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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS