The controversy over whether President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) or “Mark Y.J. Ma” owes the US government tax, and whether he continues to have permanent US residency confirms that both the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and Ma have been reticent about the truth. The AIT tried to obfuscate the issue, upon which Ma’s stooge held up the AIT’s missive as some kind of authoritative statement.
At the government’s request, the AIT’s office in Washington produced “evidence” in the form of a vaguely worded letter. It did so to comply with the wishes of the Ma administration, but it failed to convince the public, and in so doing has damaged the institute’s good name.
If the AIT had acted in good faith, it would not have used evasive terms such as “we have previously been informed,” so that when and where it had been so informed was not revealed.
If the AIT were able to clearly quote the US Department of Justice or US Citizenship and Immigration Services informing it of when and where Ma had actually “renounced” his US permanent residency status and where this renunciation had been filed, its authoritativeness and reliability would have been above question.
The AIT is a public institution invested with the authority to issue and sign official documents between the US and Taiwan, so how can it resort to phrases such as it “has been informed” to conceal its sources the way the media does?
Referring to the allegations made in a Chinese-language Next Magazine article, the AIT letter implies that Ma Ying-jeou and Mark Ma are two different people, as if Ma had absolutely nothing to do with the elusive individual who goes by the English moniker of Mark Ma.
It then goes on to say that the AIT had previously been informed that records of “President Ma’s” renunciation of his formerly held green card already exist in US immigration files, but failed to either confirm or deny records of the status of Mark Ma.
Ma’s stooge brandished the AIT letter as if it were printed in gold, clearly enjoying the moment, accusing Next Magazine of fraudulent use of identity to gain access to an individual’s personal data.
Next Magazine had checked the green card data for Ma’s English name, Mark Ma.
Meanwhile, the Presidential Office confirmed that Ma Ying-jeou and Mark Ma were, indeed, one and the same person, in a slap in the face for the AIT.
Taiwanese learned some time ago that Ma has a complicated relationship with truth-telling. His statements to the effect that the card had “automatically expired” and that he acted to renounce his residency status are both false, for otherwise he would have been more than able to produce documents stating when and where he had taken such action and when his permanent residency status had expired.
Even if his own copy of the records had been mislaid, he could always have applied directly to US immigration authorities for a duplicate, or instructed his lawyer to do so, to clear up the issue.
Instead, he chose to abuse his power and get the AIT involved, asking it to produce evidence. The whole affair has, indeed, been scandalous.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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