_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Chen defense from NeoFormosa Mag
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What I find really interesting is the sexism of the prosecution. They seem to be (illegally) applying traditional Han gender roles in order to prosecute Chen, which runs contrary to the articles of gender equality in the ROC Constitution.
Wait!
I know that sounds completely mad, but if you consider how the KMT incorporated the Han concepts of gender into the ROC state we can see that Chen is being prosecuted for the crimes committed by his family members, and therefore, in Han culture, as the patriarch of his family based on his ability to amass power and influence (and not merely by age grade) Chen is being held responsible for their transgressions. In the eyes of a Confucio-Han centrist, Chen, as the "master of his wife and children" is responsible for their behavior as he did not fulfill his traditional role to "teach/tutor" them properly. It is a case where 19th Century mores are being selectively applied to a modern system form the selectively high horse of Han chauvinism. On a lesser degree we often see this type of behavior in civil cases, the education system, and yes, whenever some underling F-s up and the superior takes the fall ... like the semi-annual sacking of the Premier.
It's 10,000 words long! At the end it appears to have been cut off in mid-sentence too.
I found it a weak defense. Very little in the way of facts, or well reasoned arguments. A lot of "of course that's absurb" and "how could he do B if A" when A is not established. For example, how could Chen have embezzled state funds when he spent more than the state funds allowed? That is a good argument but it would be better if there was some proof provided, even in a quote, to back up the claim that he spend more. In this age of the ol' web, a few links would have helped. Sloppy work, really, despite the length. Sounds more like a paid advertisement than a serious defense.
Robert, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutors. I think the criticisms you make may reflect the fact that the case the prosecutors made was weak and lacking solid evidence.
Post a Comment