Mistake of ‘little grasses’
Ma Ying-jeou Foundation director Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑) was a mysterious and esteemed guest at a recent gathering held by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), leaving the public wondering whether Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) supports corruption.
Under the presumption of innocence, we cannot determine that TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is guilty; on the other hand, we also cannot prove that he is completely innocent, especially considering that we need to hold political leaders to a higher standard. However, the TPP has continuously claimed that Ko is absolutely innocent and that the judicial system is unjust. Is this not a presumption of the judiciary’s guilt? Given that a trial has yet to be held, we should allow prosecutors the space to handle the case instead of being so misguided and chaotic.
For that same reason, Ko was detained. This was a decision made by an unbiased judge, and clearly for good reason. However, Hsiao used his title as the director of the foundation to publicly and fervently express support for Ko: Does this mean Ma also supports Ko despite the allegations of corruption? Ko’s followers — the “little grasses” — and Ma should not hold up a “the judicial system is unfair” picket sign.
If one asserts that Ko being suspected of crimes does not definitively prove his guilt, then should not the same logic be applied to former vice premier Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦)? Cheng was detained in the same fashion, but the “little grasses” and Ma did not respond accordingly. They support Ko, but not Cheng. Frankly speaking, supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party are more rational. At the very least, they did not take to the streets in chaotic demonstrations of blind support or attempt to meddle with the judicial process.
I was born and raised in Taoyuan. When Cheng served as the mayor of Taoyuan, he was adored by its residents, as reflected by his high approval ratings in opinion polls. However, following suspicions of corruption, he was investigated and detained — all was carried out according to the law. This is the fundamental value in a society ruled by law. So, to all of the “little grasses” who have taken to the streets pretending to be political experts: The chaotic source sabotaging our judicial system is actually you.
Liao Kuan-hu
Taoyuan
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