A laughable verdict
Any reader with some sense likely finds himself or herself unable to suppress the urge to laugh while perusing the transcript of Judge Tsai Shou-hsun’s (蔡守訓) verdicts on former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and his associates with respect to the charges of graft.
Its language is asinine and bombastic, its legal references to Song Dynasty imperial maxims are anachronistic and its tone is at once paltry and narcissistic. Honestly, Judge Tsai, pray enlighten us as to what an emperor of the past Chinese dynasty said in any way has got to do with the heart of the matter of the case.
We would also like to know if attending National Taiwan University merits a harsher penalty for two of the defendants.
We have been given to understand that the transcript will be translated into English and French and then given to the Swiss authorities as a legal basis to claim Chen’s frozen assets in Swiss financial institutions. We shudder to think of the giggling that the transcript may induce when the appropriate Swiss authorities read it. The chance of recovering Chen’s assets will be even less likely as a result.
Much energy and revenue have been wasted on a masterpiece of legal trash. Its legality was pronounced dead the moment President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration helped Tsai hijack the case — a miscalculated measure that many in the pan-blue camp are sorely repenting at this moment.
This has certainly deferred Ma’s goal of putting Chen through a “horrible death.” But Ma is tenacious and good at improvisation. His hangers-on and jackals will continue to provide service to help him achieve his objective. Tsai is just one of the expedients in the grand scheme of this political fiasco.
YANG CHUNHUI
Salt Lake City, Utah
Monitor Internet security
Using the Internet to buy books or getting an online membership to read articles is very common in Taiwan. A report published by Taiwan Network Information Center said the nation’s Internet penetration rate reached 68.94 percent last year. We can expect that more people went online this year.
When we use Internet for online auctions, to join airline frequent flier clubs or read articles, we have to register to become a member first. However, this simple action could lead to trouble.
The average person might sign up on one or two Web sites a month without thinking much about the Web site’s security. To sign up we usually have to provide personal details such as name, birth date, e-mail address and phone number and then provide a user ID and password settings. The Web site registration process is as simple, but this simplicity does not guarantee the information we provide is safe and will not be manipulated by malicious technicians or hackers.
Suppose I Google an interesting article and link to the URL, the Web site requires me to sign up to read the entire article. Usually, we will follow the steps the Web site requests in order to read the intriguing content. The problem is, how many sets of password and user IDs can we actually remember? I am afraid that the answer for most of us is “few.” We seldom memorize different passwords and user IDs for different uses. Many online surfers use the same password they used for their ATM cards or online bank accounts.
Once in a blue moon, I receive e-mails from high school buddies or cyberpals. Suddenly it seems that they have become perverts, sending me lots of pornography links or they change their career to be a pimp by inviting me to visit their business. These poor friends, they still have no idea what’s going on. They have become victims of Internet fraud. Then there are the hackers who use your best friend’s e-mail account to ask you to transfer a couple thousand dollars to help with some emergency.
If we remain unaware or ignore how serious Internet crime is, we might become the next target for those scammers. The best way to prevent this is to update our password every 72 days and separate two sets of password for use on insignificant and important Web sites respectively.
The police should also do more to prevent Internet crime. Legislators should pass laws to catch up with the fast-changing online world. If Internet users take precautions and with help from our government, I believe that we can have a safer Web environment in the near future.
JACK HUANG
Lugang, Changhua County
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS