This week has seen a frenzy of action in the wake of a report that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had met with bookmaker Chen Ying-chu (陳盈助) in September: Ma has filed a civil lawsuit against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the party’s spokesperson Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) for criticizing his allegedly secret meeting with Chen; Chen and Chiayi Mayor Huang Ming-hui (黃敏惠) are suing Next Magazine; and yesterday, Chen placed ads in every major newspaper in Taiwan saying he had not made donations to any politician.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) has taken the issue one step further, accusing DPP legislators Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) and Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) of having met with Chen Ying-chu to ask for support for DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). It is as if the bookie were Medusa, turning anyone he looks at into stone.
The fact is that Chen Ying-chu is not currently involved in any lawsuits nor is he wanted by police, so meeting with him is not against the law. So why the controversy and political fallout?
Chen Ying-chu may talk of being loyal and generous toward his friends, but the gambling racket he allegedly controls remains illegal. There has been speculation that the assassination attempt on then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on the eve of his re-election in 2004 was carried out by gamblers, and some say the shooting of Sean Lien (連勝文), former vice president Lien Chan’s (連戰) son, at a campaign event last year was also connected to gambling. This is nothing new, as past incidents have shown that election-related gambling can easily lead to violence.
A Presidential Office statement issued on Wednesday last week confirmed that Ma has on two occasions met with Chen Ying-chu at the recommendation of mutual friends, first in January 2008 and then in September 2009, both times to solicit local personalities for their electoral support.
Ma denies having met with Chen Ying-chu this year, but admits they have met on two occasions in the past. He also says no promises were made at those meetings, that he did not accept any political donations, that there was no exchange of benefits and that his only wish had been to do some election campaigning.
Meeting with a powerful bookmaker easily raises questions and that could lead to at least two consequences: First, Ma was elected president in March 2008. His meetings with Chen Ying-chu could be interpreted as encouragement and an endorsement of the big-time bookie’s actions. Second, Ma always extols the importance of holding to high moral standards. By meeting with Chen Ying-chu, his actions were in discord with his statements and that could spoil his image and cause people to lose confidence in him.
The key issue is not whether Ma met with Chen Ying-chu this year, nor is it how many times they had met in the past. The issue is whether a president or a presidential candidate should meet with such a controversial individual at all. If it was acceptable to meet with Chen in the past, then it should be acceptable to meet with him now. By the same token, if it is inappropriate to meet with Chen now, why was it appropriate to meet with him previously?
Even if Chen Ming-wen and Cheng Wen-tsang had met with Chen Ying-chu, that is less of an issue because of their different statuses. However, if Ma, in his capacity as president, meets with a controversial individual at an inappropriate time, he is committing a serious transgression, one he may have to pay a heavy political price for, regardless of when the meeting took place.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS