WTF did Chen Shui-bian do?

The truth is out there

Fellow blogger Michael Turton has already blogged about the latest scandal surrounding former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), and today's Taipei Times has some details:

Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) apologized yesterday for failing to fully declare his past campaign funds and wiring a large sum overseas, but denied embezzling money from the government.

Chen said that all the money he had ever accepted was for election purposes, adding that his wife, Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), was responsible for managing his funds, including any amount left from previous campaigns.

Chen read from a written statement and did not take any questions during a press conference yesterday afternoon, leaving his attorney Richard Lee (李勝琛) to deal with the media after he left.

Chen said his conscience drove him to come out and apologize because he could no longer lie to himself or the public.

"I have done something that is not allowed by the law," he said. "I owe the public an apology for falsely declaring my campaign funding for the past four Taipei mayoral and presidential elections."

What raised the most doubt for me was that people like Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) are the ones presenting this information to the public, but today, it sounds like Chen is contradicting what he said yesterday. This makes that part about Chen's "conscience dr[iving] him to come out and apologize" sound like bullshit.

Additionally, I've heard that Chen's son and daughter-in-law are currently out of the country.

WTF?!

This will most likely present a serious challenge for the DPP in the years to come.

A-gu (阿牛) is following the Chinese-language news on this one, and he brings readers the latest info about Chen and Wu's resignation from the DPP.

Whatever happens in this case, beware of the presentation, and focus on the facts.

---

Interjections: Taiwan, 台灣, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, A-bian, 阿扁, Wu Shu-jen, Wu Shu-chen, 吳淑珍

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

BBC cooks up more nonsense about Chen recall bid

Babble without a byline

In a BBC article of Friday, November 10, 2006 titled "New recall bill tabled in Taiwan," someone (since there's no byline, we don't know who) was paid to cook up this dreck and pass it off as reporting:

Legislators in Taiwan have set the date for a third vote on a recall bill aimed at ousting President Chen Shui-bian.

The vote is scheduled for 24 November, and if the motion passes it will trigger a national referendum on whether to get rid of the president.

Mr Chen has survived two such votes before, and looks likely to again.

If it doesn't look like dreck, you're either not looking carefully enough, or you don't have the proper knowledge. You might also think that in three one-sentence paragraphs there couldn't be too many foul-ups there, huh? Not so fast! Let's see how many I can extract.

1) While all of the "[l]egislators" did indeed set the date for the recall vote, the ones who tabled it in the first place just happen to be comprised entirely of opposition legislators. Both the DPP and the TSU have said they'd back President Chen. Did the BBC not know this, or are they only reporting what CTiTV feeds them? Either way would reflect negatively on their trustworthiness.

2) Such a referendum would most certainly not read "Do you want to 'get rid of' President Chen?" (If you think that I'm being picky, thank your bleedin' lucky stars I'm ignoring the lack of a subjunctive case in that conditional crap.)

3) As Michael Turton has pointed out previously, Chen didn't merely "survive" the first two recalls. The fact is that both of those attempts failed miserably to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to make it past the legislature before a public referendum could even be held on the matter.

We've only just begun
Pushing forward, let's see what other muck the unidentified chef has thrown into the pot.

But this time the challenge will be tougher, in the light of prosecutors' claims that they have enough evidence to charge him with corruption.

Mr Chen cannot be prosecuted while in office, as he is protected by presidential immunity, but his wife, Wu Shu-chen, and three ex-aides have already been charged with the misuse of state funds.

Opposition supporters are continuing their demands for Mr Chen to step down over the crisis.

Three more one-sentence paragraphs, and I see at least as many distortions. Follow along, and see how hollow those words are.

4) Let's talk about "claims" first. Some people claim to be messiahs. A claim isn't necessarily the truth and shouldn't be judged as being so just because it comes from someone with the title of "prosecutor." I bet it would be pretty easy to track down someone to find a balancing quote. Oh, bugger! There's nobody available in the CTiTV studios? Darn. Maybe next time.

5) By the way, these claims have nothing to do with whether or not it will "be tougher" for Chen to avoid being recalled. Could it be the BBC's unstated goal to make it "tougher"?

6) President Chen said he would waive immunity and step down immediately if his wife, Wu Shu-jen (alternate spelling above) were found guilty. Don't forget that the prosecutor had agreed to do another interview of Wu on November 5 to allow her to clarify some things, but he went ahead with the indictment anyway before that date; thus the interview never happened.

7) Liars, thieves, and convicted criminals are among those leading the "[o]pposition supporters." Not surprisingly, some anti-Chen people in Hong Kong and China can hardly be distinguished from those oxymoronically-named folks.

Keeping up appearances of truthiness
Whoever is writing this finally gets around to mentioning some of the things that should have been presented simultaneously with the information above, but it does little to make up for the damage. Here we have a dash of subheading and five more scant paragraphs, only one of which exceeds a single sentence:

Keeping up the pressure

The opposition parties, which have a small majority in parliament, will need at least 14 ruling party members to back the recall motion in order for it to succeed.

The last two attempts - in June and October - failed as all Mr Chen's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) colleagues stood by him.

Analysts say the big question now is whether the prosecutors' conclusions last Friday will cause some DPP lawmakers to lose faith in their leader and vote in favour of the recall motion.

So far, correspondents say, it appears likely that the vote will again fail. Most DPP members seem to be loyal to their leader, and the party has said it will punish any legislators who vote against Mr Chen.

"The chances of [the bill] [<-that's the BBC's] passing are low," admitted opposition Nationalist Party legislator Tsai Cheng-yuan, but he added that even if it did not pass, his party would still keep up the pressure against Mr Chen.

Before you even think about taking even a tiny bite of what has just been served up, here are my closing arguments.

8) The chance of 14 DPP members voting for the recall is slim to none. If any do, it could only be people like Lin Cho-shui or Tuan Yi-kang who should have been kicked out of the DPP long ago for repeatedly kicking the party from within while it's being attacked from without. Those people seem to be in it for other reasons (spies?) and should probably not be painted as ever having had faith in Chen.

9) It wasn't just the DPP who "stood by" Chen. The TSU also showed their disapproval of the motion by casting null ballots in both the first and second votes. Although there is some strong disagreement between those two parties, both of them stand strongly for democracy.

10) "Analysts say..." (insert any claim here). Finish that with "the big question now is..." and what I see is a magician saying "Look at my hands!" Are you watching closely? Which analysts? Can the BBC name even one or tell the readers who they're affiliated with? Could these "analysts" be from places like CTiTV or TVBS? Perhaps it's Emile Sheng yet again. (Am I close?!) As I've mentioned, the DPP and TSU have already made formal statements saying they would oppose this recall motion. Can you feel the bullshit vapors wafting upward toward your nostrils yet?

11) "[C]orrespondents say..." (insert any claim here). Maddog says, "Bollocks!" You might as well type, "I'm making this up." Could this be "Caroline Gluck, distorting from Taipei"? Why do "[m]ost DPP members" merely "seem" to support "their leader." (Note to Ms. Gluck and everybody at the BBC: He's the democratically-elected president, not just a "leader." Stick that someplace where you can easily copy and paste it.)

12) The full name of the "Nationalist Party" to which our fully-unnamed writer refers is the "Chinese Nationalist Party," also known as the KMT or Kuomintang. Trying to make it harder to Google up their long history of murder and oppression, eh? Nice try.

Where do we go from here?
They distort, you decide. Is this the work of Caroline Gluck? Hers has been the only name appearing on any of the recent articles from Taiwan which do have a byline. Why no byline on this article and so many others (some of which contain Gluck's name within), and does this lack of bylines have anything to do with Michael's and my deconstruction of her so-called "journalism"? Could she be farming out the work to local pan-blue hacks? Is the BBC biased against Taiwan and/or Chen Shui-bian and/or the pan-greens?

Sound off!
If your thinking is anything like mine, drop them a line (via either e-mail or online form), and tell them why.

---

Pieces of the puzzle: Taiwan, 台灣, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, A-bian, 阿扁, Wu Shu-jen, Wu Shu-chen, 吳淑珍, media, 媒體, BBC, 英國廣播公司, Caroline Gluck, 凱若琳葛拉克, Kuomintang, 中國國民黨, KMT, 國民黨

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Key points of Chen Shui-bian's speech

Why are we here?

Last night, Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian went on TV for approximately an hour and twenty minutes in order to respond to an indictment brought by Taipei prosecutors against his wife and three top aides on charges which include corruption, forgery, and perjury. While the president himself is immune from such charges while still in office, the accusations are being made against him as well.

These indictments are based on doubt which has arisen from several things, including selective leaks and the inability of the accused to prove that the money in question was used for "secret diplomatic missions." Saturday's Taipei Times, quoting DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun, also tells us, "The prosecutor did not say the president pocketed the state fund. The suspicious points in the indictment resulted from the president's need to protect details of the country's confidential diplomacy."

The key points
Here's my summation:

1) The charges are nonsensical. Do the math. Hell, I'll do it for you. The money supposedly stolen (NT$14,800,408) amounts to less than half the losses resulting from Chen cutting his own salary (from NT$820,000/month to NT$420,000/month) for the past six years and five months (that's NT$32,340,000 he has voluntarily given up thus far, plus the remaining 19 months of his term would increase that figure by NT$7,980,000) and refusing to use the "secret accounts" from the KMT era (allowing a whopping NT$110,000,000/year) which require no receipts and which would therefore be easy to pocket. (He gave that money back to the central government, by the way.)

2) The rules are unclear, and double standards are being applied. Things that the Ministry of Audit said were okay early in Chen's term are now being considered illegal.

3) Chen refused to take advantage of any privileges and distance himself from his wife's actions. He said that if the First Lady were convicted by the courts, he would accept the verdict and step down immediately.

4) Despite promises of confidentiality by the prosecutors, Chen said he couldn't identify the "Person A" (甲君) mentioned in the indictment documents (a spy?) because it would put that person's life in danger. Out of patriotic duty to Taiwan, he said that it was a secret he would carry with him to his grave, even if he had to go to prison for doing so.

5) Despite promising to allow First Lady Wu Shu-jen (sometimes spelled Wu Shu-chen) a follow-up interview which was delayed until November 5, 2006 (the day of President Chen's speech) for health reasons, the prosecutors went ahead with the indictment.

6) The above 2 items demonstrate injustice, insincerity, and lack of professionalism on the part of the prosecutors.

What the media is saying and will say

* ...if Chen is convicted (despite the fact that he can't even be indicted).

* He spoke Taiwanese! (Somebody call the waaaaambulance 'cuz the opposition has only had 57 years to learn the language!)

* Chen refuses to step down (even though he says he will do so immediately [that's the word he used in Mandarin: "立即"] if his wife is convicted).

* Chen didn't reveal any juicy details about where the secret fund goes. (Duh!)

* C'mon! Tell us the name of "Person A"! (Even though people like Sisy Chen accused both President Chen and former President Lee Teng-hui of endangering spies earlier, now the exact opposite suits her goals!)

What's next?
Another recall motion is set to be tabled in the Legislative Yuan on Monday -- unless the psychotic personal weapons enthusiast Li Ao (sometimes spelled Lee Ao) changes sides and sets off a canister of noxious gas to prevent it. A two-thirds majority is required for the motion to pass. Even then, a referendum of the voting public is required for the recall to be finalized.

One thing's for certain: things are never boring around here, though I often wish for them to be.

UPDATE: Official transcripts of President Chen's speech in English and Chinese are online for those crybabies who claimed he was speaking a foreign language from China in order to speak only to his supporters in southern Taiwan. (Oh, the irony!) You can also watch the video of Chen's speech (divided into 4 WMV files) here.

---

Things to consider: Taiwan, 台灣, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, A-bian, 阿扁, Wu Shu-jen, Wu Shu-chen, 吳淑珍, Chen Wen-qian, Sisy Chen, 陳文茜, media, 媒體

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!