Shoddy journalistic integrity
Dear Johnny,
In your article “Even worse than ‘taike’ Doritos” (Aug. 23, page 8), you wrote this about the probe into former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁): “Now, lots of people are throwing around the term ‘money laundering,’ which is premature. After all, it’s possible A-bian’s right, and these were just leftover campaign crumbs.”
Well, I am not a financial expert and I am quite confident that you aren’t either, therefore I think it’s quite ludicrous for you to even comment on the level of “maturity” of this case in the world of financial scams when you are obviously ignorant of the facts.
Sure, the money could have started as mere leftover campaign funds, as A-bian has claimed, but why route the money all over the world if it is not money laundering?
OK, don’t take my word for it. How about letting a real expert tell you why it is money laundering. Please refer to www.financeasia.com/article.aspx?CIaNID=82971. In this piece, the author has quotes from experienced bankers, unlike your article, which contains nothing but your own unsubstantiated opinions and offensive sarcasms.
Your reluctance to call a spade a spade is a sign of your shoddy journalistic integrity. You claim to be a veteran journalist ... pray tell, where have you worked? A high school year book committee? Church newsletter? If you are so confident with your facts, then why do you hide behind a faux byline like a coward? Why are you so afraid to be accountable for your own substandard product? Why don’t you get off your rear end, go gather some facts and tell the readers why we should consider that this might be a mere tax evasion problem as you have suggested? I am willing to be convinced.
Sharon L. Dailey
Taipei
Johnny replies: I note the article you cite starts with this: “The news that Merrill Lynch may have been involved in possible money laundering by members of the family of Taiwan’s former president, Chen Shuibian [sic], has raised questions about the bank’s internal risk controls.”
So the Finance Asia Web site isn’t quite ready to be the judge, jury and executioner on Chen’s actions or the bank’s role in the affair. Oh, and not one expert it cites is prepared to declare on the record that Chen laundered money. Funny that. In some parts of the world and the World Wide Web, evidence and libel have a role to play in what can be published, you know.
Anyway, readers who are so bored that they would care to re-examine my piece last week would discover that Ms Dailey has misunderstood it, and obviously so, from beginning to end. So I’m not inclined to move my butt from my A-620 Spiritual Spa Massage Chair just yet.
Bear in mind that Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) recently appeared on a news program anchored by Sisy Chen (陳文茜) in which she made comments about the ongoing probe that may have compromised Chen’s right to a fair trial. Had a minister done the same in a more sober country, any charges against Chen would be thrown out and the minister possibly declared in contempt of court.
So much for “confidence in facts.” Whose facts, exactly?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath