Importance of definitions
With the indictment of Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), political parties are scrambling to formulate responses. While they publicly express respect for the judicial process, each has its own agenda.
The truth is the impetus to corruption is part of human nature, unrelated to party affiliation. A political party is an organization formed by individuals who share similar political ideologies — it is not formed on the basis of similar natures or congeniality. To quote Song Dynasty poet Dai Fugu’s (戴復古) Jixing (寄興), “Gold is rarely pure and man never perfect.”
I often tell my students that when engaging in discussions or writing, they must understand the core definition of a topic and avoid losing focus. I like to use this story as an example:
An instructor teaching a course on “Life and Death” asked his students to reflect on the greatest loss they are currently experiencing. The students’ answers varied. One student said, “I have never had a girlfriend,” which prompted the instructor to correct him.
“If you never had one to begin with, how can that be considered a loss?”
That shows the importance of definitions.
As written in Chinese Taoist philosopher Zhuangzi’s (莊子) Cutting Open the Satchels (胠篋): “As long as sages exist, great robbers will not cease to appear.”
In conversation and debate, we often use our own strengths to attack others’ weaknesses. However, at the very least, we should ensure that the definition is well-established — otherwise, our words would be wasted and only make matters worse.
Is Ko’s case not just like that? He repeatedly said that the “blue” Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) and “green” Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) “garbage” was indistinguishable, expressing disgust for the KMT’s black money connections and resentment toward the DPP’s rapid decline.
He said the TPP was a clean and pure political party. Many voters believed in him, devoutly following him as if he were some kind of god-like figure.
Now, Ko has fallen from his altar and shattered his own image. As for his young supporters who continue to follow him, perhaps it is time to reflect on their judgement.
Cheng Kuo-cheng
Taipei
The fate of TPP without Ko
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) wants to step down as party chairman, but the TPP refuses to acknowledge his resignation.
On Thursday, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office indicted Ko on charges of corruption, embezzlement, breach of trust and other offenses, seeking a combined sentence of 28 years and six months.
The TPP held a press conference in response, calling the indictment political persecution.
TPP Central Committee member Lin Fu-nan (林富男) even went so far as to say that even if Ko submits a letter of resignation, the central committee would not accept it. Instead, they would wait for Ko’s return so that he could continue leading the party. There is no second choice for party chairman — they would only accept Ko, and there is no need to determine an acting chairman.
Since the TPP’s establishment — although it has the structure and setup of a formal organization — nearly all operational decisions have been made by Ko, leading to criticism that it is a “one-man party.” Now that prosecutors have indicted Ko on such serious charges and he has released a statement of resignation, the TPP is left clinging onto his leg, refusing to let him go. The party’s behavior only corroborates previous criticism — the TPP is indeed a one-man party.
The TPP harshly criticized the indictment, labeling it “political persecution,” but their argument is weak — they are avoiding what is important and dwelling on the trivial details for fear of losing support from Ko’s followers.
The Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office dispatched seven prosecutors for the investigation and they had sorted through vast amounts of evidence — as many as 148 pieces of physical and documentary evidence, along with witness testimonies. The indictment spans almost 300 pages, with two large volumes of evidence lists containing purported proof of collusion with businesspeople and the close implication of interest exchanges.
How could that be considered “political persecution”? If the TPP continues to blindly support Ko — failing to consider alternative paths and lacking the power to forge its own — it is condemned to history.
Chi An-hsiu
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