Rule #1: The inventor of the Islamic religion is universally-recognized as the final messenger of the One True God™, and must therefore always be referred to as the Prophet Mohammed.
(That's prophet, with a capital "P"!)
Rule #2: Doubt must always be cast upon the possibility that a member of the Religion Of Peace™ can ever engage in terrorism.
A Muslim slays two policewomen by slashing them across their throats, then shooting them in the head with their own guns? He then slays a civilian man passing by with said guns, drenching the victim's own mother with her son's blood? And all the while crying, "Allahu Ackbar"?
"Perjury is the intentional act of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official court proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is intentionally or unintentionally made in court while subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements which are material to the outcome of the proceeding."
You sound very knowledgeable and erudite and…hey, did you just copy all that from Wikipedia? Because here's Wikipedia on perjury:
"Perjury is the intentional act of […] falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding. Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements […] which are material to the outcome of the proceeding."
"Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus renus).
Furthermore, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding."
"Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes […] to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding."
Hung maintains, quite wrongly, that Chen's testimony was immaterial to the conviction of Fung. Why exactly he should think so is rather a mystery, for Chen claimed to have been on the phone with Fung the entire time the rape occurred.
If Chen's claim was indeed truthful, Elmer Fung should have been exonerated. The innocence of Fung in a court of law hinged upon Chen Peng-jen's testimony, making that testimony material by definition.
As for the actual evidence used to convict Chen Peng-jen of perjury, Joe Hung is light on specifics.
On the one hand, phone records no longer exist that would corroborate Chen's testimony (leading Hung to suggest there wasn't enough evidence to convict Chen).
But on the other hand, Chen claimed he spoke with Fung while on the way to the American Institute in Taiwan to pick up a passport with a new visa.
The only problem with his story was that AIT was apparently closed that day. Oops!
But before I close this discussion of convicted perjurer Dr. Chen Peng-jen, there's one sentence in Hung's column that almost deserves some kind of award for its deceitfulness:
"No questions were asked of Professor Chen to defend himself [at his perjury trial]."
The impression that Hung clearly is trying to convey is that poor Chen Peng-jen was railroaded, and his conviction was a terrible miscarriage of justice.
When instead, what most likely happened is that the prosecutor asked Chen to take the witness stand, and Chen declined to testify in his own defense.
Whether that decision was his alone or done in accordance with the advice of his lawyer is – dare I say it? – immaterial.
Postscipt #2: A quick backgrounder on Elmer Fung. Some from memory, some from Wikipedia. (And NONE of it plagiarized, I hasten to add):
In 2003 / 2004, Fung was the vice-presidential candidate in Taiwan for a minor party advocating unification with Communist China. (His "New Party" received very little support in that election, garnering a meager 17,000 votes out of 13 million cast).
But a few months before the election, Fung's Filipino maid accused him of raping her. Fung insisted the sex was consensual, and claimed she framed him by fishing out his used condom from the toilet and depositing it in a wastebasket for the police to discover.
[About this: It should have been pretty easy to verify Fung's claim by having lab techs determine if the condom had been contaminated with toilet water.]
A very sordid he-said-she-said situation. Who to believe?
For me, that dilemma was solved when Fung fired the maid, and paid her a "bonus" of something like 6 months salary? [about $24,000 USD]. (That was all above board – no one knows how much he paid her under the table.)
Because of Taiwan's immigration laws, the unemployed maid was required to return to the Philippines. Once out of country, it'd be difficult for her to testify against Fung now. And on top of that – mirabile dictu! – the maid signed a sworn statement withdrawing her accusation. Ain't it grand what a little hush money'll do?
Nevertheless, the case was brought to trial.
Which resulted in his conviction.
Which was subsequently overturned.
A couple years later, he'd be convicted again. Only to win in a later appeal.
Anyways, I lost track, but apparently there were 7 trials held between 2005 & 2016.
Frankly, I was unaware that Taiwan's supreme court found him guilty in 2016, and sentenced him to 3 1/4 years in prison. And I also didn't hear that he only spent 85 days in prison before being released on medical parole.
But it does lead one to wonder though: will Chen Peng-jen the KMT perjurer spend more time behind bars than Elmer Fung the New Party rapist?
"In most jurisdictions, the false statement made by the individual must have been important to the case. For instance, a witness who lies about his whereabouts during the crime is committing perjury."
Multiple fines issued to Taiwanese farmer for selling cabbage in streets of the southern city of Tainan:
A 59-year-old farmer [surnamed Chen (陳)] from Tainan’s Kuantien District (官田) faces multiple fines after attempting to sell his produce on the streets of the city over several days last month.
[…]
“I come into the city like this only once or twice a year; I do not want to see all my hard work be for nothing. These fines are really a big blow to me,” Chen said.
Police said Chen was fined according to Article 82 of the Act Governing Punishments for Violations of Road Traffic Regulations (道路交通管理處罰條例), which stipulates that vending on the roadside without a permit may result in fines from NT$1,200 to NT$2,400.
Police said they would only continue to fine Chen if they received complaints from residents, adding that if any vehicle accidents occur as a result of Chen’s activities, he could face criminal charges.
Bit absurd to fine someone for selling cabbages, but one can see where the police are coming from. Surely the farmer could have rented a stall at a night market somewhere in town to avoid creating a vehicular hazard.
But if the rental fees there were too steep, one possible solution might be to rent space to small entrepreneurs like this in one of the city's "mosquito halls". (For those not familiar with the term, a "mosquito hall" in Taiwan is a government building constructed with legislative pork, which then sits idle most of the time — attracting only mosquitoes.)
It'd be win-win all the way around. The government would generate at least some revenue from under-utilized facilities, and part-time vendors would obtain low-cost floor space. Given that the February 28 Massacre and the Arab Spring were both sparked by heavy-handed police responses to poor people just trying to earn a buck, I wouldn't call this charity. It's instead an investment in maintaining social peace.
(Although on second thought, there would be ONE loser: the local politician who squandered taxpayer money in constructing a building that was never needed in the first place. Oh my god, what was I thinking! My proposal is utterly unfeasible! Politicians can't be made to lose face now, can they?)
"Why do people pretend that a political system that rolls tanks and artillery out against civilians without weapons represents a government worthy of our admiration or (is such a word possible?) affection?"
If he truly would like an answer, he could do worse than to ask his fellow China Post colleague, "Traitor Joe" Hung.
"After the conquest [of Taiwan], China would rule Taiwan as a province as Japan did from 1895 to 1945. The Japanese colonizers did improve the life of the colonized a great deal. The Chinese conquerors would outperform the Japanese."
"Perhaps, it may be much better to be conquered for Taiwan's next generation and those after them. All's well that ends well."
Accusations that the Taiwanese member of the South Korean pop group TWICE, Chou Tzu-yu (周子瑜), was a “pro-Taiwanese independence” activist has caused China’s Huawei Technologies Co (華為) to demand LG Uplus drop Chou from endorsing its Y6 chain of cellphones.
Hey, remember that "1992 Consensus" — the one which allows that there's only one China, but China & Taiwan are both free to define that One China however they wish?
You didn't really believe that fairy-tale bullshit now, did you?
If you were stupid enough to believe it, just picture poor little 16-year-old Chou Tzu-yu, who in her innocence, thought it was OK to define One China as Taiwan, and wave her country's flag.
Let us return to learn a little more about Huang An, shall we?
Huang, despite being Taiwanese by birth, began developing his career in China in the late 1990s. Huang has made a name for himself in recent years by informing the Chinese government and netizens about what he regards as pro-Taiwanese independence individuals and their activities.[emphasis added]
Bravo, Huang An. It's not everyone who can boast of possessing Taiwan's most punchable face:
(Backpfeifengesicht Huang An, hard at work naming names to Communist China's secret police. Ka-ching!)
Once Huang's treachery became known, he immediately ran under the skirts of "former" Taiwanese mob boss Chang An-le.
Because, you know: punchable face.
Meanwhile, Huang has returned to Taiwan ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday and is said to be fearing for his safety [from angry Taiwanese]. Huang has reportedly written to former Bamboo Union (竹聯幫) gang leader Chang An-le (張安樂), known as “the White Wolf,” asking for protection.
There is a story – probably apocryphal – which says that some years after sentencing Socrates to death, the citizens of Athens repented of their decision. Unable to restore life to the old man after the fact, they did the next best thing: they shunned one of his prosecutors.
This was more severe than it sounds, for it went beyond mere social disapprobation. As part of this informal punishment, they refused to have anything to do with him — not even buying or selling or engaging in the simplest of commerce.
Under these conditions, the prosecutor of Socrates was unable to procure so much as a crust of bread to sate his hunger, and is said to have starved to death within a week.
Just throwin' that out there…
UPDATE: A stunned and pallid Chou Tzu-yu bows and apologizes, lifelessly reading a scripted self-criticism straight out of the Mao Tse-tung era.
It's like watching an ISIS captive ritually denouncing his home country at gunpoint. About the only thing missing is her eyelids blinking out in Morse code:
T-H-E-Y H-A-V-E M-Y F-A-M-I-L-Y
Of course, I don't know Morse code, so maybe I missed it.
UPDATE #2: Huang An represents Chinese nationalism at its finest.
Call me crazy, but I don't think the Communist Party's brutal decision to demand this the day before Taiwan's presidential election is going to win the CCP's preferred candidate Eric Chu (KMT) any votes.
This is the "friendly" cross-Strait relations the KMT has been bragging about?
UPDATE #3: Like many other snakes, Huang An has a detachable lower jaw. In this photo, the ophidian Huang illustrates the girth of the Chinese Communist phalluses he routinely fellates.
China and many other nations of Asia hope the [United States’ next president] can shift back to the Middle East again to contain the newly formed caliphate by peaceful means rather than force of arms. [Emphasis added]
The Foreigner has always maintained that website (or Facebook page) owners have the absolute right to treat comments as leniently or as strictly as they see fit.
Now in general, I see no earthly reason why the average site owner would allow their site to be hijacked by 80,000 anti-democratic messages from the Chinese Communist Party apparatus. But in this case, Tsai's decision to leave their anti-democratic screeds online is no doubt the correct one.
After all, it reminds Taiwanese voters who their enemies are.
UPDATE (November 12 / 2015): From today's Taipei Times:
Ma said nothing in response [to Xi's contention that China's missiles were not targeted against Taiwan]. He did not point out the obvious: Taiwan is the only nation in sight in the direction and range of China’s nearly 1,600 short-range missiles along its coast across the Taiwan Strait.
If, as Xi claims, the missiles are not aimed at Taiwan, what are they aimed at? Xi cannot possibly be suggesting that the missiles are targeting bluefin tuna off the coast of Pingtung County or humpback dolphins of the coast of Changhua County, can he?
Over the past 10-15 years, other observers have noticed the similarity between Taiwan's KMT and cargo cultists — particularly as the KMT touted economic relations with China as a panacea for curing all of Taiwan's woes.
After nearly 8 years with Ma in the presidency, voters don't believe Chinese manna's going to fall from heaven anymore, so the KMT's cargo cult has morphed from the economic to the political realm.
Got a tough election coming up?
The correct response isn't to fight a tough campaign or even prepare to retrench in the face of potentially-large losses at the polls.
No, the correct response is to go crawling to Beijing for a contentless photo-op with China's Communist dictator.
'Cause remember those 500,000 people who marched last year against closer trade relations with China? Well, when they see Ma shaking hands with Xi, they're gonna have a complete change of heart and demand MOAR ONE CHINA.
Now personally, I would be inclined to vote against the KMT for pulling a stunt like this to influence the outcome of an election only 2 months away. (Recall how bitterly the KMT bitched and moaned for 4 years about "sympathy votes" after an assassination attempt prior to the presidential election of 2004. Now however, the party seems positively smug about DELIBERATELY manufacturing a "November Surprise".)
But that's just me. I very much want to see how Taiwanese voters react.
The United States tried to contain the Soviet Union in vain. [Emphasis added]
Nice tin foil hat. Really goes with the suit.
In the same paragraph, Comrade Historian also rewrites the history of Asia to better suit his Zhongnanhai-directed Communist narrative:
Uncle Sam continued to contain Mao Zedong’s China after the chairman had sent his army to fight the Korean War. The containment did not work, of course, and it took President Richard Nixon ending it to pave the way for concluding the normalization of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic in 1979. [Emphasis added]
Now, I’m no doctor of history, but I DO know multiple sources confirm that no Soviet army overran Western Europe in 1963. Nor did any Chinese Communist army step foot in Taiwan.
So whaddya know? Maybe containment DID kinda work after all, huh?
UPDATE: Perhaps credentialed (but uneducated) Comrade Historian Joe Hung confuses the strategy of Containment with that of Rollback?
Because they are two very different things, you know. Not that a PhD-holder from Georgetown University could ever understand such highly-advanced concepts…
It took U.S. President Harry S. Truman — who had written off Chiang — to neutralize the Taiwan Strait right after the Korean War broke out in 1950 to prevent Mao Zedong from “washing Taiwan with blood.” With American military and economic assistance, Chiang was able to reorganize his defeated armies into a defense force strong enough to deny Mao a takeover of Taiwan by force…
That sounds suspiciously like saying Mao Tse-tung was successfully contained to me.
