http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/10/30/story/0000177648

一看，真是驚訝，因為該篇讀者投書的前半段 Cross-strait competition
除第一句話外，從　”Political officers, such as ．．．”　開始，
是整篇抄自香港記者 Frank Ching 的文章的下半段．

Frank Ching 的文章曾於2002年10月22日，刊於加拿大的Globe and
Mail 第A21頁，　並且於2002年10月22日，刊於台灣的China Post.

台灣的China Post所刊文章仍在該報的網路上，請見下面連結：

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/opinion/detail.asp?id=52

加拿大的Globe and Mail 刊出的標題是 The games that China
and Taiwan still play.

為什麼Elisa Cheng Kang Wu會摘取Frank Ching這篇沒頭沒腦的文章
的後半段投書給貴報，而台北時報竟選擇刊出這個沒有意見的意見書？

台北時報在作什麼呢？這是怎麼回事？ 別把有潛力的名譽給弄糟了．

------------------
個人在這裡稍作個人主觀的”申論”：

Frank Ching 的那篇文章，將沒什麼相關的三件事硬湊在一起來談，
再硬說成「在台灣和中國持續的競爭中，台灣得兩分，中國得一分．」
更糟的是，他將蔣氏家族去以台灣為名義所作的惡事，算到台灣頭上．

這種沒有提供新知，新見或新聞的長舌婦式的巷談文稿，對台灣在
國際上的視聽傷害很大，因為，這文章假裝台灣仍和蔣氏王朝時代
一樣，還在處心積慮地要和中國競爭某種東西，仍在作幼稚的笨人
之賭比賽．看看加拿大的環球郵報（Globe and Mail）所用的標題．

香港作者Frank Ching是在西方以「中國問題專家」在賺稿費，把台灣
綁架在舊時的「中國誰為王比賽」的圖像中，對他插嘴於他完全無知
的台灣實情，賺取稿費自是有幫助．

加拿大的環球郵報（Globe and Mail）因為無知而取用此稿，傷害
台灣立場也就罷了，台灣的China Post也好事的刊了出來．

想不到對台灣立場一向很能把持的台北時報竟也取用，還是用了
一位讀者抄取（竊取？）的文章．

謝謝你如此悉心為本報找碴。由於讀者投書是開放論壇，無涉報社立場，
我只能說很遺憾，我們作業中不察，用了個「文抄公」的投書。此人會被
本報列為「拒絕往來戶」。

我發現你幾度找碴，都是針對讀者投書，而不是我們「自製」的文章，而
且以我個人做為攻擊對象，我實在沒有像你一樣的閒工夫，也不想浪費這
裡的網路資源，再解釋任何你所提出的無關公眾利益的話題，對不起！你
也被我列為拒絕往來戶。

Editorial: Apologies not enough

Taiwans Ministry of National Defense (MND) faces an egregious discipline and loyalty crisis, which is clearly demonstrated by the suspected defection of an army political officer, Lieutenant Wang Yi-hung (王宜宏), to China. The problems this case highlights are truly worrisome.

The fact that Wang is a political officer and a graduate of the Fu Hsing Kang Political Warfare School (政治作戰學校), a famous training school for such officers, makes his potential defection, or at the very least escape, particularly alarming.

The ROC military has used political officers for more than 70 years. For most of this time, these officers played a role modeled after their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. They acted as the personification or representatives of the party and the country, which were considered two sides of the same coin. They helped cultivate undying loyalty through indoctrination, promoted political ideology and monitored the speech and conduct of servicemen.

Over the past decade, as a result of Taiwans democratization, the role of political officers has begun to change, focusing more on counseling and education. While the first-ever change of ruling party seriously shook military morale, it probably created an earthquake among political officers. After all, they were trained to have an entire conceptual framework built on loyalty to the country and the party.

Ironically, these individuals, facing a crisis over national identity, continue to shoulder the all-important responsibility of shaping patriotism in the military. Wangs escape, or defection, highlights the gravity of the problems.

Other reasons that may have contributed to Wangs escape include the success of defector-turned-economist Justin Lin (林毅夫) and Wangs financial problems. If Wangs reason was the former, then he will likely be disappointed. Lins defection took place during an era when both sides of the Taiwan Strait were keen to use defectors to suit their propaganda. Irrespective of how much military intelligence a defector may have taken with him, the government to which he defected would have given him handsome rewards in the form of money, prestige and fame.

Nowadays, with so much cross-strait interaction taking place, China has ample opportunities to obtain intelligence from a wide range of sources under the table. Therefore, China isnt likely to be impressed by a defector unless the person has some valuable information to offer. Since Wang has only served in the army for three years, it is unlikely that he can offer much of what China really wants. As for poster boys, these days Beijing seems a lot more interested in using Taiwanese businessmen to serve that end.

The passing of this enthusiasm about humiliating the other side of the Strait by using defectors as role models is also seen in the Taiwanese governments less-than-enthusiastic and almost embarrassed response to Chinese dissident Tang Yuanjuns (唐元雋) defection and request for political asylum.

If Wangs decision to escape or defect was, as alleged by some Chinese-language media, the result of a personal financial problem, the military still cannot escape blame for being derelict in supervising its personnel. The militarys neglect is particularly outrageous in view of the fact that Wang was able to forge the necessary documents from the MND and then left the the country under the ministrys nose.

１．我在China Post讀了Frank Ching的文章時，很不高興，因為
　　這文章（請注意，我指的是Frank Ching的文章,我的上文和
　　本文沒有將文責推到貴報）將台灣拖到中國的爛泥戰裡，
　　使台灣在國際視聽上留下”是中國的一個特殊兒子”的印象，
　　也就是台灣人仍自視是中國的一員的印象．在看到貴報上的
　　投書時，一看就知道是文抄公，並沒有花費我的寶貴時間
　　特別要”找碴”．
２．讀者投書的刊不刊出，編輯人總有個取用標準．我上文中
　　的「個人主觀的”申論”」（我強調了是我的主觀）也說明了
　　該文不管誰是作者，我看不出「台北時報到底看上了該文的
　　哪個觀點而決定刊出？」因為該文不是在反駁台北時報的某一
　　觀點，或糾正某一事實上的錯誤，也不是在提出新的觀點．
３．我從來不是台北時報的往來戶，只是偶而零買的讀者．我是
　　關切台灣的國際形象（個人認為是對台灣很重要的事），長期
　　看到西方媒體對台灣的無知，很是鬱卒．在貴報出來後，很是
　　高興，所以對貴報有點期待．如此而已．
４．你寫說，將我列為拒絕往來戶，令人為大局傷情，but, thats OK.

１．我並沒有「幾度找碴」．除了這一次貼文，另一次是貼在朱先生
　　以「台灣太子黨」為題開的欄中提出的另一問題．總共兩次，
　　都是看到就直覺的問問題，並不是朱先生寫的「悉心為本報找碴」．

２．我另次在「台灣太子黨」欄裡提出的，並不是「針對讀者投書」，
　　而是針對台北時報的錯誤報導，以及它對因這項錯誤報導
　　所引起的讀者對當事人的誤會所作的處理方式表示不同意．

３．朱先生宣稱台北時報「己私下通知誤會的讀者」，這是不專業的
　　作法．事情涉及人身名譽．到目前為止，台北時報的讀者，除非
　　在本站看到朱先生貼文，或是少數幾個朱先生宣稱己通知的讀者
　　之外，對這項錯誤報導仍信以為真，加上該項讀者投書的刊出，
　　更加深印象．

４．結果是，大多數的台北時報讀者，仍然認定游院長和涂醒哲作了
　　「Truly Disgusting」（投書者語）的事．再者，十年二十年後
　　的人在圖書館作 Research，也可以依台北時報的報導和該投書，
　　而作出同樣的「歷史結論」．

５．事情涉及人身名譽，台北時報有糾正自己錯誤的義務．最佳的
　　方式就是在該報登出更正啟事．誤聽並不是不曾見的事．

６．個人以為，台灣派的媒體，要以公信力取勝．有了公信力，言論
　　的份量就大．比如紐約時報在某些事上是很偏頗的，但是它的
　　公信力，使它在關鍵時刻能為猶太人和以色列說話．與其有十個
　　長舌式的台灣派媒體，不如有一個深具公信力的台灣派媒體．

７．台北時報常有佳作，而且行文邏輯嚴謹，對重要的議題會保持
　　注重，大多能不因其它媒體的炒作而失去注意．相當令人期待．
　　我對該報仍然有很深的期待，希望它能成為台灣在國際上的真實聲音．