When Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) nominated former Council of Labor Affairs minister Jennifer Wang (王如玄) as his running mate two weeks ago, most Taiwanese were bewildered as to why an already unpopular candidate would want to invite an equally, if not more, unpopular politician to join his ticket.
Despite being a long-time advocate of women’s rights, Wang was quite a controversial figure during her four-and-a-half-year tenure as head of the council from May 2008 to October 2012.
In early 2012, Wang spent nearly NT$20 million (US$607,256) filing lawsuits against former employees of textile and electronics manufacturers who were unable to repay the loans provided to them by the council in 1997 in lieu of the layoff and retirement payments owed to them by their employers. They were let go after the unannounced closures of their companies in the 1990s.
She is also believed to be behind an unpaid leave system and a champion of the 2009 implementation of the government’s “22K policy” — whereby companies that hired new graduates were provided subsidies to make up a monthly wage of NT$22,000 — a scheme much loathed by young people, who blame it for their current low starting salaries.
In 2013, Wang served as one of the defense attorneys for former prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘), who was accused of illegally leaking confidential information regarding an ongoing judicial probe into the alleged improper use of influence by Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平).
In light of all the controversies surrounding Jennifer Wang — ranging from her alleged speculation with military housing units and allegedly illegal residence in a government dormitory, to the questionable omission of her doctorate from Beijing’s Renmin University of China on her campaign Web site — the reason for Chu’s selection of Wang is clear: She has been chosen to serve as his human shield.
Since her nomination, almost all the criticism of the Chu-Wang campaign — from the public or from those in the pan-green camp — has been directed at her.
In the past few weeks, the media frenzy over Jennifer Wang has put her in the headlines more frequently than Chu, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) or Tsai’s well-liked running mate, former Academia Sinica vice president Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁).
Hardly anyone is still talking about Chu’s contentious decision to walk away from his duty as New Taipei City mayor for three months to focus on his campaign; his yet-to-be-honored 2010 campaign pledge to add “three rings and three lines” to the Taipei metro rail system, which involves the construction of a series of MRT lines and light-railway systems; or his alleged favoring of a corporation owned by his father-in-law in the Taoyuan Aerotropolis project.
In addition, the KMT’s list of legislator-at-large candidates has been described as the “lamest in history” and drawn criticism even from within the party.
These concerns have been overshadowed by Jennifer Wang’s more headline-grabbing shortcomings.
The media are focusing on exactly how many military apartments Wang has purchased, whether she will move into another government dormitory after the election is over, or why she failed to mention her doctorate on her and Chu’s official campaign Web site.
With Wang on the front line drawing all the fire, Chu is able to sit back and relax until the conclusion of the Jan. 16 presidential election in which he is doomed to be defeated.
It is possible that he remains unscathed from the mudslinging of his opponents and the media’s attempts to dredge up skeletons from his past and emerges smelling of roses when the election brouhaha dies down.
Sadly, the same cannot be said for Wang.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then