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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations