In tears, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice presidential candidate Jennifer Wang (王如玄) yesterday apologized to the public over her “investments” in military housing units, while stressing that all the transactions were legal and that she is concerned about issues that affect people from disadvantaged groups, though a look at her political career shows just the opposite.
In the past couple of weeks, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has questioned Wang’s dealings in military housing units in Taipei and New Taipei City, alleging that she and her husband have been involved in property speculation involving as many as 19 military housing units.
In a press conference at KMT headquarters yesterday afternoon, Wang admitted that she had bought and sold military housing units as an “investment,” but said that the number of units had been exaggerated.
Wang apologized to the public and her supporters for causing such a controversy with her personal “investment arrangements,” and shed tears as she explained how her family had been affected by criticism in the media.
Wang said several times that she has always been concerned about the disadvantaged, whether acting as a lawyer or serving in government positions, adding that she had agreed to become KMT presidential candidate Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) running mate because she wanted to contribute more to society.
Ironic, very ironic.
Military housing units were built for military personnel who followed the KMT regime into exile in Taiwan after it lost the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese Communist Party after the end of World War II.
Although high-ranking military officers were also allocated housing units, the majority who were granted the units were low-ranking troops and their families, who would otherwise have had no place to live in Taiwan.
Today, there are still veteran KMT troops living in disadvantaged conditions and having a hard time finding a place to call home.
At the press conference, Wang was asked if she was aware that a veteran who sold her a military housing unit was now living in poverty in Changhua County. Wang replied that she could not be expected to know the story of every seller, adding that all those who dealt with her did so voluntarily and that both sides were happy when the deals were completed.
More irony.
If Wang is concerned about the disadvantaged, she should know not to “invest” in military housing units because these are supposed to be public housing for disadvantaged veterans and their families, and investment activity in any form would inflate prices, making it impossible for those who are in need to purchase the units.
Wang likened the DPP’s criticism to a form of “political murder,” but perhaps she should be reminded that, when she served as Council of Labor Affairs minister, she showed no mercy when using NT$20 million (US$605,382 at current exchange rates) of taxpayers’ money to hire lawyers to file suits against elderly laid-off workers, mostly economically disadvantaged and many of them in bad health.
Did Wang shed tears for them?
No.
Did Wang ever think of the suffering that those laid-off workers would have to deal with when they were being pursued by the state?
Probably not.
Wang needs to respond to criticism with more sincerity and honesty, and stop pretending to be someone she is not.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS