭漲價,油價漲、電價漲、連健保費也要漲,放任民生物價狂飆,這個政府完全不管人民的死活。
馬總統選前表示,選他台灣會更好,選後不但沒變好,還說自己已經沒連任的壓力,要大家面對痛苦多忍耐。人民雖不同意這種說法,卻無法有效制衡,讓我們看到台灣民主制度的缺失,應該是「民主再改革」的時候了!我所提的改革,是一種生活保障的改革,是生存保障的改革,是人民權利保障的改革。
台灣的歷史發展歷經不少政權統治,我曾說過這是「台灣人的悲哀」,但隨著民主運動的發展,社會力的支持,讓我能夠在總統任內推動改革,以寧靜革命的方式,將權力還給人民,讓台灣人民真正成為國家的主人。但仍有些改革尚未完成,像是司法改革、教育改革以及心靈改革等必須繼續努力,以建立台灣人的自主意識。改革是要人民過更好的生活,不是要人民忍耐痛苦過生活。
過去,台灣人無懼生命財產的威脅,走上街頭爭取選舉權、爭取言論自由。現在,總統已經直選,政權已經二次輪替,社會卻失去改革的動力,政治成為權位與利益的追求,人民的權利無法得到重視。台灣要再進步,唯有靠人民自覺,靠社會力推動,而不再是只寄望政黨,對任何違反民意的政黨都應該淘汰。
台灣在政治、經濟、社會各方面,無論是憲政體制、司法正義、社會公平、媒體公正、環境保護、土地正義、健康人權、弱勢照顧等等,都存在不少問題;譬如憲法增修條文前言中,以統一為前提的規定,已經不符合大多數人民的意志;國會選舉得票數多數黨與少數黨差距不大,席次卻非常懸殊,票票不等值;憲法修改的唯一發動權掌握在立法院手上;人民要發動公投卻被套上層層限制,無法表達直接民意;社會的貧富差距愈來愈大,公平正義無法彰顯。面對這些不公不義,我們需要進行全面性的再改革。
過去人民將自己的權利保障寄託在政黨,人民為了過生活,無暇關心公共利益,以致無法凝聚改革的力量。今天,我要提醒所有的台灣人,權利是靠自己爭取來的,權利不會從天而降,只有人民自覺,發動公民社會的力量,推動民主制度的再改革,才能真正落實人民當家做主的目標。
台灣一向有堅強的生命力,是因為台灣人有打拚的精神,現在遇到一些阻礙,有些氣餒。但是,台灣人並沒有失去對公義精神的追求,像是最近大家對政府強拆台北士林王家的關心,之前對苗栗土地徵收事件大埔阿嬤的支持,不滿恐龍法官判決的白玫瑰運動,都展現出台灣人追求公義的精神。
我要跟全國民眾共同勉勵,千萬不要失志,要保持對國家的熱情,保持對同胞、土地的疼心,對自己要有信心,用行動實踐改革的力量。讓我們從關心身邊不公平的現象開始,無論是憲政體制、司法正義、社會公平、媒體公正、環境保護、土地正義、健康人權、弱勢的照顧等等。政府不改,政黨不關心,人民就應該展現力量,用當年爭取民主改革的精神,進行民主的再改革,為台灣世世代代的幸福繼續拚下去!
(作者為前總統)

出處:自由時報/自由廣場     

【漫畫】縱火犯 喊救火?!


picture source: 自由時報
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/apr/20/today-o9.htm