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.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
RSS