Voters still haven’t gone to the ballot box, but the four great losers of the Jan. 14 elections are already appearing.
The biggest loser is Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD) Minister Christina Liu (劉憶如). Holding a doctorate from the University of Chicago, she has always succeeded in everything she does. With such a good background, one wonders why she had to get involved in crooked, underhanded political attacks by attempting to frame opponents using forged documents. It is all too clear that she has ulterior motives and in an instant, she has destroyed the good reputation and goodwill she has spent a lifetime building.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and his wife, Tsai Ling-yi (蔡令怡), are the second-biggest losers. Wu is a liar who has a way with words that allows him to cover up mistakes. This time around he has claimed that the dates on the forged Yu Chang documents are not important. For someone who claims to be a student of history and who has worked as a reporter to say something like that is a sign of maliciousness and ill intent.
When Tsai Ling-yi made her fabricated and inflammatory statements that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had “moved NT$1.1 billion [US$36.34 million] of the nation’s money to her family business,” Wu said that “there are some grounds” for that statement, and promptly inflated the sum to NT$1.4 billion.
It is as if it were an auction of thieves: Buy one, get one free. A man who keeps telling lies with a stern, angry face clearly does not make a very good impression, and the loyal deep-blue supporters may now be longing for Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長). At least he always has a smile on his face that would not lose him any points.
The third losers are the newspapers that have taken money from President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration to write reports and commentary based on the government’s advertising copy.
The government’s abuse of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and now its possible use of the Control Yuan to fabricate the Yu Chang controversy is even more vicious than the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration’s fabrication of the accusations used to frame General Sun Li-jen (孫立人) when he became too powerful in the 1950s and political dissident Lei Chen (雷震) in the 1960s.
These newspapers care nothing for the principles of neutrality and objectivity. They have sold their souls and destroyed their credibility and the value of their own existence.
The fourth loser is the Special Investigation Division (SID). The division sat idly by and watched while Ma and his government were suspected of illegal activities and abuse of power without investigating the claims, in effect turning the division into a political tool to destroy judicial neutrality.
Just as everyone was utterly baffled when Ma started telling stories about how he mends his clothes and resoles his shoes to show how thrifty he is, I don’t think anyone could have ever dreamed that he would be relying on such people to win re-election.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
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
RSS