2008年12月19日 星期五

特偵組別鬧了 周占春法官很棒


這個樂團最近發行過「馬臉水手的夏天」,上週才剛在淡水有表演,今日(週五)晚上會在竹圍捷運站前的全聯社廣場演出。

今天(週五)晚上六點在竹圍捷運站前的全聯社廣場有個聖誕節表演,包括兒童劇團、live搖滾樂團、聖誕詩班演唱,還蠻精彩的。

另外,有一位今年的美國華裔小姐冠軍也會在此登台表演才藝(也是古典妹出身)。

若您就住附近,歡迎前來觀賞。

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

原本以為今日周占春法官應該會撐不住壓力,翻案羈押陳水扁的,沒想到剛看到報導原來還是維持原裁定。

果然有肩膀。

前文提到,馬英九的哈佛老師 jerome cohen教授前兩天在台,針對羈押問題,他其實有說了這麼一段蠻有意思的話:

“For two-and-a-half years they have been investigating Chen. This is not something they just heard about. Now [the prosecutors] tell the court they need to lock him up to prevent him from talking to other people. But he has been talking to other people for two-and-a-half years,” Cohen said. “Without knowing more, the face of it raises real questions,” he said. (出處:taipei times /12/18/2008)


「扁案已經調查了兩年半,又不是剛發生的事情,現在檢察官才向法官說必須把他押起來,以避免他串證或影響他人;但他已經影響2年半了啊,光從這點來看,現在要求羈押實在很有問題。」


今日還有一位法官投書聯合報也提到羈押不正常的問題:

「因為司法程序令人不耐,所以社會必然充斥著要求羈押被告的報復聲浪。既然正義永遠遲來,那就只有透過羈押被告的「假執行」,才能滿足些許社會正義的要求...(但)社會對於羈押的重視,遠甚於審判的內容,從法治觀點來看,絕對不是正常現象。」

(出處:聯合報論壇/不自為裁定 高院少發夢遊囈語/張升星-台中地院法官(台中市))

特偵組,你們的作為正是台灣檢調司法還有待改善的源頭。前一文提到的代表台灣執政黨的國民黨立委謝國樑等人需要去美國消毒/卑躬屈膝向老美解釋為何需要上手銬、為何得羈押?為何沒熱水等。這不正是你們熱衷「押人取供」心態所惹出來的問題嗎?唉

2008年12月17日 星期三

來看洋狀到底是怎麼告法

馬英九在哈佛的老師孔傑榮(Jerome Cohen)這兩天在台灣,持續談到羈押、陳雲林在台期間發生的警察暴力,還有組成中立組織來改革這些人權問題等。

原先我還不知道Cohen這篇文章威力這麼大,但看了12/8日在美國傳統基金會舉行的「KMT告洋狀」說明會後,才發現這些事件都蠻連貫的。Cohen的主張在這裡面也有被提出。

這次前往美國反制「告洋狀」的KMT小組是由國民黨立委謝國樑,協同警政署跟司法部代表出席。傳統基金會還有作現場錄影,也有MP3可下載,有興趣的可前往一瞧。

在介紹中,Stephen Yates 說明謝國樑是在美國南加大受教育,算是美國教育出來的人;另一個法務部代表Jeng-Shyang Chin(若知中文名請告知)也是。

這次馬英九會派出這個團,據了解是美國方面最近批評馬政府實在太兇了,搞得政府只好派人來消毒。但蠻有趣的是,裡面就謝國樑表現比較出色,另一個司法部代表由於語言稍有障礙,實在講得很差,簡報也很差;不知道幹嘛派他出來。

比如Yates問到羈押(Yates使用preventive detention )問題時,謝國樑就丟給法務部代表Chin來回答;這位Chin先生急得一直用中文跟謝國樑說,羈押不是「preventive detention」啊...

謝國樑也不幫他講,就叫他自己跟美國人解釋。真有趣!

警政署代表John L. Chu(若知中文名也請告知)也很搞笑,放了一堆照片來強調警察被暴民打、警察受傷等。結果被聽眾打槍說他的呈現實在太偏頗了,因為一般外電媒體也報了很多民眾受傷的照片啊,怎麼不見你拿出來說呢?

然後這位Chu先生又不斷強調警察受傷150人,民眾只有30人受傷。現場聽眾則提問打槍說,外電不是報導民眾有300人受傷?這位Chu先生竟回答,我不管民眾有幾個受傷啦,重點是警察有這麼多人受傷啊。

謝國樑算是消毒團裡做得比較成功的,至少我這麼覺得,他十分「謙遜」,不斷說「若有各位有指教,我一定帶回去好好研究」之類的場面話。但在談到警察暴力時,他又十分捍衛這次國民黨的作法,他提到他先前住在洛杉磯,十分清楚什麼叫「警察暴力」(是啊,rodney king嘛),言下之意台灣的警察真的太客氣了。

不過在談到羈押問題時,還是頗有針鋒相對之處,比如謝國樑在解釋時提到,馬英九跟呂秀蓮當初因特別費被告時,由於證據已經很充分,所以就很快起訴,不需羈押;但陳水扁因為證據不夠充分,還需要調查,所以得先關起來。

此話一出大概全場大驚吧!這不就落實「押人取供」之說嗎?後來果然有人再次提問此問題,謝國樑又是一番澄清。他意思就是說反正陳水扁有一堆違法問題,等到被起訴後,你們就知道此人真的被押活該的意思。

但美方則強調應該要「presumption of innocence」(無罪推論),還有「ends don't justify means」(不能用結果論來合法化你的過程)的概念。

諷斥的是,謝國樑講了一堆DPP壞話,唯一的稱讚的好話卻是送給陳水扁。他說陳水扁最大的貢獻是讓外界注意到看守所的環境的確「太不人道」。他們回去會好好檢討改進。


Update: 2008/12/19

感謝讀者杰夫邱告知:CHIN,是覃正祥,法務部參事;CHU,則是曲來足。

2008年12月14日 星期日

2008 淡水藝術嘉年華(與精靈幻舞舞團)



淡水老街在週六有一場踩街活動,原先以為是一場無聊的活動,但實際在週六有暖洋的下午,跟著踩街表演者在老街走了一回,卻覺十分有趣,許多學校跟社團都有參加。原來淡水還有不少有意思的團體啊。

比如這個精靈幻舞舞團,從一開始在排隊時,我就看到有人一直在扭動了,後來來到老街,又看到他們一直跳啊跳,只能說十分high。


看來都有精心打扮過的。



全團人人都快樂得不得了。




老師很敬業,一條街,她會面對三個方向各跳一次,好讓站在各個角落的人都可看得很清楚。



街頭人山人海,還挺有樂趣的!



這個精靈幻舞舞團的厲害之處是主要舞者跳舞時都面帶笑容,感覺是很開心來這裡玩的。



連小朋友也跳得很開心的樣子,頗搞笑。



注意看後面的溫度顯示22度,還算是氣候宜人的天氣。


其他:


殭屍臉嗎?



難得這年頭還有這種肚皮舞。



這位是鄧公國小的自由女神



一開始看到這位「才剛發育」的國小女生,打扮妖嬌地站在花車上跟大家揮手時還真嚇了一跳,但仔細一瞧才知道是男生啦。


不用指,我在拍你啦。

2008年12月9日 星期二

Virgin Killer:使用兒童情色照片的界線

維基百科因為有一條70年代Virgin Killer唱片封面藝術詞條,由於涉及兒童情色而被英國網路擋掉,不過由於技術問題,後來變成整個維基百科都被擋。

這是新聞沒錯。

但刻意把這個兒童情色照片再拿出來當做新聞使用,我覺得這已經是媒體道德太過墮落的表現。

國內有好幾家媒體也報導這則,但目前唯獨我看到 ITHome的這則新聞公然把這張照片放出來(雖然有加了一點馬賽克)。

ITHome在報導中引用兒童情色照,很不好。

你或許認為,媒體基於報導職責,當然可採用啊,更何況維基百科不是也公然擺著嗎?言論自由ㄟ,幹嘛我不能報?

但我覺得這是兩碼子事。維基百科不查誰知道?但媒體報導有擴散效應,今天新聞重點是維基百科因技術問題而被英國網路業者整個擋掉了,而不是要讀者去重新回味這張兒童情色照片,你幹嘛沒事把這張照片擺出來?衝流量?衝人氣?你的商業道德未免太廉價吧?

若我們利用Google News來看Virgin Killer這則報導,幾乎所有國外英、美知名媒體在陳述此事都沒使用這張照片,即使唯一有一家使用,也是經過黑白處理、並經過色彩調整,你幾乎已經看不出情色意味。

Google News看到的國外媒體大部分都沒看到有使用這張照片。

換言之,連國外媒體都曉得自我節制一下,國內目前我還沒看到有大眾媒體刻意引用,唯獨ITHome就這麼大辣辣放了一張稍微馬賽克處理、但還是很色的兒童情色照。

我認為ITHome對這則新聞的照片處理模式,有見獵心喜、利用兒童情色畫面來吸引人氣之嫌。

快撤吧!賺這種流量很噁心!

2008年12月8日 星期一

[糗大]白樂崎教馬英九(還有一堆國內媒體)正確解讀英文

如果到現在還說「美國『期望』台灣公正、公平、公開的處理扁案」云云,恐怕若不是硬拗,就是對英文一知半解。因為美國政府的立場已是斬釘截鐵的「相信台灣的司法體系」。

(Source: 中時駐美華府特派記者/ 劉屏 2008, 11/24)


我並不樂見馬英九先生被美國政要如此公然「糾正」他對美國務院發言的英文解讀有誤。

但或許馬英九先生不是不知道,只是他故意要誤導國內不知情的民眾,讓大家以為這次羈押陳水扁一事是有司法正當性的??

我從雲程的雙魚鏡看到Taipei Times有刊出前AIT高官白樂崎(Nat Bellocchi)等美國政治學者/官員再次投書,指出台灣司法已經政治化的傾向。

原文裡面其實有一段十分有趣,特別提出來一談。

記得前陣子國內媒體不是在吵究竟美國政府是否支持台灣司法把陳水扁羈押起來?你還記得中時駐美特派記者劉屏在美國發出的稿子怎麼寫的嗎?

陳水扁涉入貪瀆等疑案被收押後,美國在台協會台北辦事處長楊甦棣說,美國認為這件案子「需要」透明、公平、公正。可是幾天之後,美國國務院發言人麥考馬克的態度完全不同,他說,美國「相信」台灣的司法體系透明、公平、公正。

原文:美國到底怎麼看扁案?/ by 劉屏(全文)

當初,國內許多媒體不是都寫說美國國務院發言人麥考馬克打了楊甦棣一巴掌?馬英九政府也認為這是美國對台灣司法有信心的「一大背書」?

上述提到的中時駐美記者劉屏還特地撰寫文章,教導國內民眾好好認識英文「we have every expectation」這句的用法。

啊,駐美特派記者,那對英文的掌握與理解應該是十分強的勒?

結果呢?當初這些為馬英九「漂白」的媒體,還有馬英九本人,都被白樂崎打了一巴掌。他在這篇公開的投書中還特別把此事拿來說明一番:

Lastly, a statement by the US State Department is interpreted in your letter as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. It should be noted that in international diplomatic language, the term “we have every expectation” means “we are concerned and we will watch the situation closely.”
在國際外交辭令中,「we have every expectation」這句話的用法意思是:「我們很關心/憂慮這件事,未來我們會持續密切注意後續發展」

顯然美國國務院發言人麥考馬克非但沒有打了楊甦棣一巴掌,相反地,他只不過再次向馬英九政府暗示:陳水扁羈押一事已經十分政治化,我們正等著看你們的司法如何公平地審理?

老美沒想到的是,馬英九跟一票國內愛拍馬屁的媒體竟然可以把黑的說成白的,胡亂把英語解釋一通來「呼弄」國內民眾,實在有夠厲害啊。

白樂崎這篇投書十分有意思、超級精彩、有許多暗示在裡面,有興趣的可仔細看一下全文;若我看的沒錯的話,我們可正式認定,陳水扁羈押一案,在國內被視為是司法打擊權貴犯罪的經典,但在國際,已經被看成是透過司法搞政治鬥爭的開始。

靜待後續發展吧!

還有,從此我必須對中時駐美華府特派記者劉屏打上一個大問號,你的專業已經不被信任了。


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

(由於是公開信,我全文引用如下,做為未來對照案情發展)

Dear Minister Wang [王清峰],

In an open letter to the Taipei Times published on Nov. 25, 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 Nov. 13 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 Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] governments. 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. Your 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 subjected to lengthy interrogations — in some cases for up to 20 hours — which bore the character of a “fishing expedition,” and do not represent a formal indictment in any legal sense. In most cases the prosecutors had had months to collect information; if they did have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, they should have formally 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. Your 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, however, 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 lawyer-client privilege and makes mounting an adequate defense problematic at best.

4. On the issue of leaks to the press, your letter states that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, information from 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 have been filled with information on the ongoing investigations that could only have come from the prosecutors. We may point out one example, but there are numerous others:

Only a few hours after former minister of foreign affairs Mark Chen [陳唐山] was questioned on Nov. 3, Taiwan’s Apple Daily newspaper ran an article saying 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 Shilin District Court Judge Hung Ying-hua [洪英花], who strongly criticized the present situation and procedures followed by your ministry in a Liberty Times article on Nov. 17.

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 the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps against Mr Cheng Wen-long [鄭文龍], the lawyer for former president Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁], who supposedly “leaked” information to the press. The ministry sent a formal request to the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office asking the office to investigate and prosecute, and sent a formal request to the Taiwan Lawyers Association that 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 you realize that if the ministry proceeds along these lines, this will be perceived as a direct confirmation of the strong political bias of the judicial system.

5. Your 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 are stalled in the judicial process?

We may also refer to expressions of concern by Professor Cohen and by lawyer Nigel Li [李念祖], who expressed his deep concerns about preventive detentions in the China Times’ editorial for Nov. 9. In the editorial, Mr Li praised remarks made by prosecutor Eric Chen [陳瑞仁], 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 former 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 — can have a fair trial in Taiwan.

6. Lastly, a statement by the US State Department is interpreted in your letter as an “endorsement” of Taiwan’s legal system and the procedures followed. It should be noted 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 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 Nov. 20 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 that would move Taiwan toward a fully fair and impartial judicial system that earns the respect and admiration of democratic countries around the world.

Respectfully yours,

(in alphabetical order)

Nat Bellocchi

Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman

Coen Blaauw

Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Washington

Gordon G. Chang

Author, “The Coming

Collapse of China”

Assoc. Prof. Stéphane Corcuff

University of Lyon

Prof. June Teufel Dreyer

University of Miami

Prof. Edward Friedman

University of Wisconsin

Dr. Mark Harrison

University of Tasmania

Prof. Bruce Jacobs

Monash University

Richard C. Kagan

Professor Emeritus,

Hamline University

Jerome Keating

Author and former

associate professor,

National Taipei University

Assoc. Prof. Daniel Lynch

University of Southern California

Prof. Victor H. Mair

University of Pennsylvania

Assoc. Prof. Donald Rodgers

Austin College, Texas

Prof. Terence Russell

University of Manitoba

Prof. Scott Simon

University of Ottawa

Michael Stainton

York Center for Asia Research, Toronto

Prof. Peter Tague

Georgetown University

John J. Tkacik Jr

Senior Research Fellow,

The Heritage Foundation

Prof. Arthur Waldron

University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Vincent Wei-cheng Wang

University of Richmond

Gerrit van der Wees

Editor, “Taiwan Communiqué”

Assoc. Prof. David Curtis Wright

University of Calgary

Stephen Yates

President of DC Asia Advisory and former deputy assistant to the vice president for national security affairs

2008年12月6日 星期六

卓文萱跟張震嶽在淡水演唱



淡水昨晚變得很冷,也因此經過淡水捷運站前看到有人在開唱,就走過去湊一下熱鬧。

雖然我常看壹週刊,但這位叫Genie(卓文萱)的新人我似乎不太認識,只有張震嶽我還認得。

張震嶽唱完就說,明後兩天的Simple Life歡迎大家去現場看他。(還好我不是粉絲,他下台後,另一邊傳來粉絲超大的叫聲)。

但Simple Life前年第一次開演時,我曾去看過。雖說是Simple Life,但實際並不「簡單」,我記得當時售票是600元,裡面有許多小舞台演唱會,很多地方都擠滿了人,若是知名當紅的歌手,你可能連門口都擠不進去。由於人多擁擠混亂,你不太容易好好欣賞表演,我並沒在其中感受到任何simple life的快感。

反倒是這種捷運站前的演唱會,我覺得還不錯,人不會太多,你可站得很近,也可站得很遠,台上歌手紅不紅也沒什麼關係,重點是有人做了表演,你隨意經過,駐足看了一會,也就心滿意足了,這樣還比較有simple life的感覺。


一開始卓文萱包得很緊,但後來會不斷脫掉製造效果。。

2008年12月5日 星期五

[2008資訊展] 竟然給我看到傳說中的那個...

記得上個月在Funp有網友 °∴?° PRincEss'S BLOg °?∴°寫了一篇:「死變態 下地獄吧你」,裡面提到去年她在資訊月被色狼偷摸的事情,她還公布了後來在捷運上拍到的照片。

原本想說看過就算了,我也不會記得那位仁兄的長相。

沒想到昨天去2008資訊月會場上亂逛時,竟然看到這位「疑似」專門伸鹹豬手的男士。

我遠遠看到這位仁兄就覺得十分詭異,尤其看台上show girls的模樣,好像要把女生給吃了一樣。

我就趁機拍了幾張,各位女生們自己注意一下吧。






2008年12月4日 星期四

為何馬英九不敢見達賴喇嘛?

France has repeatedly shown itself to be the weak link in Europe by knuckling under to pressure when other nations push China back.

(全文:Time)


達賴喇嘛只因為前往歐洲訪問,結果上週中國氣到宣布不出席本週二中國與歐盟的經濟高峰會;法國總統Sarkozy本週末要在波蘭會見達賴喇嘛,中國也事前加以嚴重警告,小心兩國經貿會出問題。

但歐洲領袖有因為中共這些蠻橫的舉動而退縮?不敢見達賴喇嘛嗎?

答案是沒有。

在這種節骨眼上,馬英九先生突然對著外國媒體直接說:「台灣不歡迎達賴喇嘛來訪,時機不對啦」你可想見在外國媒體一片報導達賴訪歐的議題中,突然迸出台灣馬總統不歡迎達賴的話題是有多麼突兀嗎?是不是給人一種超沒骨頭的印象呢?

今天Time雜誌有一篇評論很不錯,或許馬先生可以仔細研讀一下,歐洲那麼多領袖都在這次會見了達賴喇嘛,為何中國單單挑出法國總統Sarkozy加以痛批?

Why China Keeps Picking on Sarkozy (為何中國單單選中Sarkozy?)

答案很簡單,Sarkozy也是個軟骨頭的人,常禁不起中國壓力而退縮,根據以往經驗,整個歐洲裡,法國(領袖)最容易為了保護經貿利益而在人權議題上讓步。

比如今年三月發生中共鎮壓西藏,當時許多領袖都宣布不出席即將到來的2008北京奧運,包括法國的Sarkozy也這麼說了。

但事實上,到了八月開幕時,Sarkozy還是出席開幕式。但英國(首相Gordon Brown)與德國(總理Angela Merkel )領袖卻挺住,照樣抵制。

Time這篇文章提到,中共基本上也是欺善怕惡,它知道所有歐洲國家裡,就是法國最軟懦,因此對這個國家「嗆聲」最有效果;不然整個歐洲,不少領袖都會與達賴喇嘛見面,中國從沒點名開罵;前述德國總理與英國首相在八月也碰過達賴喇嘛,中國根本沒講話。

馬英九為了加速與中共的關係,連代表「人權」象徵的西藏精神領袖達賴喇嘛都不敢會見,這比起法國的Sarkozy更是怯懦百倍,看在中國眼裡,未來只會被吃得死死的吧?(這次馬總統又再次強調他絕不當trouble maker。唉,你會不會太乖了呢?)

誰來送馬英九一些維骨力呢?我們真的需要一位「蹲下去、爬得起來」的領袖啊。

黑鬚馬偕

原本還蠻想去看這部戲,可惜沒能成行。

馬偕是加拿大人,在淡水有許多遺跡,包括馬偕醫院、100年前的行醫館、當年的住所,還有原本要買來當果園,但種不起來,後來捐出去當淡江高中的那塊地、以及全台第一所女校,現在的真理大學。(以上都是先前看書的印象,若有錯請指正)

甚至我是到最近才知道原來馬偕一家族的墳墓都是在淡水鎮裡面,就位於淡江高中橄欖球場後方那裡。


馬偕葬在淡水鎮裡的墳墓。

也因此我對馬偕實在很好奇。不過今天在英國金融時報看到一篇介紹這部戲(或許是馬偕是老外,加上全劇是英文跟台語發音,比較能吸引老外來觀賞)的講評,有興趣的可看一下。

Mackay – The Black-Bearded Bible Man, National Theatre, Taipei (全文




走出墓園就是後來周杰倫拍電影取景的高中母校,許多人現在都會跑去拍婚紗。



------

Update
作者對於該劇的評價是音樂性很好,劇情很差。


Musically, Chin knows his way around an orchestra. He also has a vocal fluidity in both English and Taiwanese. But as a piece of musical drama, Mackay suffers from the problems typical of most first operas. Scenes often end arbitrarily as if, to borrow the show’s medical theme, parts had been surgically extracted and the patient not so subtly sutured.

(以音樂性而言,金希文[這齣歌劇的共同作曲家]對於管弦樂的掌握很好,英語與台語的演唱流暢度也頗佳;但就一齣音樂劇而言,馬偕有著一般首度公演歌劇的常見問題:劇情十分不連貫,若借用劇中行醫的主題來比喻,那相當於醫生醫術精湛地為病人開刀取出內臟,但術後縫合卻做得亂七八糟。)

.......

(結尾最後一段總評)

What’s largely missing in Mackay is the drama, inverting the narrator’s adage “show, don’t tell”. One can only have characters on stage extolling the glories of God, the virtues of Mackay and the natural beauty of Taiwan for so long before someone has to do something.

(馬偕全劇嚴重缺乏劇情,跟一般編劇鐵律「show, don't tell」的概念背道而馳(亦即:故事是要演出來,而不是唸出來)。人物在台上讚美上帝、講述馬偕操守、誇耀台灣天然美景都只能算一部份表現,其他不足部分還是想辦法彌補才好。)