« 2009年8月 | トップページ | 2009年10月 »

「台灣人民權益訴訟組織」徵尋索賠人

「台灣人民權益訴訟組織」徵尋索賠人

TCRLO是一個創立於加州舊金山地區的美國非營利性組織。

原文出處:http://taiwancivilrights.com/

台灣民權訴訟組織 (TCRLO) 正在尋找一九四五至一九五二年期間財產被非法没收、而沒有獲得任何補償的潛在索賠人。財產證據必須要有證明文件的支持。這些證據可以是被中華民國政府沒收的土地所有權狀、銀行帳戶報表、戰後中華民國貨幣兌換交易〈舊台幣換新台幣〉、日本駐台公司註冊的股票證券書。或其他只要索賠人能夠清楚地提出,所有權和財產損失,而沒有獲得合理賠償的證明。 任何可能的法律索賠人,必須是於一九五二年前,擁有日本國籍的台灣居民。被掠奪財產的繼承人,必須是於一九五二年之前,日本家庭普查登記在案的台灣後裔,才能證明其過逝親屬,是前擁有日本國籍的台灣子民。其他可以派上用場的佐證,包括誓狀文件。如果您想索賠請與TCRLO聯繫,因為訴訟原告將由TCRLO選定,然後委由美國律師提出告訴。請參閱http://taiwancivilrights.com

TCRLO業已與伊斯頓和利維律師事務所進行訴訟諮詢。喬納森利維博士是美國律師,他曾經成功在使美國法院起訴日本企業公司,於二戰期間使用戰爭奴隸的訟案。他最有名的美國法院大案是,控訴克羅地亞納粹從南斯拉夫烏斯塔沙財政部,經由梵蒂岡銀行的錢他的最大的洗錢案。 他對從有經驗在第二次世界大戰中恢復原狀,戰後洗钱,及其他類 似案件,代表原告帶和組織,在塞爾維亞,烏克蘭,馬紹爾群島,和非洲國家,爭取恢復其權益案。美國律師事務所專門從事資產受害者訴訟。levy博士也是諾維其大學反恐主義的講師。他的法律學位是畢業於塔夫脫大學,政治學博士畢業於辛辛那提大學。請參閱 http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com

TCRLO是一個創立於加州舊金山地區的美國非營利性組織。它是一個專門為替台灣原告籌募捐款,在美國法院追求正義的慈善組織。台灣關係法賦予台灣原告法律地位,而舊金山和約授予前日本國民,向國民黨管理台灣當局要求賠償。福爾摩沙自一八九五年的馬關條約,到一九五二年的舊金山和約,一直都是日本的領土。TCRLO不是一個法律事務所,但是TCRLO將雇用具有美國照律師,在美國法院合法代表台灣原告。TCRLO將尋求司法聲明宣告,違法者是美國正義的逃犯,必將他們從臺灣引渡到美國。

此外, TCRLO將為保障「命生、自由和財產」,而尋求民權的正當法律程序。在一九八○年代初期,美國託管領土的太平洋島嶼,在猶達訴美案及塞班人民訴美國內政部,都被美國聯邦法院授予公民權利的保護。於第一個案件中,馬紹爾群島已在等待獨立;第二個案件,塞班島則正等候併入美國。這兩個領域與台灣一樣,在聯合國憲章第七十三章規範下,是舊金山和約的割讓地。從業已解密美國文件的描述,福爾摩沙依據聯合國憲章第七十三章規範,是一個非自治領域。依據一八九八年巴黎條約第九條,於和平條約生效後仍由美國軍事政府佔領的過渡時期,西班牙割讓地島上居民,其民權是受到不明確的保障。但在一九○○年的列島案例中,美國最高 法院即明確規範,在美國軍事政府掌管下的民權 。這些公民權利是美國憲法第五修正案下「生命,自由和財產」的正當法律程序,它等同於第十四修正案修正案的平等保護權。

應該進一步說明的是,宣稱一九五二年前是日本國籍的台灣人,不能提出戰後賠償的論述,依據一九○七年海牙公約,是不被舊金山和約主要佔領權國的法院所接受。根據麥克阿瑟將軍,美國是日本帝國和其附屬領土,包括一九四五至一九五二年的台灣和澎湖,唯一至高無上的佔領權者。日本並非類似被同盟國四強所佔領的德國和柏林。我們必須明確指出,舊金山和約司法行政機關的索賠,是一個天經地義不可分割的公民權利,以保護台灣人民反抗外來侵略和內部腐敗。追訴戰犯罪行強劫掠奪,是沒有法定時效的限制;同時外國主權豁免法( FSIA )亦不保護政府對私有財產的掠奪。事實上,海事優先權可以針對被告的資產,而執法可以在沿海和軍事管轄地區進行。

| | コメント (0) | トラックバック (0)

台鐵員工眷屬「全年免費搭車」真好康

freerailticket.jpg

上圖是一張去年度台鐵「優待購票憑證」的局部截圖,我從別人的手中拍下來的。根據右下角的數字,當批印了兩萬兩千本,以一本50張計算,光是這一批就印了一百一十萬張。

我向這張購票憑證的持有者(他是員工家屬),詢問了一些使用規定和實際使用情況,結果大吃一驚:每年台鐵都會發放這樣「整本」的購票憑證給員工,提供台鐵員工及其眷屬一些乘車上優惠。按照使用規定,持證者必須先在購票櫃台憑證「免費換票」或「折扣購票」後,才可搭乘列車。

享受合理的員工福利無可厚非。但實際運作的狀況是,台鐵員眷直接出示「空白憑證」,即可進站、搭車,從售票、剪票、查票,人人有默契,個個圖方便。甚至因為沒有經過票務系統,當然,連相關帳務也都不必做了。

持有人告訴我,憑證搭乘「非對號車輛」一律免費,搭乘對號列車則是半價換購(的樣子,我忘了),不過台鐵列車大部分都有保留座位,他並不擔心。

按照使用規定,每次搭乘均需填寫一張購換票憑證,為何空白憑證可以搭車、也不用回收憑證?這是不是公務員集體貪瀆,姑且留給大家評斷,但台鐵營運績效不彰,光是上個年度就虧損一百多億台幣;而累計到今天虧損高達恐怕已破台幣八百億,這種情況下,濫用納稅人的公帑來照顧自家人搭車福利,「連做個帳都偷懶」,說得過去嗎?

高鐵營運通車即將屆滿2年,受到衝擊之一的台鐵雖努力找尋因應之道,但是仍然抵擋不住營運虧損。台灣鐵路管理局長范植谷在立法院交通委員會表示,今年台鐵虧損金額為105億6960元,連同過去年度累積虧損,總計台鐵已虧損700億5463元。范植谷說,為減少營運虧損,台鐵目前採取「轉型策略」和「藍海策略」,擴大經營觸角… (2008/12/10, NOWnews)

順便也給大家複習一下,2003年發生「台北捷運站務員集體逃票案」,後來是怎麼判決:

前年爆發的台北捷運公司員工涉嫌變更悠遊卡進出碼逃票案,其中4名站務主管昨天被板橋地方法院依偽造文書罪,判處1年2個月到1年4個月不等有期徒刑,緩刑4年,其他嫌犯仍在他處地院審理中。

板橋地院表示,台北捷運公司所屬永安市場站站長張麗玉、頂溪站副站長尤素珠、北投站副站長林佳明及台北車站副站長張志維等人,涉嫌從民國92年7月起,利用捷運出入口閘門發生問題、系統異常或悠遊卡失靈時,站務人員可依規定在電腦處理機變更旅客進出碼之便,擅自將自己使用的悠遊卡內碼偷改,以免遭到扣款。(2005.07.30, 自由時報)

延伸閱讀

| | コメント (0) | トラックバック (0)

[日本] 花王健康食用油不健康,下架!

エコナ クッキングオイル

日本花王公司推出的健康食用油「エコナ クッキングオイル」系列產品,原本是宣稱可有效降低體脂肪含量的保健食品。但在今年被檢出含有高達 91ppm 的超量「氯丙二醇 (3-MCPD)」後 ,昨天宣布停止販售,並接受使用者退費。

この度、『エコナ クッキングオイル』をはじめとするエコナ関連製品の一時販売自粛・出荷停止を行うことといたしましたので、お知らせ申し上げます。

最近、欧州を中心に、油脂中に含まれるグリシドール脂肪酸エステルの安全性について議論がなされていることを受け、当社においても、2009年6月中旬に分析を行った結果、『エコナクッキングオイル』に、グリシドール脂肪酸エステルが含まれていることを確認いたしました。このグリシドール脂肪酸エステルは、油脂の製造工程における一般的な脱臭の過程で副生されるもので、パーム油等の精製植物油にも含まれていることが報告されています… (2009.09.16, エコナ関連製品の一時販売自粛について)

「氯丙二醇 (3-MCPD)」最初由英國致癌委員會 (Committee on Carcinoginicity) 提出動物實驗報告,指出 3-MCPD 具有致癌風險。雖然有其他組織研究認為無關,但聯合國世界衛生組織 (WHO) 與國際農糧組織 (FAO) 所共同組成的食品添加物專門委員會最後仍認定,3-MCPD為一種不必要存在的污染物。因此各國均制定容許標準。

這次下架的花王油品共十二類五十九種,在 2008 年一年營收高達日幣兩百億円。花王公司表示,他們將會改良配方,重新推出符合標準的製品。不過,從該公司自己提供的資料看來,改良厚的數據好像還是不太低…

MCPD-FS.gif

為什麼說不太低呢?因為有鑑於化學製造的醬油會含氯丙二醇 (3-MCPD) ,而台灣衛生署早在2002年初就已明確訂出安全限量標準為 1ppm,隔年 (2003年1月1日) 甚至將標準下修為更嚴格的 0.1ppm。雖然今(2009)年01月15日,衛生署再次將「醬油類單氯丙二醇衛生標準」含量上限放寬至 04.ppm,但以花王未來改良推出的食用油數據來看,也還是高出台灣對醬油的規範。

問題是,台灣衛生署對食用油好像並沒有制定類似的3-MCPD標準? :D

如果大家沒辦法想像花王健康油 91ppm 數值的意思,底下這則台灣檢驗醬油氯丙二醇含量的舊新聞,或許能讓大家比較一下:

今 (2003) 年二月廿六日起,衛生署要求各縣市衛生局針對今年產製醬油產品查核及檢驗,包括醬油、醬油膏、蔭油、蠔油等,總計稽查一百四十五家工廠及十三家進口商,抽檢其中二百一十二件產品,發現十件產品的單氯丙二醇含量超出公告規定。其中以芳記食品有限公司製造的「新津純正蔭油」含量最高, 接近7ppm。 (2003.03, 聯合報)

儘管上面新聞也提到,「專家認為,體重六十公斤成人,單氯丙二醇每天最大容許量為0.12mg,以目前公告含量計算,成人需連續數十年中,天天攝取達 120g 的醬油,才可能造成健康危害」。但體重較輕的「小孩、婦女」或者類似花王 エコナ クッキングオイル 這種超量的產品,還是有不小心攝取過量的危險,大家請慎用。

建議消基會,該檢測台灣健康油品了。

延伸閱讀

| | コメント (0) | トラックバック (0)

台灣前總統陳水扁庭外答辯文

Former President Chen Shui-bian's Plea of Not Guilty Outside the Court

台灣前總統陳水扁庭外答辯文 英文版

Chen Shui-bian's Office, September 9, 2009

Abstract

On September 11, 2009, the Court of Judge Tsai Shou-hsun will give its verdict in the case of Taiwan versus Chen Shui-bian as regards charges of corruption, money-laundering, and misuse of state funds.

When that verdict is given, the media and the public will be presented with simply that, a resulting verdict; they will not see the reasons, methods and machinations, proper or improper, by which the prosecutors and judge worked to achieve that end, nor will they see the defendant's side of the story.

In this particular case, the very manner, bias and selective prosecution by which it has been instigated, pursued and handled have demonstrated that it is more a case of political persecution and vendetta with a predetermined result in mind than one involving the pursuit of justice and truth.

It is for that reason and with anticipation of a predetermined verdict of guilty (which will then be appealed) that former President Chen Shui-bian has chosen not to initially present an elaborate defense. At the same time, however, he also feels obligated to present his side of the case for the media and the people to see so that they will all the better be able to follow it in the appeal.

In Taiwan, the laws and regulations governing such matters as the presidential state affairs funds, the gathering and use of campaign donations, and political special allowances have always been vague and gray. They are inherited from the martial law, non-transparent, one-party state days of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) where their vagueness and ambiguity were purposely designed to allow the ruling class maximum flexibility in manipulating monies and property for their profit and benefit.

It has only with the first democratic selection of the President by direct vote of the people (1996) and the presidency of Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008) that the rules and laws have begun to be more transparent and focused. Even with that, they still remain more like guidelines with gray areas open to interpretation. Chen's defense will focus on these areas. As President he spent more money of the state affairs fund than he requested therefore it would be impossible to pocket it. On money sent overseas, it is admitted that family members transferred large amounts. Culturally Chen should have controlled this, but the court has yet to produce legal evidence that personally links Chen to this. Further given the vague and flexible laws on political donations such amounts are not unusual. Finally, the court has consistently used indictments to fish for evidence, applied a double standard and selective process in prosecution and abused its powers repeatedly in the detention and interrogation of Chen and co-defendants.

We (Chen Shui-bian's defense team) firmly believe that:

  1. Concerning the state affairs fund: The total amount of the expenditures that former President Chen had spent for official purposes far exceeded the original amount allotted to expenses from that designated fund. Each of these expenses and its purpose has been recorded. Since Chen had to get extra money from elsewhere to cover those expenses, it would be impossible for him to pocket money from the already depleted fund. Though questions could be raised about Chen's accessing other sources to cover additional expenses, to charge Chen with corruption for his own benefit is nonsensical. Nevertheless the court has tried to label Chen as corrupt as regards the state affairs fund.
  2. Concerning the Longtan Science Park Land Deal case: All witnesses have testified that former President Chen had absolutely no idea that any transference of money had taken place with regard to the Longtan Science Park land deal. However, without any concrete evidence, the court is relying on mere speculation to conclude that Chen had received bribes. It is true that former First Lady Wu Shu-jen had received one involved corporation's political donation, but this has not been a quid pro quo donation. The laws of Taiwan on political donations are even more vague than those of the United States. In the United States for example, a person making large political donations can be rewarded with the position of ambassador to a desired and favorable country. Here, the court is speculating by circumstantial relationships that because one of the involved corporations made a separate political donation, it was, contrary to the testimony of witnesses, a bribe and that Chen accepted it as such.
  3. Concerning the money laundering case: None of the accounts in this case belonged to former President Chen, nor had he been a beneficiary of any of these accounts. There is no evidence whatsoever sufficient to prove that Chen had known, participated in, or handled any act of money laundering. Again the court is proceeding by circumstantial speculation. Money was transferred, but Taiwan's loose laws dating back to the one-party state, martial law days of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) amply allow that large amounts of campaign funds can be transferred. This does not constitute money laundering. To selectively accuse Chen of such leads to the remaining three points.
  4. Former President Chen's collection, management, and employment of political donations, as well as his control of his family members, are indeed controversial. Chen should shoulder relevant political and moral responsibilities; culturally he is guilty of not controlling his family. However, cultural guilt is not the same as legal guilt. To receive political donations is not equivalent to receiving bribes nor does it make one automatically corrupt. If it did, most every politician in Taiwan could be labeled corrupt. From the legal perspective which should be the perspective of the court, Chen is not guilty.
  5. During the investigative process and court proceedings of Chen's case, numerous actions have taken place that are or border on being illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly flagrant abuses of power have been exercised to pillory and try to make a scapegoat of former President Chen. For example, President Ma Ying-jeou held a meeting in the Office of the President to give instructions to detain the former president; the Special Investigation Panel resorted to unconstitutional means like incommunicado detention, intimidation, and/or luring other interrogated detainees with gains in order to obtain useful testimonies or to force them to confess crimes they had not committed. The Taipei District Court openly violated the principle of "random assignment of cases" by illegally and unconstitutionally replacing the judge, to whom Chen's case had originally been assigned to by lot, with one particular judge favorable to the current government. That judge has since then been allowed to handle merged cases of Chen. All of these are evidence that the related judicial proceedings of Chen's case have their own taint of corruption and have just been a cover for the authorities to launch political attacks and persecutions on Chen in the name of "fighting corruption."
  6. Finally, it is the belief of President Chen's defense team that the assignment of Chen's case to Judge Tsai Shou-hsun's panel, if not illegal, certainly borders on illegality and is prejudiced. Moreover, Judge Tsai's three-judge panel has repeatedly made rulings that violated the law; it has abused and continued to abuse its power by using reasons unsanctioned by the law to continue the detention of the former president. Therefore, we do not recognize that Judge Tsai's panel is legitimate nor can it be fair-minded in the due process of law. For this reason and the others stated above, we refuse to conduct debates in that court. Instead, we have chosen to defend former President Chen outside the court and before the people of this country. We have consistently made and now make the plea of not guilty for former President Chen. A more detailed defense and explanation follows.



Foreword

Chen shui-bian, the former president is one who has labored tirelessly for Taiwan; his presidency has certainly symbolized that the Taiwanese people can be masters of their own country. It is for that reason that the man who was once an emblem of and a spokesman for a Taiwan-centric consciousness, has in the mere span of 15 months' time, from May 20, 2008 to the present, fallen from grace. He is now a suspect charged with the ugly crime of corruption, and has been detained for almost nine months. His legacy of the democratic progress, economic development, and strengthening people's consciousness of the nation's sovereignty achieved during his eight-year presidency has suffered a blow. The charge of corruption laid on him has also been a blow to each and every Taiwanese person who had worked so hard with him.

But what is the truth of the Chen case? While the judiciary has gone out of its way to target him, and the media, bent on sensationalism, continue to distort the case, the Taiwanese people have not had a chance to fully know all that this former president had done during his eight years in office. What is behind this distorted treatment? With the verdict in the first instance scheduled to be passed down on September 11, we feel obligated to provide a comprehensive explanation of the Chen case, so that all citizens may know the truth behind this so called judicial case.

The state affairs fund is similar in nature to the special allowances fund provided for administrative heads of government. The regulations governing both are loose and resemble guidelines more than strict laws. The application and reimbursement procedures of the state affairs fund have always been conducted in accordance with established practices. No one, from former President Chen and his aides to accountants in the Accounting Department of the Office of the President, has had any intention to commit crimes or corruption or to take money for their own pockets. They simply had inherited imperfect application and reimbursement procedures, which were the established practice left by the previous governments. This imperfect procedure can and should be reformed, but no one should be selectively charged with corruption simply because he or she had followed the previous governments' practice.

President Chen had, on his own initiative, cut his monthly salary by half, which means that his annual income was reduced by NT$5 million per year resulting in a reduction of his salaries by NT$40 million over his eight-year presidency. He had also, on his own discretion, terminated the Fongtian project and the Dangyang project, two secret National Security Bureau funds totaling NT$3.6 billion that used to be called "the President's private money." Moreover, he had donated all of his presidential election subsidies of more than NT$340 million. How then could such a president have any motive for embezzling a paltry NT$104 million from the state affairs fund? Further, in that fund, Chen has listed all fund expenses to prove that the total amount of expenditures from that fund had far exceeded the original amount allotted to it. For that reason, the accusation in the bill of indictment that "[Chen] had raised funds from other sources to pay for the expenses he listed, but he still put the state affairs fund into his private pocket" is more than absurd!

The Longtan Science Park land deal was part of the "Two Trillion, Twin Star" plan. This plan highlighted the Chen government's flagship economic achievement which had focused on the semiconductor and flat panel display industries. The only role that Chen had played in this was his intent "to retain industries in Taiwan and to work hard for the economy." If he had profited any, it would be in the development of Taiwan's high technology industries, for this sector had benefited most from the economic plan. But the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) had gone so far as to use the testimony of Jeffery Koo Jr., a man who profited by the sale of a plot of land in Longtan, to distort this case into one of corruption. Koo, a man still on the wanted list, had returned to Taiwan to be a witness to this case under the questionable terms of benefit exchange with prosecutors on the panel. Till today the SIP still cannot find and list any specific amounts of the so-called "bribes" or "brokerage fees" in this case. How much profit did Koo himself make from this land deal? Having been unable to clarify these points, the panel has been bent on implicating Chen, who had never known that there were other so-called transactions regarding this land deal being carried out behind the scenes of the Longtan development project. Has the SIP really cared about the truth? Or does the panel think that it has "completed its mission" once it has "incriminated former President Chen?"

The large amounts of the deposits in Chen's family members' overseas accounts have certainly shocked Taiwan's society. Members of the public have been astonished at the savings equivalent to millions of NT dollars in these accounts. Such numbers are rather incongruous with the common impression of Chen's simple and frugal lifestyle. While these numbers are large, one has to remember that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has neither party assets nor party-run enterprises, and so all DPP politicians must rely almost entirely on political donations to have sufficient financial strength to run elections. As the President and/or the DPP chairman, Chen had been one major subject to whom political donations were contributed. With expenses in one presidential election reaching as high as billions of NT dollars, therefore, it is not unimaginable that there can be unused campaign funds or political donations from one such election reaching as high as hundreds of millions of NT dollars. These funds or donations should not and cannot be viewed as illegal gains simply because of their huge numbers.

Nevertheless, the Taiwanese people cannot put behind them the obvious fact that Chen's family members had remitted huge amounts of money abroad. Thus, the former president has repeatedly apologized in public for failing to govern his family members' behavior and has said that they are willing to transfer all the deposits back to Taiwan for appropriate donations. To remit such large amounts abroad does breach the public trust, but the mere transference of such overseas deposits does not constitute "corrupt gains." The reality is that political donations to all parties are a secret that all Taiwanese politicians have kept and are unwilling to disclose. Such donations are also a reality in party politics in any country as capitalism develops.

A related but different shocking reality, which may help Taiwanese and media gain perspective is to realize how Chen's and the DPP's figures pale in comparison to the totally disproportionate size and power of assets possessed by the KMT versus Taiwan's other political parties. In answer to a voluntary questionnaire put out in 2007 by the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) the KMT admitted to assets of US$769.7 million, the DPP had US$7.68 million, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) had US$440 thousands and the People's First Party claimed a debt of US$4 million. In essence the political playing field in Taiwan is not level to the extent that the KMT had 100 times greater assets than the DPP and all other parties. One can only guess how this translates into political donations.

It would be truly beneficial in the development of Taiwan's democracy that the country should make comprehensive and pragmatic regulations on the management of political donations. It is time for all politicians to not cover up the fact that these contributions do exist. What has been worse however is the double standard that the judiciary has used in handling this problem. While looking idly at the KMT's possession of ill-gotten party assets worth tens of billions of NT dollars, as well as the consistent pocketing of political donations in all political parties, it has detained former President Chen on the same grounds. The KMT has always enjoyed the advantages of an unlevel playing field in assets and political donations in Taiwan politics.

Chen's case is not a legal but a political one. The judiciary has been on a political witch-hunt in the name of prosecuting corruption. It has used a double standard and selective prosecution to pursue a man whose main fault is that he represents the Taiwanese identity to the world. Truth is not being pursued in this case; nor is sincere political reform. Taiwan deserves better.

Technorati : , ,
Del.icio.us : , ,

| | コメント (0) | トラックバック (0)

全世界最帶種的馬英九耶!

今天上午中央社以「頭條新聞」處理了美國雜誌 Mental_Floss 對馬英九的報導:

(中央社記者李佳霏台北6日電)發行全美雜誌「mental_floss」最新一期報導,將總統馬英九列為全球五大最具膽識領袖;台灣面對全球金融海嘯衝擊,因馬總統的機智及改善兩岸關係,使經濟前景變好。

與馬總統並列為五大全球最具膽識領袖的還有德國總理梅克爾(Angela Merkel)、烏干達總統穆塞維尼(Yoweri Museveni)、巴西總統魯拉(Luis InacioLula da Silva)與智利總統巴舍萊(MichelleBachelet)。

不過,看看雜誌封面那行說明是怎麼寫的:THEY'RE BREAKING THE RULES (他們打破遊戲規則),引文寫得更清楚,這篇封面故事談的是五個被質疑的領導人 (The story of five unlikely leaders):

5gutsiest.png

別忘了馬先生可是最愛強調他「依法行政」的耶!可見 Mental_Floss 雜誌真的下過苦功研究馬先生的言行,不然怎麼可能壹週刊才剛爆料他在台北市長任內,自創「突破法規」掩飾違法事實,美國雜誌隨即就將他選為全球最帶種的領導者?更好笑的是,讓馬先生得獎的帶種政績竟然是:「舔中」 (Wooing China)?

看來馬英九真的紅到國外去了…,不對,應該說是丟臉丟到國外去了!倒是中央社表現越來越可圈可點,現在竟然可以把國外一篇挖苦嘲諷的報導,硬ㄠ成正面宣傳--記者編譯快去找長官領賞吧!

唉。

| | コメント (0) | トラックバック (0)

« 2009年8月 | トップページ | 2009年10月 »