Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Despite his lead in opinion polls, Soong was beaten in the 2000 presidential election because of the Chung Hsing case. Who would have guessed back then that Soong would still be unable to give a coherent -- and credible -- explanation for his conduct three years later?
Lien and Soong are now trying to convince voters that the case vanished into thin air when prosecutors decided not to indict Soong back in 2001 and the KMT announced last February that it would drop its embezzlement allegations against him. They are trying to protect themselves by hiding behind a prosecutorial ruling that the public no longer trusts.
The pair's political judgment appears far different to the expectations and impressions of the public, most of whom think there has been a cover-up. How could the embezzlement accusations become null and void just because the KMT and PFP shook hands and made peace? The public want to know whether the prosecutors' initial handling of the case was appropriate and whether there was any political interference in their decision.
If Lien and Soong really believed in democracy and the rule of law, they should have produced evidence to disprove the charges against Soong, many of which Lien himself made. Since they have not done so, why should they be surprised when their political rivals -- or anyone else -- use Lien's verbal attacks on Soong from the 2000 election to cast doubt on Soong's integrity? How can they expect their behavior or rhetoric to stem the tide of criticism?
The Chung Hsing case involves the misappropriation of KMT assets. Misappropriation is a crime for which a complaint from the plaintiff is not a pre-requisite for prosecution. It is not something on which the parties involved can reach a private settlement and avoid legal repercussions.
More importantly, Soong is a candidate for the vice presidency. It is natural for people to expect higher standards from those seeking the highest offices in the land. The people want Soong to clarify details of the case so that they may be assured of his good character and so that Lien's past accusations may be explained reasonably. Most people don't care if Soong confronts former president Lee in court -- the PFP chairman appears to be trying to use Lee as a diversion to draw attention away from himself and Lien.
When the integrity of politicians comes under suspicion, they should produce evidence to clear their names and to safeguard their dignity. They should not simply engage in passive resistance. If Lien and Soong are not more truthful about the Chung Hsing case, it could damage them as badly as it did in 2000. Quoting the Bible does not mean that God is on your side -- in court, at the ballot box or anywhere else.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS