There is a photograph of former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) taken at a news conference on Thursday after the Taipei District Court sentenced him to 17 years in jail for corruption, embezzlement and mismanagement of political donations: Right arm raised, finger pointing for emphasis, his mouth locked in a snarl, he stares into the press pack before him. His expression is not one of contrition, but of defiance in the face of the verdict, which was the theme of the news conference. It has been the theme of his response to the charges ever since he was originally indicted on Dec. 26, 2024.
Ko sat between his lawyer Cheng Shen-yuan (鄭深元) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌). He opened with musings on how the judiciary was the last line of defense, how important it was to have the public’s trust and how its sole objective is to maintain fairness and justice in the country; he said that it should not be used as a political tool by leaders seeking to suppress opposition parties.
He talked about how biased the judiciary was, how public trust was at an all-time low, how the judiciary had been weaponized against him by an autocratic president bringing to bear the weight of the state machinery against him, how he was innocent of all charges and how, if he could be wronged in this way, then so could anyone. He told the public not to fear, as this case is so important and its implementation so egregiously corrupt that it would set a milestone for Taiwan, and that from this point on, real judicial reform can truly begin.
Ko closed his remarks with a message for President William Lai (賴清德), spoken softly at first: “I will absolutely not surrender!” Then louder and with defiance: “I will not yield!”
This picture of defiance is a deliberate strategy, and should be read as that, without the distractions of the protestations of bias, persecution and absence of due process Ko and Cheng levied during the news conference. It is a strategy of legal defense and political offense. It is transparent and predictable.
Just four days after Ko was originally indicted, the Liberty Times — the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper — published an editorial that appeared in translation under the headline “Ko Wen-je’s case a test for the TPP” (page 8, Jan. 1, 2025). The strategy playing out at the news conference was accurately predicted in that editorial.
The editorial said that, from the initiation of the case against Ko, Huang and other party members had insisted on pushing the line that the charges were nothing but political persecution, and had directly accused Lai of pursuing a witch hunt against Ko.
It says that, having protested against the presiding judge in the indictment hearing, Huang had led a group of supporters to protest, but when they heard that Ko would be released on bail, the crowd “changed their tune entirely, expressing their gratitude to the judge.” They were only interested in accepting the court’s decision if it were beneficial to Ko, even if the granting of bail had no bearing on the question of guilt. Huang, who has a doctorate in law, chose not to explain this to the supporters, and continued to encourage them to question the judiciary and foment social tensions.
The editorial then compared Ko’s autocratic style of leadership as mayor to that of Mao Zedong (毛澤東), who would “often initiate… social movements to consolidate his power, with little regard for the good of the nation or the populace.”
Huang’s approach was to insist on the idea of a “political witch hunt” orchestrated by the green camp, instead of “trying to produce some evidence or analysis to refute the allegations put forward by the prosecutors.”
Neither Ko nor Huang have diverted from this playbook established back in 2024. Consistency is important from the perspective of legal defense and political offense, but it is deleterious to social harmony and public trust in institutions, all for the benefit of one man and one party, with little regard for the public good.
If Ko and Huang continue to insist on levying these accusations, it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence for them.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the