The pan-blue camp is using Chen Yu-hao (陳由豪), former chairman of the Tuntex Group, as an instrument in its political machinations. The possibility that Chen is, likewise, using the pan-blue camp to get his name struck off the list of the country's 10-most-wanted fugitives should not be ruled out.
It is quite obvious that Chen's intention was to implicate President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and contribute to a Democratic Progressive Party loss in the presidential election.
But can the pan-blue camp and Chen Yu-hao successfully employ such a maneuver to bring this about? And will the public find him trustworthy?
It is abundantly clear that the president has not been playing favorites in the wake of this fugitive making political contributions.
But donations and bribes are two different matters, and this fugitive has used what he himself has called donations to accuse the president of engaging in "black gold" politics.
Where's the sense in that?
What is known is that the disgraced businessman is a pro-China businessman on the side of the pan-blue camp, and has been a major donor to them.
After the Chung Hsing Bills Finance embezzlement scandal surfaced, it emerged that the tycoon's lavish donation of NT$100 million to the KMT in 1991 had ended up in Soong's pocket.
So would it be credible if he then turned around and accused Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), Soong's campaign partner, of accepting this cash?
Now Chen Yu-hao says he gave "black gold" money to the Presidential Office Deputy Secretary-General, Chen Che-nan (陳哲男), and the Vice Chairman of the Council for Economic Planning and Development, Chang Ching-sen (張景森). Does this make any sense either?
In his three open letters, Chen Yu-hao mentioned his black-gold "contributions" without offering any evidence that they were illegal.
When singling out the two members of the government he allegedly had ties to, he made no attempt to answer the three other key questions -- the what, where and when.
Both of the people he named are well-known for their close ties to the president. But implicating the president in this "scandal" on these grounds alone is laughable.
The tycoon claimed that he did not get a receipt for his donations.
If that were the case, then he should at least clarify the size of the donation and where he handed over the money.
A lack of evidence does not mean there can be no answers to such questions. Who will be convinced of his claims if he refuses to provide them? [Editor's note: The DPP on Tuesday released copies of "thank-you awards" to Chen Yu-hao, dated March 1 and March 6, 2000.]
There is no law to regulate "political contributions." So the contributions are not illegal.
But this criminal suspect has gone ahead and fired a volley of serious but preposterous allegations from his safe house in China.
The fact that the fugitive's three open letters were published in the KMT-run Central Daily News more or less assures us that he is a stooge
in the pan-blue camp's election campaign.
Chen Yu-hao has claimed that being listed on the 10-most-wanted fugitives is against the law and the Constitution.
Well, then, why not come home and file a lawsuit?
Such is the credibility of allegations thrown up by criminal suspects who try their hand in politicking.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Jackie Lin
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused