Let the system work
A few days ago, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was arrested and held incommunicado by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office following a search and investigation.
The TPP said that the search and arrest were intended to tarnish the former Taipei mayor’s reputation by revealing secrets to influence public perception of the party. It called on the “little grasses” (小草) as Ko’s younger supporters are known, to protest at the Judicial Yuan and uphold Ko’s innocence.
When Ko became TPP chairman, even though he flaunted the softness and malleability of his party, it felt new and refreshing that we were proudly supporting someone who was highly educated and professional.
However, following the direction of the party’s development and actions, Ko ended up with complete control of it — the image of a one-man show is firmly rooted in people’s minds.
Add to that the TPP’s seemingly unprincipled siding with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to ram through legislation to expand the legislature’s power and other actions and the result is huge slides for the TPP in polling. It has not been able to regain its footing.
Now, Ko has got himself involved in a serious situation. The prosecutors’ office has to be pretty certain it has the evidence and a good grasp of what Ko did in the charges against him.
However, no matter what conclusion the courts and investigations come to, it would still be a legal decision made by judicial bodies based on their powers and responsibilities. The TPP and the public should respect this process. Unwarranted protesting and criticism would be to no avail.
If he is found guilty, his time in detention could offset his sentence. This would not be detrimental to him. On the contrary, if a court finds a defendant not guilty, they could seek damages for attempts to defame or frame them through unjust imprisonment.
If a court awards damages, the judiciary should review whether the prosecutors or judge had breached their duties.
The compensating body would then demand compensation from the prosecutor who requested detainment and the judge who authorized the case.
This being said, prosecutors and judges do not make decisions lightly for what charges to bring or whether to approve an investigation.
The TPP’s remaining “little grasses” still holding out for Ko should put their faith and trust in the law.
Tien Fong-wen
Taipei
Nuclear power
Pegatron Corp chairman Tung Tzu-hsien (童子賢) is once again harping on the same old tune of supporting nuclear energy — this time on Saturday during a youth camp on national security. The event was organized by the Foundation for the People, which is controlled by Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Tung has chosen to stand alongside KMT politicians.
Tung said that at this stage, the ideal of a “nuclear-free homeland” — the policy of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — needs to be reviewed. Removing nuclear power and using only green power is not enough to maintain a system that has net zero emissions, stable power supply and low electricity prices, and this is why he supports “nuclear-green coexistence.”
Tung’s rhetoric is completely out of touch with Taiwan’s history and ignores the movement against nuclear power of the past 40 years.
Before “reviewing the idea of a non-nuclear homeland,” Tung should do his homework to understand Taiwan’s history of party-state violence.
Taiwan’s nuclear power plants were built by the KMT government during the authoritarian era without the consent of local residents. Therefore, the plants symbolize the violence of the party-state. As for the low-level nuclear waste that had nowhere to go, the KMT government came up with the idea of disposal at sea — so it was sent to Orchid Island (Lanyu, 蘭嶼). That was an act of oppression and violence against indigenous people and marine ecology.
When the DPP government came to power, it introduced the “nuclear-free homeland” policy, phasing out nuclear power to dismantle the violent system step by step.
KMT governments have not developed renewable energy sources or implemented conservation measures, leading to Taiwan’s dependence on nuclear energy.
Now that nuclear power is about to be phased out, with only one unit operating and only accounting for 3 percent of Taiwan’s electricity supply, what we need to reflect on is not the policy of a nuclear-free nation, but Taiwan’s violent system behind nuclear power.
That there are no large-scale power outages and no zoning of power supply represents the success of the energy transition.
However, proponents of nuclear power want to destroy this by using smear campaigns and rumormongering.
The right solution should include supporting the nuclear-free policy, supporting the rationalization of electricity prices, opposing government subsidies for large electricity consumers, supporting reasonable power development plans, supporting power grid improvement policies and supporting the continued promotion of energy-saving policies.
Tung only talks about carbon reduction, but does not face the violent history of nuclear power. This violent history happened not only in Taiwan, but also in uranium mining areas. It has damaged local indigenous people and ecologies, and might lead to a recurrence of state violence when dealing with nuclear waste disposal.
As renewable energy sources gradually replace nuclear energy, the road to energy transformation will continue to advance. After phasing out nuclear power, coal power will be the next target, with the ultimate goal of phasing out thermal power generation.
Tung still advocates the so-called “golden ratio” of Taiwan’s energy mix — 30 percent nuclear energy, 30 percent renewable energy and 40 percent fossil fuel energy. This makes him even more rigid, outdated and resistant to reform.
There are too many things that Tung does not understand, too many mistakes in his statements and too many wrong ideas in his mind.
The media, forum and event organizers should beware, and initiate truth verification when appropriate to stop the spread of the rumors and misinformation.
Chen Tse-yuan
Taipei
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS