Taiwan’s ‘Watergate’?
On Jan. 8, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Diane Lee (李慶安) vowed to present documentation in regard to the allegation that she possesses dual nationality. She claims to have documentation that exonerates her of these charges. She vowed to present this documentation to the legislature before the end of January.
Also on Jan. 8, KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) was quoted as saying: “If someone cannot produce the evidence before the deadline, the KMT will ask the legislature to tackle the matter in a speedy manner.”
The deadline has now passed. So far, Lee has made no further public announcements regarding her case. There has been no public announcement that she has produced — or would be able to produce — documentation that explains the case in her favor.
Let us hope that Wu was sincere in his statement. Let us hope there will be a speedy inquiry into the matter. After all, as the saying goes: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Let us hope as well that this case does not turn into “Passportgate” — Taiwan’s equivalent of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.
A cursory analysis of the Watergate scandal shows that former US president Richard Nixon’s “fall” — his resignation from office — was compelled by his attempts at covering up break-ins and illegal wiretaps.
There is much to be learned from this precedent. If there is an attempted cover-up in Lee’s case, it will only compound the problem and worsen the situation in Taiwan. This is a serious matter that no one will be able to “sweep under the rug.”
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
Democratic health check
Democracy reflects the best human values in society. People all over the world should care about the democratic status of each other’s countries, just as neighbors should take care of each other. The third open letter (“Eroding Justice,” Jan. 21, page 8) is welcome by all Taiwanese who embrace those values.
The interference by and the unprofessional conduct of Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and the prosecutors who performed a skit mocking former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and expressed their prejudice against him, added to the daily attacks by KMT-controlled media and the questionable replacement of judges, mean that any result emerging from Chen’s trial will be hard to accept. This is just like school exams; when the system of examination is deficient or unfair, the results will be questionable.
Only continued concern — in Taiwan and abroad — can lead to change and ensure that Taiwan becomes a symbol of freedom and democracy.
NI KUO-JUNG
Hsinchu
Wrong on the economy
The Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s efforts to “rescue” Taiwan’s economy will not only fail, but they exemplify a collectivist morality and ought to be vigorously opposed.
The government’s attempt to engineer domestic consumer demand in response to dropping consumer demand abroad is misguided. As the supply side of the economy currently outweighs the demand side, it is the supply side that should be allowed to fall, not demand artificially created by means of public debt.
What your publication should seek to explain is not merely one of economic pragmatism, but a moral one. Each and every Taiwanese is a sovereign individual — not a mere economic number — and as such they should be free to make their own choices as to whether and how to spend or invest their money.
Consequently, the overwhelming desire of Taiwanese to save their money and curb their spending, and the choice of many Taiwanese businesses to cut costs and reduce the scale of their commitments, are decisions that ought to be respected — not interfered with.
The government has no moral right to order or merely encourage people on what they should do with their own money.
For years the editorial stance of the Taipei Times has generally been reflective of the broad political views of its readership. In that I mean the “social democratic” collectivist outlook expounded by the Democratic Progressive Party.
In the face of a possible run on the US dollar this year, this stance is likely a source of danger to Taiwan in the short to medium term. Consequently, I strongly urge a reconsideration of your philosophical premises and a complete about-turn in editorial stance.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS