There are those within the pan-green camp who are willing to give the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) the benefit of the doubt and who refuse to buy into the belief that it is bent on selling out Taiwan to China. However, every now and then the Ma government does things that make it very difficult to remain patient with it.
The latest incident involves the return to Taiwan, after 17 years in exile, of former Bamboo Union leader Chang An-le (張安樂) on Saturday. After checking through immigration, the most-wanted criminal emerged from the airport, handcuffed and escorted by police, smirking like a conqueror.
By some inexplicable agreement or oversight, Chang — also known as the “White Wolf” — was hiding his handcuffs with a pamphlet advocating his plans for the “peaceful reunification” of Taiwan and China.
Awaiting him at the airport were hundreds of thugs and the racist invertebrate Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), who surely found more reason to celebrate after Chang was released on bail later the same day.
Based on those events, it seems it is acceptable for police to rough up and deny the rights of peaceful protesters in Miaoli, or for the security apparatus to monitor and harass student leaders such as Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷), but when it comes to a gangster who played a role in the 1984 murder of Henry Liu (劉宜良), a journalist in California, the justice system treats him with utmost deference.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), jailed for corruption, was denied bail and medical parole because he purportedly constituted a flight risk, but Chang was a free man within hours, free to visit a temple the very next day and to generate more publicity for his political machinations.
It is said that Chang, who obtained two degrees while serving a 15-year jail sentence in the US on drug charges, may be the most educated of Taiwan’s gangsters, but the policies of his Unionist Party, which he founded while in China, confirm that he has not learned a thing about democracy and Taiwan.
What he advocates appeals to less than 10 percent of the overall population and he does so at a time when China under President Xi Jinping (習近平) is showing every indication that it is shifting toward a more Maoist line — the very opposite of developments that could encourage more Taiwanese to consider, at some point, some form of political settlement across the Taiwan Strait.
More likely, Chang’s return means that intimidation, if not violence, will play a greater role in politics.
We had a brief preview of the shape of things to come in 2009 when the disgraced Kuo had to be pulled back to Taiwan after it was discovered that he had used his position at the representative office in Toronto to publish hateful tracts under a pseudonym. It was Chang’s goons who turned up en masse at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport to protect and whisk him away, whereupon he embarked on his own, behind-the-scenes efforts to foster unification with China.
Meanwhile, commenting on Saturday’s debacle, all that Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) could muster was the promise that the government would do better in future, which can only lead us to wonder whether the Ma administration is preparing to welcome other delinquents and miscreants back to the country.
What a bloody disgrace.
How much longer are we willing to listen to the platitudes of government officials who constantly promise to do better in future?
Heads need to roll on this one and every effort should be made to ensure that criminals such as Chang — who in fact could very well be regarded as a foreign agent by now — are locked away in a damp cell for a long time.
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
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
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS