In February 2004, Rose, a Filipina maid, accused Elmer Fung Hu-hsiang 馮滬祥, former Republic of China legislator and vice-presidential candidate, of raping her in November 2003.
For those unfamiliar with Taiwan’s political scene, Fung Hu-hsiang enjoys the distinction of being the political figure most hated by the Taiwan independence movement. He is the hardest of hardcore opponents of Taiwanese separatism. He is the Deep Blue standard bearer responsible for the Pan Green camp’s “native son” Chen Shui-bian serving an eight month prison term for libel when Chen was a legislator.
On July 8, 2005, an old college buddy of Chen Shui-bian, who also happened to be the presiding judge in Fung’s trial, found Fung guilty of rape and sentenced him to four years in prison.
In any civilized nation, Fung would never have been found guilty. In any civilized nation, Fung’s case would never have gone to trial. In any civilized nation, Fung would never have been indicted. In any civilized nation, Fung would never even have been arrested.
That’s how flimsy the prosecution’s case against Fung was. One hesitates to even dignify it with the term “case.” The prosecution had no case. It had no witnesses. It had no evidence. What witnesses the prosecution had, cleared, not convicted Fung. What evidence the prosecution had, cleared, not convicted Fund. All the prosecution had was an accuser. And now that the plaintiff has recanted her false accusation, they don’t even have an accuser!
The reason Fung was arrested, the reason Fung was indicted, the reason Fung’s case went to trial, the reason Fung was found guilty, is that the ROC under Pan Green fascism is not a civilized nation. It is a bush league version of Nazi Germany.
Fung Hu-hsiang was subjected to a witch trial and burned at the stake because Chen Shui-bian, presidential usurper, pretender to the throne, was determined to take advantage of the power he wielded, while he wielded it, to settle an old score with a hated political enemy.
The Taiwan independence movement has long boasted that their “Republic of Taiwan,” appropriately abbreviated ROT, as in “corruption,” or their “Nation of Taiwan,” ironically abbreviated NOT, as in “Not!”, will constitute a shining example of a “nation founded on human rights.”
Welcome to the Taiwan independence movement’s “nation founded on human rights.”
The Anwar Ibrahim of Taiwan
Ten Reasons why Fung Hu-hsiang is Innocent
1. The plaintiff herself has publicly confessed that the charge of rape she filed against Professor Fung Hu-hsiang while in Taiwan, was utterly false, and fabricated out of thin air. Her confession, made in the Philippines with legal counsel at her side, was witnessed by the Presidential Office of the Republic of China and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines. In fact, legally speaking, no charge against Professor Fung exists, as the plaintiff never signed the complaint she filed in Taipei.
2. The plaintiff’s former allegation, now recanted, was that she was raped while squatting in a corner between two walls — a physiological impossibility. Obviously no intercourse of any kind can occur while a person is in such a position.
3. The examining physician reported that the plaintiff’s hymen was intact, therefore it was unlikely she had been raped. The physician detected only a minute tear on her hymen. Forensic experts know that such tears do not bleed for more than 10 minutes. Therefore the tear could not have occurred more than 10 minutes before her examination at 9:55pm. This disproves the plaintiff’s former allegation that she was raped at 4:45pm.
4. The examining physician ruled out rape (R/O Rape) in the English portion of his report, but left the conclusion open in the Chinese portion of his report.
5. The semen found in the plaintiff’s genitals was sterile, incapable of reproduction. The accused however, is not sterile. He is capable of fathering children. The Police Department found no DNA belonging to Professor Fung in the plaintiff’s genitals. The semen on the plaintiff’s underpants came from someone else.
6. The semen found on the plaintiff’s sanitary napkin was sterile, incapable of reproduction. The accused, as mentioned, is not sterile. He is capable of fathering children. The Police Department also found no DNA belonging to Professor Fung on the plaintiff’s sanitary napkin. The semen on the plaintiff’s sanitary napkin came from someone else.
7. Neither pair of the victim’s two pairs of underpants were torn at the seams, or even wrinkled, indicating that no physical struggle had taken place. Internationally renowned forensics expert Dr. Henry Lee demonstrated William Kennedy’s innocence on this very basis.
8. The distribution of the semen on the two pairs of underpants was nearly identical. Since it is nearly impossible that the same amount of semen would be deposited on a second pair of underwear only three hours later, this suggests that the semen was deliberately applied to the underpants.
9. The stains on the plaintiff’s underpants reveal that they were the result of semen ponding on the surface of the garment. This conflicts with the notion that semen somehow leaked from the plaintiff’s genitals onto the underpants after she was raped. This suggests instead that the semen was deliberately poured onto to the underpants.
10. At the exact moment of the alleged rape, now recanted, Professor Fung was speaking on the phone with his colleague, Professor Chen Pung-zen. Are we to believe that Fung was holding a phone in one hand and carrying on a conversation, while holding down and raping a struggling woman with his other?
According to unambiguous ROC High Court legal precedent, “When a case involves reasonable doubt, a guilty verdict is impermissible.” Only when a defendant is considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, may he be found guilty.
Fung Hu-hsiang’s case involves no less than ten major causes for reasonable doubt, plus 100 minor causes for reasonable doubt. How can a guilty verdict possibly be justified under the circumstances?
This is why Dr. Henry Lee, after reviewing the evidence in Fung’s case, informed reporters: “This case cannot stand.”
根據最高法院判例明文所定，「倘案件有合理懷疑之存在時，即無從為有罪的認定。」（40年台上字86號、52年台上字1300號，76年台上字4986號），亦即應該「超乎合理懷疑」（beyond a reasonable doubt），才能認定有罪。然而綜合上述，重大合理懷疑至少即有十項，加上其他小處的合理懷疑，則至少有一百多項，明顯不應輕率定罪。