Let us write a book on 蔡守訓,An unthinkably unfair judge

I created a simple web form that would allow everybody to co-author this book. Please spare a few seconds to contribute an entry using the following form. If you do not see the submit button, please use the scroll bars.



After submitting an entry, see your contribution by clicking here.

The document will be updated frequently to reflect its current content and to make it more organized and easier to read. Please leave comments so we can continue to improve this document.

Let us co-author a book of 馬英九's atrocities

I created a simple web form that would allow all of us to co-author a book of 馬英九's atrocities against humanity. Please spare a few seconds to contribute an entry using the following form. If you do not see the submit button, please use the scroll bars.



After submitting an entry, see your contribution by clicking here.

The document will be updated frequently to reflect its current content and to make it more organized and easier to read. Please leave comments so we can continue to improve this document.

Added on 2011-08-16:
I am cleaning up my emails, and want to record the Facebook messages about Ma Ying-Jeou before I delete them:

1. 洪嘉駿 posted in 藍渣資料館 - 藍渣搜索 記錄 通報.
      
   洪嘉駿     10:22am Aug 16
   台灣被"馬您"搞成這樣，竟然還有人會支持牠，那支持馬尿的不是渣是啥?
2. 胡秀 posted in 台灣人、加油讚.
      
   胡秀     10:18am Aug 16
   6.【２０１２人民力量、歷史轉折倒數１５０天】討馬檄文三．（完）
   
   偶團改中文團名了！臉書專屬英文網址也定名囉：http://www.facebook.com/ModerateVoters
   先感謝這初期參與的３６位好朋友！台灣有機會了！年輕人跟弱勢者有希望了．．．
   
   以下兩段話給如你偶一般平凡踏實，生活中都遇得到的藍綠朋友～
   
   台灣能不能再等？
   6.【２０１２人民力量、歷史轉折倒數１５０天】討馬檄文三．（完） 偶團改中文團名了！臉書專屬英文網址也定名囉：http://www.facebook.com/ModerateVoters 先感謝這初...
   【１１０８１４中元之討馬檄文】天道酬勤、地道酬善、人道酬誠
   
   12大弊案纏身 檢調何時動作？
   
   大貪官馬英九～200年來最混蛋無恥的統治者～已經是罪嫌！只是暫時不能判刑的罪嫌！早沒有再繼續統治台灣人，接受民酯
3. 彭淑禎     2:56am Aug 16
   馬總統：任內絕不搞「支票外交」 vs 馬政府「支票外交」砸13億元挽巴拿馬邦交
   http://www.facebook.com/l/VAQAZo1a-AQBYS2PJ2m7TvN2-Y-nBFDY1E-frVRIKogA7gA/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/vs-13
4. Hua Hung     10:17pm Aug 15
   偽善的中國人【馬英九】
   2012台灣人的大浩劫？
   2012,1,14日如果讓
   馬英九當選、國民匪黨立委過半！
   妳、我將會得到如此的下場。
5. Annie Lin     11:15pm Aug 14
   好的政策,一個政見會就要說完,大家可能很容易忘,也會太枯燥,
   蔡英文願意用半年的時間,一個個慢慢說給人民聽,這叫做負責任.
   因為未來4~8年的時間內,要做的事很多.
   必須延續推動的政策也很多,
   有完善的規劃,才能有充足的執行能量.
   
   不然像馬英九用做廣告的心態--喊出633,
   還賭很大：做不到就捐出多少薪水.
   有嗎??他半毛也不捐,
   上台後一個個政見全跳票,還硬拋.
   光一支米油瓶就演全台--他是公賣局局長嗎?
   而且用國庫100萬預算去設立大家免費玩的臉書.真是敗家子.
   今年2011年7月2日還把他的臉書交給自己的競選辦公室經營管理.
   真是可笑至極.
   這任還沒做完,就把國庫當家財用,先汙來選2012年的總統???
   要他提治國政策,提不出來,就山寨蔡英文的政見.
   要這種山寨貨做什麼.要就用正版有品質保證的蔡英文牌,
   台灣製造．品質有保證
   中國製造．山寨鼻屎糊~隨倒啦!
6. 彭淑禎     8:49pm Aug 14
   馬的ECFA吹很大／中國客最愛鳳梨酥，五年飆250億？
   http://www.facebook.com/l/4AQAyIz2zAQA9sT25OEEiUQ3Tkv2-02B8kSeyPEWuaBIwAg/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ecfa-250
       馬的ECFA吹很大／中國客最愛鳳梨酥，五年飆250億？ - TaiwanYes
   taiwanyes.ning.com
   ＥＣＦＡ在去年六月底簽署並於今年元旦實施，檢視ＥＣＦＡ成效，首先，在「台灣對中國出口成長率」，今年首季 對中國出口成長僅十四％，但沒簽訂ＥＣＦＡ的去年首季成長率卻高達七十五％，足足下降六十一個百分點；
7. Von Spieler     6:22pm Aug 14
   看到媒體報導國軍「砲彈指揮部」女少校范群偵自PO豔照的事，還真是引起不少人的目光。要說女少校自戀，又如何？什麼如何帶領男性部屬的話都出籠了，反正三點不露，有犯法嗎？然而大概是媒體報導後，壓力過大，范少校都關站了，只好透過Google圖片搜尋，來捕捉幾張最常為人所點閱的或轉載的。想到日前This Man疑似露出隱私處的畫面流出，那個嘴巴說「以後怎麼帶領男性部屬啊」的KMT立委馬文君，當初有說什麼嗎？ http://www.facebook.com/l/eAQCLfzR0AQAgE73lc2mO1DPqpgiujQbMPJEszSl8Uvqlyw/drspieler.blogspot.com/2011/08/this-man.html
8. Chang Byron     10:41pm Aug 13
   惟覺老禿驢稱讚馬閹割是太陽、這些言語好像從精神病院那些瘋子講出的哮話、不值一審。
9. 彭淑禎     7:22am Aug 13
   馬臉書移轉私人違法涉貪，聖洋科技已承認幫總統專案製作和行銷臉書，為什麼總統府不敢承認呢？
   http://www.facebook.com/l/MAQCtNtx6AQCgitIQrLAFadFuwMDh7r-O89ab-3lC1rPt1Q/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/1970702:BlogPost:1851317
   馬臉書移轉私人違法涉貪，聖洋科技已承認幫總統專案製作和行銷臉書，為什麼總統府不敢承認呢？ - TaiwanYes
   taiwanyes.ning.com
   1>警調儘管去查，千萬不要再官官相護，選民都在看！===>廉政公署只處理公務員貪污事業項，又屬於行政院法務務部一點都不獨立，對於公務員及高階行政的瀆職、浪費、違法一概不處理放行。 2>馬英九不必理會
10. 彭淑禎     3:56am Aug 13
    馬英九用國務費宴請連戰檢調怎不查 VS 陳水扁國務費案更一審 根本是雙重標準政黨惡鬥的考量
    http://www.facebook.com/l/wAQC21ZPDAQCrtgFO4P8eLKmEu2OWnlt99ZMwIo8ftptX3w/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/vs-2
        馬英九用國務費宴請連戰檢調怎不查 VS 陳水扁國務費案更一審 根本是雙重準是政黨惡鬥的考量 - TaiwanYes
    taiwanyes.ning.com
    國務機要費應該是能省則省，花得愈少愈好，結果執行率卻是總統府各科室最高，根本是以花光國務機要費為樂，真的把這當成自己的私房錢來花，並痛批：「奢侈」、「有嘴講別人，無心想自己」。 馬英九平時節儉樸實，
11. 彭淑禎     2:31am Aug 13
    臺灣不大！抓貪違法單位很多個，最近馬先生又增加人馬稱〔廉政署〕，好似逼監察院王院長要搶工作做不該分顏色，王院長可知因果論？監察院無發揮功能白領薪應廢除，明顯貓纜、內捷、新生高、花博監察院輕提縱放，兩國問題臺灣憲法不侵犯中國怎有危機？臺灣不大有２３００萬活生生人命與眾生，臺灣團結不畏死！此因果大中國惹不起，媒體資訊通達時代不同！真正擋臺灣進步是中華民國貪權污吏之人，讓臺灣邊緣化聯合國外，上下其手搬運臺灣資源...
    王建煊所言不虛！ 監察院自己就是標準領9萬做2萬的詐欺犯 - TaiwanYes
    taiwanyes.ning.com
    王建烜，現在的中華民國政府，是最不要臉的的政府！一堆讀書人，知法玩法，在那利用權勢相互分贓！你當監察院院長，勸你立即下台，免得讓人感覺你與馬土匪集團一樣，共同分贓，遺臭萬年！ 王院長：您這番言論是講得
12. 周治平     11:37am Aug 10
    各位不要忘了這個政府對台灣人有多壞!
        馬總統，真的有這麼難嗎？【我們百姓要的，就只有這樣而已...】
    www.youtube.com
    曾經，我們期望他帶給我們臺灣新盛世 如今，一切都只剩他和他執政團隊滿口的謊言 親愛的兩千三百萬同胞們， 如果你曾經被他欺騙， 請你幫忙把這支影片傳出去， 讓更多人看到， 讓不會用電腦的長輩們也看到 別
13.    
    彭淑禎     4:08am Aug 9
    強徵地300公頃 地鐵促進會向馬陳情起訴21年vs紅杉軍違反集遊法判無罪 比戒嚴還誇張
    http://www.facebook.com/l/4AQBpy5FMAQAqXjwOADh_wBBSoQcCqj6WNALbW_vx7A3XoQ/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/300-21-vs
        強徵地300公頃 地鐵促進會向馬陳情起訴21年vs紅杉軍違反集遊法判無罪 比戒嚴還誇張 - TaiwanYes
    taiwanyes.ning.com
    當天馬總統在桃園縣政府參加「吳鴻麟先生紀念獎學金」頒獎典禮，促進協會動員群眾約五十人，在事先警方安排的區域喊口號，但馬總統被重重警衛隔離，快步進入會場，根本沒有跟他們互動，聽取他們心聲。這些陳情者都是
14.    
    Von Spieler     8:24pm Aug 7
    馬騜自己失言，在夜宿永久屋後表達感想，說什麼「空氣很清新，也很涼爽，像普羅旺斯、世外桃源」這話聽在瑪家鄉瑪家村頭目蔣來義，也表示用普羅旺斯形容永久屋部落，「好像扯太遠了！」既然失言，拿南法的渡假聖地來形容，想彰顯什麼？當然會被批，然而8月7日晚間馬騜就在他的非死不可粉絲專區反擊，什麼『用「普羅旺斯」形容部落的安寧與溫馨，認不認同這樣的形容是另一回事，但真的希望外界不要扭曲我替重建區民眾感到高興的原意』！筆者就不認同，不認同就叫扭曲嗎？ http://www.facebook.com/l/IAQDiRQcxAQCWbPqInw46v0lA25Fy9AglZDD0cEnFvAzX2g/drspieler.blogspot.com/2011/08/provence.html
15. 賽門風     10:55am Apr 29
    鄭鴻儀今天依證據分析陳前總統『幾大假貪污弊案』, 幾乎沒有一件罪行可成立, 看完後鼻酸、喉嚨鄭、眼框紅、淚水滴在滑鼠上~~~
16. 彭淑禎     10:29pm Apr 27
    扁案！？不是犯罪而假借司法名義進行“政治清算”鬥爭！
    http://www.facebook.com/l/06ff0dq6kqhohfoNDta6HzDDYLA/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/bian-an-bu-shi-fan-zui-er-jia
    
    馬英九用“干預司法”來判扁案，演一齣世紀大荒謬與醜陋的政治判決.
    http://www.facebook.com/l/06ff01nrTpu2a7J3SLhU9R-QdTw/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ma-ying-jiu-yong-gan-yu-si-fa
    
    看到陳水扁&馬英九財產申報的真相?!司法有公正性嗎?
    http://www.facebook.com/l/06ff0fxgRloID7HYT1Y5WE9jmCw/taiwanyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/kan-dao-chen-shui-bian-ampma
        20110426大話新聞 特偵組疑適涉嫌教唆辜仲諒做偽證.flv
    www.youtube.com
    感謝大話新聞!讓我們了解更多扁案真相! 感謝大話新聞!為扁案伸冤!
17. 彭淑禎     12:07am Apr 27
    馬英九執政以來政績一蹋胡塗，政績非常的難看，可是搞族群對立確是個中好手，這種意識形態嚴重的總統，對於台灣國內的族群和諧一點幫助也沒有，就這一次的國軍建軍史漫畫的出版而言，絕對是去台灣化的意識形態在作祟，為什麼整本漫畫都是在敘述中國的史料，難道台灣在李登輝及陳水扁的執政都不算，可是又大棒馬英九且故意美化馬在88水災對國軍督促的功勞，真的是這樣嘛！那請問88水災時馬沒有即時啟動國安機制，又拒絕外援所造成小林村近700人的死亡，請問國防部你們編一本漫畫的目的到底是什麼啊!是不是專門用來替馬英九拍馬屁啊！無恥的國防部只想替馬英九搞形象，卻不把李登輝及陳水扁當總統時，對當時的國軍建立了軍隊國家化，軍隊中立化的供獻寫出一字，這根本就是看不起台灣人嘛！難道台灣人的李登輝及陳水扁就不是總統嘛！國防部真是欺人太甚，這種意識形態的國防部部長不要也罷了.
    

軍人退出校園 連署

親愛的朋友：

檢附連署書以及相關資料，敬請參閱並加入連署。我們正在計畫相關行動，包括直接到教育部要求鄭瑞城部長不可再讓軍人進入校園。後續也可能繼續召開相關記者會。除了大學，我們要將努力的面向擴及高中職，才能一舉斷後。

所以，除了邀請你加入連署，也要拜託你共同參與相關行動，必須社會齊聲要求，才能集結力量。咱們大概無法期待畢其功於一役，要實現『軍人離開校園』的願望，得要長期持續的『抗戰』。更需要各種社會力的發揮。既然遇到這樣的社會，就…當成我們的運氣，有這樣多可以去努力、去宣傳的。

要麻煩你在回覆連署時同時讓我們知道你加入的行動。謝謝！

人本教育基金會　敬上

------------ --------- ---------

If you do not see the submit button,
please use the scroll bar on the right of the form
to scroll down to see it.

--------- --------- --------

校園不是沙場

要求軍人全面退出校園連署書

87年3月27日，大法官釋字第四五0號解釋，將大學法與施行細則明定大學應設置軍訓室並配置人員，負責規劃軍訓及護理課程之規劃與教學等強制規定，宣告為違憲。大學設置軍訓室和配置軍訓教官就失去法源依據。然而，十年了，軍訓教官仍然普遍存在於各大學之校園。

面對被宣告違憲，以及社會各界強力要求教官全面退出校園的壓力下，教育部無法再逃避軍人在校的事實，卻又迫於歷史壓力，未能即刻劃清軍人與教育的界限，採取『要校園妥協』的模式，規劃了教官遇缺不補政策，期許『自然達成軍人退出校園』。

這種讓外界質疑『教育向槍桿子低頭』的做法，大家並不滿意。這個做法還迫使納稅人必須繼續支付高額薪資給進駐在校園的軍人，然而，大家想，總是一種慢慢的進步，雖然軍人還在，總也是少了一些。然而，現在大家不再能安然了。種種跡象以及教育部的態度，讓我們疑慮『軍人將大舉回來啦』！

今年11月3日立法委員郭素春、楊瓊瓔、鄭金玲、李復興提案凍結「補助私立大學軍訓教官離退後遞補學生事務與輔導工作專業人力經費」三億四千二百萬元之50%，要求教育部調查各公私立大學院對於軍訓教官之實際需求，以作為大學軍訓教官員額規劃之参據。教育委員會審查後，同意凍結一億元。

教育部軍訓處隨即在11月6日發文公私立各大專院校，要求填報軍訓教官員額需求（附件一），並在11月24日前回復。

發文同日，並有署名教育部軍訓處第一科中校教官黃立夫者，對其在大專院校的學長姊教官散發「大學軍訓教官員額調查之補充說明」（附件二），內容略為：「遇缺不補政策已有鬆動跡象，因此本處必須統計各校所需總員額數，作為向部長爭取的籌碼，也可打破訓委會的謠言（大多數學校都不要教官….等）」、「請盡力爭取軍訓教官之最大員額，為大學軍訓教官未來的存續努力」、「寒假遷調能開多少缺，就看這個調查的結果了，拜託大家了！」

我們看到了一齣由立法委員搖旗、教育部軍訓處鼓動、各校軍訓教官配合吶喊的戲碼。但是，要為大家捍衛教育，堅守教育立場的教育部長在哪裡？態度是什麼呢？要站在哪一邊呢？是要將校園變沙場？還是堅守軍人不得進駐教育的重大原則！！

從最近的社會局勢，我們已經得寶貴教訓，所有自由、民主、進步、開放的價值，絕不能有些餘的妥協。所有帶著向政治現實、歷史壓力妥協的政策，雖然表面上看來呼應著自由民主的價值，但所有的政治現實與歷史壓力都在旁虎視眈眈，稍有空隙，便大舉入侵。需要民間堅定堅持的監督與持續的要求、發聲，才有機會擋住政策一一回頭。

軍人是軍人，教育是教育。現任教官如果意欲轉任教職，必須卸下軍人身分，不再聽從國防部指揮，也不再享有軍人福利特權，也不可因為先佔住位置了，就理所當然保留住這位置。教育部不應該擔任國防部調整人力的水庫。

軍人是軍人，教育是教育。校園是校園，沙場是沙場。學生不是敵人，軍人不應該負責管教學生。面對軍人要重回校園的情勢，我們要求：

一、 教育部長必須堅持教官全面退出校園，不得妥協

二、 立法委員必須尊重教育原則，不得威脅教育部接收軍人

三、 國防部必須自我節制，不得再送軍人進入校園

------------ --------- ---------

行政中心：人本教育基金會秘書處　聯絡人：林欣儀　秘書02-23670151* 117

Fax：02-23625015　E-mail: slin@hef.org.tw 　

I Love Taiwan

We created the Google group i_love_taiwan@googlegroups.com to unite all Taiwan-loving people.

If you would like Taiwan to be free and democratic, join the group by providing your email address below:


Subscribe to i_love_taiwan
Email:

Visit this group

We hope the group will quickly grow to reach almost all Taiwanese.

In order not to overwhelm members with too many messages, the group has a read-only default with exception made to only a few. You can leave the group any time you wish. Every message you receive contains clear instruction on how to do that and more.

We will be deeply grateful for your comments.

A recent post is included here:

Scholars Find Taiwan's Minster of Justice's Response Inadequate
Saturday November 29, by Jerome F. Keating Ph.D.
...

November 28th 2008

The Honorable Wang Ching-feng

Minister of Justice

Taipei, Taiwan

Dear Minister Wang,

In an open letter to the Taipei Times, published on November 25th 2008, you responded to our joint statement regarding the erosion of justice in Taiwan. We appreciate your acknowledgement of the sincerity of our concerns, and are grateful to receive a prompt and serious reply. Based on the information available to us, however, we remain concerned about choices made by prosecutors in applying existing legal authority and strongly believe in the need for reform. Please allow us to highlight a number of specific points:

1. The procedure of "preventive detention." This procedure is obviously intended for serious criminal cases in which the suspect is likely to flee the country. In his November 13th article in the South China Morning Post, Professor Jerome Cohen states that "it ought to be invoked rarely."

   Yet, during the past weeks, it has been used across the board, and it has been used only against present and former members of the DPP government. This casts severe doubts on the impartiality of the judicial system. We also wish to point out that the people involved were detained under deplorable circumstances, and that they were not even allowed to see relatives.

2. The open letter contains the argument that when they were detained, the present and former DPP government officials "were all informed of the charges that had been brought against them." This is simply not correct: when they were detained, they were subject to lengthy interrogations in some cases for up to 20 hours which bore the character of a "fishing expedition," and is not a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months of time to collect information: if they did have sufficient evidence of wrong-doing, they should formally have charged the persons and let them have their day in a scrupulously impartial court of law. That would be the desirable procedure under the rule of law in a democratic society.
3. The open letter also states that the persons involved had "the right and ability to communicate with their attorneys to seek legal assistance." It neglects to mention that in all cases where people were detained, the discussions with the lawyers were recorded and videotaped, while a guard took notes. This information was then immediately transmitted to the respective prosecutors. We don't need to point out that this is a grave infringement on international norms regarding the lawyer-client privilege, and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.
4. On the issue of leaks to the press, the letter states that under the Code of Criminal Procedure information on ongoing investigations can only be disclosed by spokespersons of the prosecutor's offices and that unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution. The fact of the matter is that during the past weeks, the media has been filled with information on the ongoing investigations which could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are ample others:

   Only a few hours after former Foreign Minister Mark Chen was questioned on November 3rd, the Apple Daily (a local tabloid) ran an article that "the prosecutors are thinking of charging Dr. Chen in relation to the case."

   The issue of violation of the principle of secret investigation was also raised by Shih Lin District Court Judge Hung Ing-hua, who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your Ministry in an article in the "Liberty Times" on November 17th 2008.

   We may also mention that we find it highly peculiar that no steps whatsoever have been taken against the various prosecutors who leaked information, while we just learned that your ministry is now taking steps against Mr. Cheng Wen-long, the lawyer for former President Chen Shui-bian, who presumably "leaked" information to the press. Your Ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and also sent a formal request to Taiwan Lawyer's Association and asked the association to review the case and see whether Cheng should have his license revoked.

   It is our understanding that the statements Mr. Cheng made were in relation to former President Chen's views on Taiwan's situation and its future, and an expression of love for his wife, but did not have any bearing on the case against him. We hope your Excellency realizes that if you proceed along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

5. The letter states that it is untrue that Taiwan's judicial system is susceptible to political manipulation. If this is the case, how can it be explained that in the past weeks, only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT - including in the Legislative Yuan - are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best stalled in the judicial process?

   We may also refer to expressions of concern by Prof. Jerome Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li, who expressed his deep concerns about the preventive detentions in an editorial in the "China Times" on November 9, 2008. In his editorial, Mr. Li praised the remarks made by prosecutor Chen Rui-ren, who was part of the legal team prosecuting the special fund cases, that the prosecutors' offices should "avoid the appearance of targeting only one particular political group."

   The fact that the Special Investigation Task Force was set up under the DPP Administration or that the prosecutor general was nominated by President Chen is not at issue here. The problem is that the present system is being used in a very partial fashion.

   We may add that the fact that you yourself have publicly discussed the content of the cases does create a serious imbalance in the playing field, and undermines the basic dictum that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Under the present circumstances it is hard to see how the persons involved including former President Chen Shui-bian can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

6. Lastly, you take the statement by the US State Department as an "endorsement" of Taiwan's legal system and the procedures followed. You might want to note that in international diplomatic language, the term we have every expectation means we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.

For the past two decades, Taiwan has faced a difficult situation internationally. What has given Taiwan important credibility in Western democratic countries around the world has been its democratization. We fear that the current judicial procedures being used in Taiwan endanger this democratization, and endanger the goodwill that Taiwan has developed internationally.

In conclusion: we do remain deeply disturbed by the erosion of justice in Taiwan, and express the sincere hope and expectation that your government will maintain fair and impartial judicial practices and quickly correct the present injustices. As an editorial in the November 20th issue of the London-based Economist indicated, Taiwan is hungry for justice, and we also hope that your government will be willing to initiate judicial reform which would move Taiwan towards a fully fair and impartial judicial system which earns the respect and admiration from other democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

Signatories of the November 4th Joint Statement

1. Nat Bellocchi, former Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan
2. Julian Baum, former Taiwan Bureau Chief, Far Eastern Economic Review
3. Coen Blaauw, Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington DC
4. Stéphane Corcuff, Associate Professor of Political Science, China and Taiwan Studies, University of Lyon, France *
5. Gordon G. Chang, author, "The Coming Collapse of China."
6. David Curtis Wright, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary
7. June Teufel Dreyer, Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Florida
8. Edward Friedman, Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison
9. Mark Harrison, Senior Lecturer, Head of Chinese School of Asian Languages and Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia*
10. Bruce Jacobs, Professor of Asian Languages and Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
11. Richard C. Kagan, Professor Emeritus of History, Hamline University, St. Paul Minnesota
12. Jerome F. Keating, Associate Professor, National Taipei University (Ret.). Author, "Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan's Complex History" and other works on Taiwan
13. Daniel Lynch, Associate Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
14. Victor H. Mair, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania
15. Donald Rodgers, Associate Professor of Political Science, Austin College, Texas
16. Terence Russell, Professor of Chinese Language and Literature, University of Manitoba
17. Scott Simon, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa
18. Peter Tague, Professor of Law, Georgetown University
19. John J. Tkacik Jr., Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington DC
20. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, Professor of Political Science, University of Richmond, Virginia
21. Arthur Waldron, Lauder Professor of International Relations, University of Pennsylvania
22. Gerrit van der Wees, Editor Taiwan Communiqué, Washington DC
23. Stephen Yates, President of DC Asia Advisory and former Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs