Taiwan’s ‘Watergate’?
On Jan. 8, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Diane Lee (李慶安) vowed to present documentation in regard to the allegation that she possesses dual nationality. She claims to have documentation that exonerates her of these charges. She vowed to present this documentation to the legislature before the end of January.
Also on Jan. 8, KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) was quoted as saying: “If someone cannot produce the evidence before the deadline, the KMT will ask the legislature to tackle the matter in a speedy manner.”
The deadline has now passed. So far, Lee has made no further public announcements regarding her case. There has been no public announcement that she has produced — or would be able to produce — documentation that explains the case in her favor.
Let us hope that Wu was sincere in his statement. Let us hope there will be a speedy inquiry into the matter. After all, as the saying goes: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Let us hope as well that this case does not turn into “Passportgate” — Taiwan’s equivalent of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.
A cursory analysis of the Watergate scandal shows that former US president Richard Nixon’s “fall” — his resignation from office — was compelled by his attempts at covering up break-ins and illegal wiretaps.
There is much to be learned from this precedent. If there is an attempted cover-up in Lee’s case, it will only compound the problem and worsen the situation in Taiwan. This is a serious matter that no one will be able to “sweep under the rug.”
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
Democratic health check
Democracy reflects the best human values in society. People all over the world should care about the democratic status of each other’s countries, just as neighbors should take care of each other. The third open letter (“Eroding Justice,” Jan. 21, page 8) is welcome by all Taiwanese who embrace those values.
The interference by and the unprofessional conduct of Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and the prosecutors who performed a skit mocking former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and expressed their prejudice against him, added to the daily attacks by KMT-controlled media and the questionable replacement of judges, mean that any result emerging from Chen’s trial will be hard to accept. This is just like school exams; when the system of examination is deficient or unfair, the results will be questionable.
Only continued concern — in Taiwan and abroad — can lead to change and ensure that Taiwan becomes a symbol of freedom and democracy.
NI KUO-JUNG
Hsinchu
Wrong on the economy
The Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s efforts to “rescue” Taiwan’s economy will not only fail, but they exemplify a collectivist morality and ought to be vigorously opposed.
The government’s attempt to engineer domestic consumer demand in response to dropping consumer demand abroad is misguided. As the supply side of the economy currently outweighs the demand side, it is the supply side that should be allowed to fall, not demand artificially created by means of public debt.
What your publication should seek to explain is not merely one of economic pragmatism, but a moral one. Each and every Taiwanese is a sovereign individual — not a mere economic number — and as such they should be free to make their own choices as to whether and how to spend or invest their money.
Consequently, the overwhelming desire of Taiwanese to save their money and curb their spending, and the choice of many Taiwanese businesses to cut costs and reduce the scale of their commitments, are decisions that ought to be respected — not interfered with.
The government has no moral right to order or merely encourage people on what they should do with their own money.
For years the editorial stance of the Taipei Times has generally been reflective of the broad political views of its readership. In that I mean the “social democratic” collectivist outlook expounded by the Democratic Progressive Party.
In the face of a possible run on the US dollar this year, this stance is likely a source of danger to Taiwan in the short to medium term. Consequently, I strongly urge a reconsideration of your philosophical premises and a complete about-turn in editorial stance.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS