The name tag of Center for Disease Control Director General Su Ih-jen (蘇益仁), who headed Taiwan's delegation to the Global Conference on SARS held in Kuala Lumpur, carried the correct title of "Director-General CDC Taiwan" without the word "China" anywhere on it.
Meanwhile, PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien (
During Taiwan's fight against the SARS epidemic, Kao amazingly displayed his double-faced tactics by oscillating between lawmaker and professor, between government official and individual.
He organized the so-called "cross-strait anti-SARS videoconferences" at the Legislative Yuan, in his capacity as a legislator, and then he joined China's delegation, in his capacity as a professor, to attend the WHO conference in Malaysia.
His attitude achieves the same purpose as Beijing's "one China" principle, which has different versions at home and abroad, in dealing with the Taiwan issue.
For Taiwan, Kao is a PFP legislator. For other countries Kao manifests in his actions that he is "part of China."
Although Kao emphasized that he is attending this week's conference as an individual who is part of China's delegation, this still might run counter to Taiwan's national interests.
It would be worthwhile asking legal experts' advice what should be done with Kao, given the following consideration.
First, China should not be discriminated against for being the origin of the SARS virus. But its uncivilized behavior in covering up the disease, hindering WHO experts from entering China to conduct investigations and misleading other nations' anti-SARS efforts should be denounced.
In particular, its neglect of the life and health of the people of Taiwan and its barbaric use of political tactics to thwart this nation's WHO entry bid invite nothing but repulsion.
As a SARS exporter, China has even repeatedly blocked Taiwan's efforts to contain the disease. If we liken the fight against SARS to a war, China can surely be described as an "enemy."
It is quite doubtful whether Kao's attendance as a representative of the "Chinese enemy," instead of being recommended by the Department of Health, should be dealt with according to Article 113 of Criminal Code.
This article states, "A person who without authority secretly agrees with a foreign government or its agent on matters which require the authorization of the government shall be punished with imprisonment for life or for not less than seven years."
Second, as a legislator, Kao's attendance at the conference as China's representative has violated Article 3 of the Legislators' Conduct Act (立法委員行為法), which stipulates that, "[Lawmakers] should be loyal to the country and foster the highest well-being of all the people." The legislature's discipline committee should handle appropriately this case.
Moreover, lawmakers are subject to the regulation stipulated in Article 20 of the Nationality Law (
Wang Sing-nan is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means