The Taipei District Prosecutors' Office Friday questioned People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
During a press conference after he was questioned, Soong on the one hand passed the buck to former president Lee Teng-hui (
In other words, Soong's latest explanation of the case was the same old tune that he has been playing for the past three years, although it was perhaps a bit more dramatic this time. But the world still hasn't gotten any clear answers.
Today, Soong is a vice presidential candidate, nominated by the KMT and the PFP. It is necessary for him to clarify his role in the case, instead of repeatedly telling us how deeply his family members have suffered from the accusations against him. We can understand the pain of the Soong family over the past few years, but if Soong quickly clears up all doubts about the case, maybe the suffering of his family members can end sooner.
People have been wondering why a donation of NT$100 million from Chen You-hao (
Furthermore, when the scandal first broke, James Soong said that none of his family members owned any property in Hawaii. It was then discovered that his son owned five houses in the US, and that he already owned these houses when he was a student at the University of California at Berkeley. In response to questions from the media, Allen Soong said the money was a gift from his parents, while his wife later said that Allen Soong had earned the money himself. Why all the discrepancies and contradictions?
Third, why didn't James Soong return to the KMT the NT$240 million that was in his bank account when he discontinued his KMT membership in July 1999? Why did he wait until prosecutors requested that the Ministry of Finance turn over materials from an audit of his accounts on December 26 that year?
Only days later did Soong hurriedly deposit the money with the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office, where the money remains to this day. What are his reasons for such behavior, which is clearly a matter of criminal misappropriation?
Frankly speaking, the burden to prove whether Lee authorized Soong to set up accounts for the KMT secretary-general at the Bank of Taipei and Chung Hsing Bills Finance should rest with Soong. Lee has already unambiguously told prosecutors that he never issued such an authorization to Soong.
If Lee has his facts mixed up, the KMT, which today fully supports Soong, should be able to produce from its archives concrete evidence in support of Soong.
The issue that concerns voters is the question of Soong's ethics and integrity, not that the KMT has withdrawn its accusations against Soong or that the court has decided not to prosecute. The best thing Soong could do would be to start from the beginning and provide explanations for every issue that the public wants clarified.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS