Dear President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九):
We the undersigned, academics and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, are writing to you to express our concerns about a recent new development: the charges by your government that 17 former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials violated the National Archives Act (國家檔案法) and two other laws by “failing to return” about 36,000 documents during the DPP administration.
According to a statement by your government on March 29, the case is currently being investigated by the Control Yuan, which indicated that criminal charges might be lodged as well. Those being investigated include DPP luminaries such as former secretary-general of the presidential office and minister of transportation Yeh Chu-lan (葉菊蘭), former secretary-general and foreign minister Mark Chen (陳唐山), former deputy -secretary--general and ambassador to Washington Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), former deputy secretary-general and foreign minister Eugene Chien (簡又新) and former -secretary-general and prime minister Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌).
We are disquieted by the timing of this announcement. If any documents had been “missing,” this should have been noted during the transition period between the DPP administration and your government in 2008. To come up with this matter three years later, when the primaries for next year’s presidential elections are underway, suggests a political motive.
Moreover, the announcement of the “missing documents” came one day before Su declared his candidacy in the DPP presidential primary. Su will undoubtedly play an important role in the upcoming presidential elections, either as a candidate himself or as a supporter of the eventual candidate. Announcing an investigation of him and the others at this time certainly gives the impression of a political ploy intended to discredit the DPP and its candidates.
In any government organization, after documents are seen and reviewed by high officials, they are processed and filed by lower-level officials. These generally are civil servants, who do not change in the transition from DPP to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administrations. In Taiwan’s regulation-governed bureaucracy, they will not easily deviate from the established rules for handling of documents.
As observers of political developments in Taiwan for many decades, we believe that these charges are politically motivated. Obviously, in a democracy there is a need to uphold the law, but this needs to be done fairly and evenhandedly, without any hint of abuse of power. In our view, this move by your government is seriously lacking on both counts. It appears to be an attempt to use the Control Yuan and judicial system for political ends, in an effort to appear “legal” and avoid criticism by foreign governments and human rights groups.
We therefore urge you and your government to sustain Taiwan’s democracy at the highest levels and refrain from using the judicial system for political purposes. The Taiwanese worked hard to make the transition to democracy only 20 years ago. They deserve to have leaders who play by rules that are fair, balanced and unbiased.
Signed: Nat Bellocchi, Coen Blaauw, Jean Pierre Cabestan, Gordon Chang, Ketty Chen, Peter Chow, Stephane Corcuff, Michael Danielsen, June Teufel Dreyer, Norman Getsinger, Terri Giles, Michael Rand Hoare, Christopher Hughes, Thomas Hughes, Bruce Jacobs, Richard Kagan, Jerome Keating, David Kilgour, Andre Laliberte, Daniel Lynch, Victor Mair, Bruce McLeod, Donald Rodgers, Terence Russell, Christian Schafferer, David Schak, Michael Stainton, Peter Tague, Ross Terrill, John Tkacik Jr, Arthur Waldron, Gerrit van der Wees, Michael Yahuda and Stephen Yates.
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his