Libel suit against PFP legislators and Jaw

The PFP guys pressed CSB for an explanation of where $1m of taxpayers money went in Panama. CSB did not respond to this request.

Subsequently, in oder to turn the heat up, and elicit a response from CSB, they announced they had information (from an undisclosed source) that such monies were deployed for improper use. They were quite careful to state that they were could not vouch for the accuracy of the source of the information, merely that it was worth investigating further, in the absence any explanation from CSB.

So based on the single fact they did not disclose the source, does this constitute a bona fide accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I find this tack very worrying, and more so CSB’s knee jerk reaction to silence his critics, which seems to me more than a little sinister. Especially since he has yet to come clean about the purpose of the funds. If he had provided an explanation before talking about suing, he could have greatly enhanced his credibility. Remember, this is a guy who thinks anyone with HIV has received God’s punishment. Well try telling that to the children of the next African nation you are trying retain diplomatic links with, Ah-Bian.

well ac,

if slander were to be proven, then punishment is likely to be meted out. an apology, or monetary punishment, would both be possibilities. you would think that after enuf people were successfully sued this way, that they would stop making comments before researching them a little further.

the culture of frivolous lawsuits is already here my friend, or don’t you read the papers? it’s creation was some time ago.

you must have missed the other paragraphs detailing prc “facts” about taiwan, so i’ll just ask that you read it again, instead of selecting one (somewhat rhetorical) question, and choosing to respond to that.

further, you previously wrote:

and now you write:

according to your logic, it’s open knowledge, so what need is there to address it? :wink: of course, the world may not be that simple, and he should address it. it’s quite possible he would have done that if not broadsided by dubious “facts” from the other side of the straight.

as for the govt. post, “… greatly enhanced his credibility”. with who? the people who hate him and won’t listen to reason, no matter how clearly it is presented to them? many people here hate the dpp and csb because their father/mother hated their administration. i’m not saying that this only happens here, i’ve seen it from other countries as well, including my own. but the degree is staggering. and in many situations a discussion is not possible, or permissable, lest the other side get “angry”. do you really think an explanation will do anything to solve this? anything he says will be called a lie, unless he admits to something he didn’t do, and then he will still be branded a liar for denying it in the first place - it’s a no-win situation.

Interesting opinion expressed by xtrain. If you slip a $ million or so of taxpayers money to a third party, you do not need not be held accountable if a significant nexus of the population hate you. i.e. you are absolved of providing a reason for its use (because they wouldn’t believe you anyway). Would that apply to government procurement as well?

Be interested to know what % of the population is required to hate you before accountability is waived? 30%? or must it be a majority?

Anyhow, ignoring the contingent who hate CSB for a moment, there is another good reason why providing an explanation on the use of such funds may have some impact on credibility - namely, that there are a lot of people who have no strong allegiance to either green or blue camps (particularly so in Taiwan where there is a large segment representing the undecided vote). Exlpanations heard by this contingent do have a profound effect on his credibility.

But all this is missing the point. CSB does not enjoy dictator’s priveliges, such as Hu Jintao, since he is (at least in theory) accountable to his people, and has an obligation to justify his expendiutres. I can just hear them up in Beijing saying - “Taiwan says it won’t discuss the cross straits situation until democarcy arrives on the mainland, yet CSB spends the people’s money like any tinpot dictator. Well if they want dictatorship, we can give it to them - cut the bullshit, and no more excuses…etc.”

How critical is transparency & accountability in legitimising Taiwan’s separateness from China? Why do western nations still rally to Taiwan’s defence despite saying there is only one China? Why give China an excuse? etc.

govt,

did you miss the part of my post where i said he should address it? should i go back and put it in bold? so thanks for the sermon about “the point”, and all the talk of percentages, but you are preaching to the choir.

also, the little wink stands for sarcasm, and was addressing the poster who said the slush fund was common knowledge, and then said the payout should be explained. it’s kinda pointless to say that funds are common knowledge, and then ask for explanations for same. please go back and read what was written.

and if he does address it, as i said i hoped he would, that would help the undecided faction. i was making a point about how some people would not listen to any explanation, whether it was factual or not. i believe the same to be true of hardcore dpp supporters, when the kmt/pfp manage to utter truthful statements.

as for why govt’s sit on the fence, the reason is money, and what they stand to gain (or lose) by actually taking a position. they can’t really say that democracy in taiwan doesn’t exist, but they don’t want to piss off what many see as the biggest untapped market in the world. isn’t that fairly clear? (i’m not saying this position is correct/acceptable, it is only my opinion about the question you asked.)

For entertainment, and hopefully CSB will embarrass himself citing the “Out of Town Rule. It’s doesn’t count out of town” and “I did not have sexual relationship with …” comments.

Then I get to sit in front of the TV flex fingers and go “shame on you CSB. Shame on you.” :smiling_imp:

I still don’t see what is so difficult about finding some government papers citing we did give aid to Panama and for what purpose.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]

I still don’t see what is so difficult about finding some government papers citing we did give aid to Panama and for what purpose.[/quote]

Hardly the point mate. The point is that someone accused President Chen of having improper sexual dealings with the President of Panama… And that he wrote a US$1m check to hush things up.

I however fully support your notion that all the “under table” monetary dealings made by the ROC in order to secure diplomatic recognizion are laid out . Also, this probe should go as far back as possible, and not merely focus on the post 2000 situation. The reason is that this policy was inherited from the previous regime.

Hex wrote:

Bingo!
It is likely that if it had not been for the character assassination by the parties involved, the Presidential Office would have turned the other cheek (they have in other instances of allegations of money diplomacy). But his was charges of sexual impropriety and aimed at the president.
Unfortunate that the case will die out and be forgotten. Personally, I think that Liu ought to feel some pain, if only financial, for his lies and disrespect.

Personally, I think the mainland Chinese website that made the allegation be taken to court, for thier lies and disrespect.

…and anyone else who has quoted what they said - which includes about half of the people in this forum (for thier lies and disrespect).

And of course, we should not investigate the matter any furhter, because anything said by the mainland is obviosuly propaganda.

…even if it was placed there by CSB agents to create a smokescreen, because they got early warning of a pending investigation into the real purpose of the back-hander payment…

(sorry, couldn’t resist that!)