What happens to president horsey


#61

[quote=“hansioux”]
On only final sentence that was actually guilty had no foundation in law. There was no proof that Chen abused his position. Instead the judge invented a charge of “Ability of Influence (實質影響力)” to pit Chen behind bars. Just because someone might have had the ability of influence, if there is no actual proof of it,…[/quote]

the proof is obviously based on blackmailing a witness into making false testimony.

Some of the forum members obviously consumed a lot of TVBS and China Times. They are a little bit behind in terms of information. I would have been more understanding if this year was 2010.


#62

[quote=“Taiwanguy”][quote=“Muzha Man”][quote=“Taiwanguy”]…He wasn’t even prosecuted (due to loopholes in the system) for the millions of USD he shipped off to off-shores accounts that were left-over campaign contributions…something he blatantly ADMITTED to, apologized for, and resigned from the DPP for.
[/quote]

I have to call you out on this. It wasn’t a loophole in the system, it was the way the system functioned for decades. You can’t have it both ways.

Chen apologized for the moral lapse in keeping the funds, not over any illegality. If you want to pretend the system is what matters then you have zero call to blame Chen for keeping funds as was his right and as was the norm in Taiwan.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Do you know if that system has been changed? It seems ridiculous. And another question, if it was the “norm” in Taiwan, why did the DPP, Annette Lu, and everyone else seem so shocked at the admission from Chen?[/quote]

That’s a good question. I believe you still can keep the funds but have to declare them. Hansioux might know better. These matters are always reported when there is talk of change and rarely after so it’s difficult to always know what has been done.


#63

[quote=“sofun”]the proof is obviously based on blackmailing a witness into making false testimony.

Some of the forum members obviously consumed a lot of TVBS and China Times. They are a little bit behind in terms of information. I would have been more understanding if this year was 2010.[/quote]

I’m calling you out here. Many of your points are valid and many of your beliefs are, I believe, correct, but your style of argumentation is just so infuriating I find myself inclined to disagree with you even when I don’t really want to. Anything can be explained away with a conspiracy theory. Chen Shui-bian never stole a penny – it was a KMT conspiracy! There was never any such thing as Comfort Women – KMT lies! China is actually a legal territory of Japan – anything else is misinformation fed to you by the KMT! Dinosaurs never existed – their fossils were put here by God to test our faith!

Oh wait, that last one is a little off topic. Well, the argumentation style is the same. I just can’t get behind arguments like that, or people who make arguments based on 3-4 very biased and closed-minded media sources. On top of that is the sheer arrogance of “I’m right, and you’re not right because you don’t know as much as I do.” When discussing with sofun, it’s never valid to hold an opposing point of view. Hell, sometimes it’s not even valid to hold the same point of view.

If this is inappropriate for this forum, mods please do as you will, but I just wanted to put that out there.


#64

[quote=“Hokwongwei”][quote=“sofun”]the proof is obviously based on blackmailing a witness into making false testimony.

Some of the forum members obviously consumed a lot of TVBS and China Times. They are a little bit behind in terms of information. I would have been more understanding if this year was 2010.[/quote]

I’m calling you out here. Many of your points are valid and many of your beliefs are, I believe, correct, but your style of argumentation is just so infuriating I find myself inclined to disagree with you even when I don’t really want to. Anything can be explained away with a conspiracy theory. Chen Shui-bian never stole a penny – it was a KMT conspiracy! There was never any such thing as Comfort Women – KMT lies! China is actually a legal territory of Japan – anything else is misinformation fed to you by the KMT! Dinosaurs never existed – their fossils were put here by God to test our faith!

Oh wait, that last one is a little off topic. Well, the argumentation style is the same. I just can’t get behind arguments like that, or people who make arguments based on 3-4 very biased and closed-minded media sources. On top of that is the sheer arrogance of “I’m right, and you’re not right because you don’t know as much as I do.” When discussing with sofun, it’s never valid to hold an opposing point of view. Hell, sometimes it’s not even valid to hold the same point of view.

If this is inappropriate for this forum, mods please do as you will, but I just wanted to put that out there.[/quote]

That’s right. It is my style.

A couple of posts earlier a forum member questioned whether I have been reading PTT. I’m not saying that’s not an invalid way of arguing or anything. But it seemed to me that was generally accepted as a valid way of exchanging point of views, I don’t see why my suggestion some forum members reading ChinaTimes are a big problem.

There shouldn’t be any double-standard.

edit : It was Gain. By the way I hold no grudge against him. I just thought that if it’s okay for him, it’s okay for me too.


#65

[quote=“Mucha Man”]
That’s a good question. I believe you still can keep the funds but have to declare them. Hansioux might know better. These matters are always reported when there is talk of change and rarely after so it’s difficult to always know what has been done.[/quote]


Not guilty for stashing classified documents.


Not guilty for laundering money


Not guilty for subornation of perjury


Not guilty for illegal use of the Discretionary State Affairs Fund


Not guilty for taking a portion of the money for a foreign state


Not guilty for corruption charges of Nankan industrial park


The only case he was found guilty. Prosecutor coerced an fake confession out of Ku, threatening that he wouldn’t be able to return to Taiwan. After that fact was made public, the judge had no real excuse to maintain the guilty charge, so he invented the “Ability of Influence” charge.

So I am not sure what Taiwanguy was referring to when he said Vice President Lu was shocked.


#66

[quote=“hansioux”]
So I am not sure what Taiwanguy was referring to when he said Vice President Lu was shocked.[/quote]

There is a quote attributed to Annette Lu that appears on several websites and the wiki article on Chen’s corruption charges:
“I am still in disbelief. Any person who genuinely loves Taiwan will not wire money of contributors and of the people overseas. The former first family have affronted Taiwan and the Taiwanese people.”

Unfortunately, the reference link is now broken. If that is an inaccurate or fabricated quote, I take back the statement.


#67

[quote=“Taiwanguy”][quote=“hansioux”]
So I am not sure what Taiwanguy was referring to when he said Vice President Lu was shocked.[/quote]

There is a quote attributed to Annette Lu that appears on several websites and the wiki article on Chen’s corruption charges:
“I am still in disbelief. Any person who genuinely loves Taiwan will not wire money of contributors and of the people overseas. The former first family have affronted Taiwan and the Taiwanese people.”

Unfortunately, the reference link is now broken. If that is an inaccurate or fabricated quote, I take back the statement.[/quote]

Rats scurrying off the sinking ship - it made political sense for her to put distance between her and president Chen.


#68

[quote=“Taiwanguy”][quote=“hansioux”]
So I am not sure what Taiwanguy was referring to when he said Vice President Lu was shocked.[/quote]

There is a quote attributed to Annette Lu that appears on several websites and the wiki article on Chen’s corruption charges:
“I am still in disbelief. Any person who genuinely loves Taiwan will not wire money of contributors and of the people overseas. The former first family have affronted Taiwan and the Taiwanese people.”

Unfortunately, the reference link is now broken. If that is an inaccurate or fabricated quote, I take back the statement.[/quote]

That was the laundering money case. Lu believed the prosecution’s case for money laundering, that’s why she was shocked. However, CSB was found innocent, so Lu was shocked for no good reason.

Basically the law states political donations belong to the politicians. During elections, KMT politicians get their campaign funds from the party. On the contrary, since DPP is really poor, politicians get their campaign funds mainly from small donors and heads of corporations. So DPP politicians with leftover political donations would fund small DPP candidates without funding. In the 8 years that CSB was president, Chen himself funded the DPP with 1,300,000,000 NTD for DPP candidates. He saved some of the money overseas as funds to establish the Taiwan nation.

Now if what Chen did was illegal or immoral, the legislative yuan should have changed the regulations on political donations, especially since for the past 6 years, KMT had control of the entire government. They have not. The current regulations on political donations, which only allows donations during election periods and puts a cap on max sum, became active in 2004, while CSB was the president and DPP had a good numbers of seats in the legislative yuan. Also, since then, KMT legislators have blocked DPP’s calls for reform over 200 times.

Things to read about the persecution of Chen:
news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/br … ws/1181903
southnews.com.tw/specil_coul … 2/0624.htm
liruhome.blogspot.tw/2012/08/201 … _6881.html


#69

There is so much conflicting and confusing information about the Chen trials…

A couple of you say that he was only found guilty of that one thing, but articles like this one make it sound like he has been found guilty on a number of charges:
bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-14678192


#70

I really regret I didn’t pay attention to the news when Chen went to trial. I had just arrived in Taiwan and couldn’t easily follow newspapers at the time. Now having worked in news for over 3 years, I’m still putting the pieces together of what he did, what he didn’t do, and what he was found guilty of.

Taiwanguy you’re totally right about conflicting information. I’ve found English-language media tends to say he’s in jail for “corruption,” but I don’t think there really is such a thing as 貪汙罪, so I assume that’s their way of circumventing the issue of what, exactly, his crime is called. Thanks to hansioux for posting those news tidbits. There were a few important pieces of information I’d missed, like the actual crime was 實質影響力.

I’ll keep trying to dig… but it seems to me the only accurate sources of information are reports in Chinese from the time. I just checked BBC and the Economist from the time of the sentencing and they both dumbed it down to “corruption.” Hmm.


#71

There is a whistle blower, a judge-official of the roc court named 洪英花. She has been touring Taiwan and the US exposing the sordid business of the roc executive-branch handpicking judges in Chen’s trial. She herself was demoted for speaking out for a fair trial.

Makes me wonder whether this tread should be merged with the other thread Hok made, about why the KMT is unpopular.


#72

We do tend to get a lot of convergence in Taiwan politics threads! :smiley: Clearly all these issues are tied together.


#73

That’s fine.
The design-intent of the Chen trial is to discourage native Formosan from supporting pro-independence strong-man financially. However when Tsai-English came about in the 2012 election, pro-independence voter still donate large sum of money even though tsai herself is of wealthy background.

Tsai herself was maliciously accused as a corrupted person for making money off 宇昌案。 She could have gone to jail too.

Now comes Ko who got a large sum of donation and he decisively sets a deadline for donation. The result is KMT’s defeat and here we are talking about Horsey’s downfall.


#74

I don’t think it’s fine. It’s intellectually lazy on the part of journalists, who are supposed to ask questions and get to the bottom of things. I don’t want to read another Western media report about how “some question the legitimacy” of the ruling; I want reporters to get out there and do their jobs and present me with facts, not opinions hidden behind the guise of “some people.” But reporters can’t be hassled to investigate when Taiwan is so small and all the journalists with good Chinese skills are sent to the other side of the strait. It’s a sad state of affairs and it contributes to Taiwan’s invisibility on the world stage.


#75

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]I really regret I didn’t pay attention to the news when Chen went to trial. I had just arrived in Taiwan and couldn’t easily follow newspapers at the time. Now having worked in news for over 3 years, I’m still putting the pieces together of what he did, what he didn’t do, and what he was found guilty of.

Taiwanguy you’re totally right about conflicting information. I’ve found English-language media tends to say he’s in jail for “corruption,” but I don’t think there really is such a thing as 貪汙罪, so I assume that’s their way of circumventing the issue of what, exactly, his crime is called. Thanks to hansioux for posting those news tidbits. There were a few important pieces of information I’d missed, like the actual crime was 實質影響力.

I’ll keep trying to dig… but it seems to me the only accurate sources of information are reports in Chinese from the time. I just checked BBC and the Economist from the time of the sentencing and they both dumbed it down to “corruption.” Hmm.[/quote]

Sometimes I’ve seen it reported that he was convicted of “graft” in English-language articles.


#76

[quote=“Taiwanguy”]There is so much conflicting and confusing information about the Chen trials…

A couple of you say that he was only found guilty of that one thing, but articles like this one make it sound like he has been found guilty on a number of charges:
bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-14678192[/quote]

Yes but subsequent trials found him not guilty of most charges. Sadly most people haven’t really absorbed that nor the true point that Jeffrey Ku admitted to lying.

At best Chen should have gotten 5-6 years for the charges that actually stuck.


#77

It’s not necessarily a lazy journalist problem. It’s often the inability of most taiwanese to explain anything. I have charges against me at the moment and a countersuit and it has taken months to get anything close to an idea of how things work. Still have a load of questions I am trying to get answers to.

The system is incredibly opaque and professionals can’t talk. I hate interviewing Taiwanese. Takes 3x longer to understand an issue than elsewere which means no journo has the time yo write properly about this place. Basically when you read an article and it makes sense you have to wonder if the writer made it up or didn’t understand but wrote what he thought.


#78

Ugh no. Sorry. There is a crime called 貪污罪, well, more like 瀆職罪, and there’s a special criminal code called 貪汙治罪條例 that specifically deals with corruption.
實質影響力 is how Chen was sentenced. It’s part of the judicial decision, not the name of the crime. Then there’s another theory called 法定職權說, which is the opposite of 實質影響力.
His cases are HIGHLY controversial and they’re just too complicated so I won’t jump into that(because I can’t).

To me the most frustrating thing is that there are plenty of criminals locked in those awful cells and are probably in worse conditions than Chen is, but nobody will ever talk about medical releasing them as they’re not famous enough. But well, this is Taiwan, you can’t ask for too much.


#79

That made me laugh - I thought it was just me being crotchety. My Chinese is reasonable and I often find myself listening to interminable rambling conversations (in meetings etc) about something that might take a matter of seconds in English. It appears to me that 80% of the time is spent on Person A saying: “so, you mean XYZ?”, and person B saying “no, I mean IJK”, repeated at least half-a-dozen times until eventually A accurately understands what B is trying to convey.


#80

Reminds me of all the talk about pardoning Mark Whalberg for hate crimes he did when he was young. Why? Because he’s famous now!