In tears, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice presidential candidate Jennifer Wang (王如玄) yesterday apologized to the public over her “investments” in military housing units, while stressing that all the transactions were legal and that she is concerned about issues that affect people from disadvantaged groups, though a look at her political career shows just the opposite.
In the past couple of weeks, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has questioned Wang’s dealings in military housing units in Taipei and New Taipei City, alleging that she and her husband have been involved in property speculation involving as many as 19 military housing units.
In a press conference at KMT headquarters yesterday afternoon, Wang admitted that she had bought and sold military housing units as an “investment,” but said that the number of units had been exaggerated.
Wang apologized to the public and her supporters for causing such a controversy with her personal “investment arrangements,” and shed tears as she explained how her family had been affected by criticism in the media.
Wang said several times that she has always been concerned about the disadvantaged, whether acting as a lawyer or serving in government positions, adding that she had agreed to become KMT presidential candidate Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) running mate because she wanted to contribute more to society.
Ironic, very ironic.
Military housing units were built for military personnel who followed the KMT regime into exile in Taiwan after it lost the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese Communist Party after the end of World War II.
Although high-ranking military officers were also allocated housing units, the majority who were granted the units were low-ranking troops and their families, who would otherwise have had no place to live in Taiwan.
Today, there are still veteran KMT troops living in disadvantaged conditions and having a hard time finding a place to call home.
At the press conference, Wang was asked if she was aware that a veteran who sold her a military housing unit was now living in poverty in Changhua County. Wang replied that she could not be expected to know the story of every seller, adding that all those who dealt with her did so voluntarily and that both sides were happy when the deals were completed.
More irony.
If Wang is concerned about the disadvantaged, she should know not to “invest” in military housing units because these are supposed to be public housing for disadvantaged veterans and their families, and investment activity in any form would inflate prices, making it impossible for those who are in need to purchase the units.
Wang likened the DPP’s criticism to a form of “political murder,” but perhaps she should be reminded that, when she served as Council of Labor Affairs minister, she showed no mercy when using NT$20 million (US$605,382 at current exchange rates) of taxpayers’ money to hire lawyers to file suits against elderly laid-off workers, mostly economically disadvantaged and many of them in bad health.
Did Wang shed tears for them?
No.
Did Wang ever think of the suffering that those laid-off workers would have to deal with when they were being pursued by the state?
Probably not.
Wang needs to respond to criticism with more sincerity and honesty, and stop pretending to be someone she is not.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS