While Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) has promised to make this year’s presidential campaign a positive and reasonable one, the series of accusations that politicians from his party have leveled at Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) over land acquisitions she made in the 1980s have made it more like a soap opera.
Following the controversy surrounding KMT vice-presidential candidate Jennifer Wang’s (王如玄) “personal financial investment” in military dependents’ housing units, KMT Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) and former legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) accused Tsai of real-estate speculation in her land transactions in Taipei’s Neihu District (內湖).
Although the DPP provided official property registration documents, saying that the KMT had made mistaken allegations, the KMT counterattacked, saying Tsai and the DPP were lying.
With different land plot numbers, sizes, values and estimations on how much the price of the land grew between the time when Tsai purchased it in 1988 and sold it in 1997, voters might wonder: Is this kind of soap opera dispute something they would expect of a presidential election? Or do they even care when a presidential candidate purchased a plot of land, when it was sold, and how much it was sold for?
Probably not. Besides those who also make real- estate investments or are in the business, most people might not even understand what these numbers are all about.
While KMT politicians have said that they are just trying to apply the same standard that the DPP used to judge Wang’s property transactions, they must understand that these two cases are different.
Wang’s “personal financial investment” is questionable not because it is illegal, but because the military dependents’ housing units that she bought and sold were not designed for investors — they were built for low-ranking veterans, soldiers and their families who might have difficulties purchasing a home.
In other words, military dependents’ housing units are more or less a type of public housing for the disadvantaged, and it is therefore questionable to buy and sell these units for personal gain, even if the transactions were legal, as Wang has said.
It is a different case for Tsai. The land that she bought and sold was private. The transactions that were made were between private individuals and the law protects citizens’ rights to purchase and sell real estate on a free market.
The KMT has also questioned how Tsai was able to purchase the land when she was only 33 years old.
First, at the time of her land purchases, Tsai was serving as an associate professor at National Chengchi University and could have accumulated some wealth.
Second, she never hid the fact that she was born into a wealthy family. She has even mentioned that, when attending university in the 1970s, she already owned a car and used it to commute between her home and school.
So it is not really surprising that Tsai was able to purchase land at the age of 33.
If it is neither legally nor morally wrong, then what is the problem?
In addition, when questioned about her investment arrangements, Wang repeatedly stressed that her transactions were all legal. If the KMT said that the same standard should be applied to both Wang and Tsai, then it should not question Tsai’s property transactions, since they were also legal, and there should be no problem according to the KMT’s standard.
Both the KMT and the DPP should forget about property issues and refocus on policy discussions, as a presidential election should.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs