Easy to see why Taiwan's China Post has discontinued its print version and gone all digital. After all, why pay good money for a newspaper when so much of it is lifted verbatim from Wikipedia?
As a case in point, here's Joe Hung explaining perjury in his latest editorial:
"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."
More "original" material from Joe Hung:
"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."
Awesome how promiscuously Georgetown University gives away PhDs in history to those who have mastered the scholarly skill of cutting-and-pasting other people's work without attribution.
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?
UPDATE (May 13, 2017): More on Chen Peng-jen's perjury:
"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."
Comments