From: joy@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Chien-Chung Chen)
Subject: Re: KMT(Kuo-Ming-Tung or Nationalist)...
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:14:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.153344.3591@catfish.az05.bull.com> hhsiung@elm.Berkeley.EDU (Han Hsuing) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.005517.9787@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, joy@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Chien-Chung Chen) writes:
>|> 
>|> Interesting story. Looks like an unfair competition to me. Could you
>|> tell us whether this kind of boycott from the United Daily is lawful in
>|> Taiwan? Has the Capital Daily issued a lawsuit against the United Daily?
>|> If yes, how is the verdict? If no, why?
>|> 
>|> Conflicts and unfairness happen everyday. There should be a way to bring
>|> up justice, which should be determined by the judicial system, not by you
>|> or me.
>|> 
>|> -- Chien-Chung Chen
>
>That is not the reason of bankruptcy....

You miss my point. Actually I was questioning Mr. Iunn's claim that the
United News unfairly boycotted the Capital Daily for political purpose.
This is the first time that anybody tells me this story, and I couldn't
judge whether or not this is true. The real reason why the Capital Daily
went bankrupcy is not my point here. I just want to know for sure whether
the political boycott is a rumor spreaded by a few people promoting
Taiwan's independence or it is a real thing.
 
If Taiwan's law doesn't say this kind of unfair boycott is unlawful, then
it's Taiwan lawmaking institue's fault. If DPP (the opposing party in
Taiwan) lawmakers don't even care to propose law to prohibit such unfair
competition, then it's not KMT's sole responsibility that the less-financed
business is not protected from the unfair boycott coming from well-financed
competitors.
 
If Taiwan does have such law to prohibit such unfair competition and such
boycott did happen, then the Capital Daily should seek justice by issuing
lawsuit against the United Daily. Only the lawcourt can determine whether
the United Daily is guilty of conducting an unfair boycott on the Capital
Daily. There are thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of newstands in Taiwan.
If the United Daily did conduct the unfair boycott, it should be easy for
the Capital Daily to gather evidence. If the Capital Daily doesn't even care
to bring this issue to the court, who to blame?
 
And I see the original subject line by Mr. Iunn misleading. He cross-posted
this thread to soc.rights.human with a conclusive subject line:

     "KMT(Kuo-Ming-Tung or Nationalist), a totalitarian regime"
 
When people from Taiwan follow-up this thread, this subject line shows up
everytime. When internationals or Americans read soc.rights.human, they
may feel boring because it may be hard for other people to understand terms
like "DDP", "Capital Daily", "United Daily", "Hau", ... etc only related to
Taiwan's politics. They may just skip or skim the discussion. But this
highlighted subject line may impress on their mind that Taiwan's regime
is a totalitarian one instead of a democratic one.
 
I changed the subject line to "KMT(Kuo-Ming-Tung or Nationalist)...",
hoping it will cause less damage to our country's image.

-- Chien-Chung Chen

PS: Please don't make a line longer than 80 characters. Your message is
    truncated on my newsreader.