If there is criticism to be made of President Chen Shui-bian (
To show to what degree the story has developed a life of its own, having nothing to do with either the known facts or common sense, the Associated Press' story of the day from Taiwan yesterday led with this paragraph: "President Chen Shui-bian has pledged to fight corruption and financial crimes as his ruling political party struggles to clean itself of allegations that it took illegal donations from a bankrupt former real-estate tycoon."
Where does one start debunking this nonsense -- apart from remarking that Tuntex was a petro-chemical company? Perhaps with pointing out that, since there is no law regulating donations, no donation, in and of itself, can be illegal. What can be illegal is the purpose for which the donation is made or accepted or the purpose to which the money is put. For example, pan-blue vice presidential candidate James Soong's (宋楚瑜) pocketing of the NT$100 million that Chen Yu-hao gave to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in 1991 and which made its way into the private bank accounts of Soong's family members is an obviously illegal use of a legal donation.
At first the blue camp was trying to suggest that President Chen had done a Soong and trousered Chen Yu-hao's largesse. When the DPP showed copies of the "thank you" notes they had given the Tuntex boss, the pan-blues changed their tune and asserted that Chen Yu-hao's pittance of a donation -- NT$10 million, hardly enough to buy a small apartment in downtown Taipei -- had gained him favorable financial attention from the DPP; in particular that it was in return for this pocket change that the DPP granted him low-interest loans in 2001. These accusations actually conflict with what Chen Yu-hao claims, which is that he gave the money to the DPP to secure financial help for the ailing Tuntex -- which was, nevertheless, not forthcoming.
If the DPP did take the money promising special financial treatment as a quid pro quo, that is an example of the other kind of illegality mentioned above. But did they? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they did. It is true that the government did help Tuntex in 2000 to 2001. But that was part of the continuation of a policy that the KMT itself had started in 1997, when finding many of its cronies -- prominent among whom was Chen Yu-hao -- hard-hit by the Asian financial crisis, the KMT ordered banks to roll over their loans, rather than turn off their credit. Indeed it is exactly because of this policy that Chen Yu-hao's depredations, when they came to light, had become so massive.
What needs attention, in fact, is not the Tuntex chief's donations to the DPP but his entire relationship to the KMT: Chen Yu-hao donated hundreds of million of NT dollars to the KMT in return for which the government kept the credit taps of the state-run banks open for him. How cozy.
Perhaps we can expect this story to die down now we know how it came about in the first place -- as an attempt by officials in Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office to interfere in the election in the pan-blue camp's favor. As for Chen Yu-hao, he survives in China on the government's favor, praying, like so many other fugitives from Taiwan's justice, for a blue-camp victory so he can come home.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS