Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Despite his lead in opinion polls, Soong was beaten in the 2000 presidential election because of the Chung Hsing case. Who would have guessed back then that Soong would still be unable to give a coherent -- and credible -- explanation for his conduct three years later?
Lien and Soong are now trying to convince voters that the case vanished into thin air when prosecutors decided not to indict Soong back in 2001 and the KMT announced last February that it would drop its embezzlement allegations against him. They are trying to protect themselves by hiding behind a prosecutorial ruling that the public no longer trusts.
The pair's political judgment appears far different to the expectations and impressions of the public, most of whom think there has been a cover-up. How could the embezzlement accusations become null and void just because the KMT and PFP shook hands and made peace? The public want to know whether the prosecutors' initial handling of the case was appropriate and whether there was any political interference in their decision.
If Lien and Soong really believed in democracy and the rule of law, they should have produced evidence to disprove the charges against Soong, many of which Lien himself made. Since they have not done so, why should they be surprised when their political rivals -- or anyone else -- use Lien's verbal attacks on Soong from the 2000 election to cast doubt on Soong's integrity? How can they expect their behavior or rhetoric to stem the tide of criticism?
The Chung Hsing case involves the misappropriation of KMT assets. Misappropriation is a crime for which a complaint from the plaintiff is not a pre-requisite for prosecution. It is not something on which the parties involved can reach a private settlement and avoid legal repercussions.
More importantly, Soong is a candidate for the vice presidency. It is natural for people to expect higher standards from those seeking the highest offices in the land. The people want Soong to clarify details of the case so that they may be assured of his good character and so that Lien's past accusations may be explained reasonably. Most people don't care if Soong confronts former president Lee in court -- the PFP chairman appears to be trying to use Lee as a diversion to draw attention away from himself and Lien.
When the integrity of politicians comes under suspicion, they should produce evidence to clear their names and to safeguard their dignity. They should not simply engage in passive resistance. If Lien and Soong are not more truthful about the Chung Hsing case, it could damage them as badly as it did in 2000. Quoting the Bible does not mean that God is on your side -- in court, at the ballot box or anywhere else.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS