It is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at the antics of would-be Taitung County commissioner Wu Chun-li (
Because of the conviction, Wu knew he would be suspended immediately after taking his oath of office. So he turned his defiance of the local government into a farce of comical proportions, "divorcing" his wife in an effort to circumvent the legal restrictions on appointing a spouse or relative as his deputy.
The legality of this maneuver is in question, and Wu may have broken the law by faking a divorce. And it seems unlikely that he will be successful in exploiting a loophole allowing him to run for the county commissioner's post again in a by-election.
Nevertheless, a group of pan-blue legislators yesterday declared their support for Wu after he came to Taipei and made an appearance at the Legislative Yuan.
The pan-blue parties can be relied on to oppose anything the government proposes, so this is hardly a surprise. But it is still a mistake. These legislators are feeding the perception that, in his standoff with the government, it is Wu that is the victim. But he is not.
The real victims in this case are the people of Taitung and the rule of law.
Wu was convicted before an independent and impartial court. He had every opportunity to defend himself during the trial, and can still appeal.
So why, then, is the pan-blue camp so willing to support this man? Is it asserting that the nation's entire criminal justice system is a sham?
Apparently not. The pan-blue camp's membership has been perfectly willing to go to the courts whenever they feel slighted, as we saw with former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) libel case against the president, or the myriad attempts to challenge the validity of last year's presidential election. And they are enthusiastic about trying to drag pan-green figures before the courts on corruption charges.
Where, in all this hypocritical muckraking, is "Mr. Clean," KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
This situation is emblematic of the current political stalemate. At the point in the development of a democracy when leadership and foresight are most required, none is to be found. Few politicians, in either camp, seem to understand that there are times when partisan wrangling only weakens the political system, with everyone coming out the loser.
The pan-blue camp, and Wu himself, have cited his performance at the polls as justification for giving him a "second chance." The reasoning appears to be that because he is popular, it does not matter if he is corrupt. This is a very dangerous mentality, but unsurprising for the KMT, with its lengthy record of authoritarian rule.
Still, no one has offered a convincing argument why there is a danger in letting the law take its course in the case of the Taitung County commissionership. If a by-election were held and Wu were not allowed to run, it is likely that a pan-blue candidate would again win. There is absolutely no reason, other than spite, to oppose the government on this matter. If Wu has been wronged in the courts, then let him declare this on appeal.
And if he is guilty, how can any lawmaker with a conscience thrust him upon the people of Taitung?
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS