If there is criticism to be made of President Chen Shui-bian (
To show to what degree the story has developed a life of its own, having nothing to do with either the known facts or common sense, the Associated Press' story of the day from Taiwan yesterday led with this paragraph: "President Chen Shui-bian has pledged to fight corruption and financial crimes as his ruling political party struggles to clean itself of allegations that it took illegal donations from a bankrupt former real-estate tycoon."
Where does one start debunking this nonsense -- apart from remarking that Tuntex was a petro-chemical company? Perhaps with pointing out that, since there is no law regulating donations, no donation, in and of itself, can be illegal. What can be illegal is the purpose for which the donation is made or accepted or the purpose to which the money is put. For example, pan-blue vice presidential candidate James Soong's (宋楚瑜) pocketing of the NT$100 million that Chen Yu-hao gave to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in 1991 and which made its way into the private bank accounts of Soong's family members is an obviously illegal use of a legal donation.
At first the blue camp was trying to suggest that President Chen had done a Soong and trousered Chen Yu-hao's largesse. When the DPP showed copies of the "thank you" notes they had given the Tuntex boss, the pan-blues changed their tune and asserted that Chen Yu-hao's pittance of a donation -- NT$10 million, hardly enough to buy a small apartment in downtown Taipei -- had gained him favorable financial attention from the DPP; in particular that it was in return for this pocket change that the DPP granted him low-interest loans in 2001. These accusations actually conflict with what Chen Yu-hao claims, which is that he gave the money to the DPP to secure financial help for the ailing Tuntex -- which was, nevertheless, not forthcoming.
If the DPP did take the money promising special financial treatment as a quid pro quo, that is an example of the other kind of illegality mentioned above. But did they? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they did. It is true that the government did help Tuntex in 2000 to 2001. But that was part of the continuation of a policy that the KMT itself had started in 1997, when finding many of its cronies -- prominent among whom was Chen Yu-hao -- hard-hit by the Asian financial crisis, the KMT ordered banks to roll over their loans, rather than turn off their credit. Indeed it is exactly because of this policy that Chen Yu-hao's depredations, when they came to light, had become so massive.
What needs attention, in fact, is not the Tuntex chief's donations to the DPP but his entire relationship to the KMT: Chen Yu-hao donated hundreds of million of NT dollars to the KMT in return for which the government kept the credit taps of the state-run banks open for him. How cozy.
Perhaps we can expect this story to die down now we know how it came about in the first place -- as an attempt by officials in Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office to interfere in the election in the pan-blue camp's favor. As for Chen Yu-hao, he survives in China on the government's favor, praying, like so many other fugitives from Taiwan's justice, for a blue-camp victory so he can come home.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS