Same KMT, same hubris
I read with shock and amazement, as well as amusement, the article about Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) appropriations (“KMT defends Japanese asset transfers,” March 25, page 3).
It seems it is not necessary to have witnesses testify against the KMT in some cases, because basically the KMT’s hubris is sufficient indictment of the KMT itself.
After 70 years, the KMT has learned absolutely nothing, listening to its latest claims about transfers of Japanese assets to itself.
The KMT's Defense? "No one said we couldn't", or "the ROC allowed it" (and of course the KMT controlled the ROC completely at that time, according to Chiu Da-chan (邱大展,) KMT Administration and Management Committee director, (so the KMT was basically giving itself permission as a Party to steal from the State)).
Or "everyone" did that (ignoring the fact that "everyone" were countries, not political parties), or that it was compensation for losses by the KMT (while it was the "Nationalist Army" that fought the war, according to an expert (Yang Wei-chen (楊維真), a history professor at National Chung Cheng University) invited by the KMT to testify, not the KMT army, though in fact, there was no distinction between the two at all, and the Party and the State were one and the same for all intents and purposes).
Political parties do not have armies. They must not have armies. Try telling that to the KMT - it still wants the army, dewy-eyed, to sing songs about the Party.
Thus the argument of the KMT is like that of a child who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.
The KMT has indicted itself by its own words and deeds. After all this time, after 70 years, based on its testimony, it is clear the KMT is no closer to understanding its wrongdoing and transitional justice than it has ever been.
“Don’t hold us responsible — we told ourselves it was okay to do it, so we took everything.”
The KMT actually believes that it is okay for it to have glommed hundreds of billions in Japanese property for itself, not for the state, and then invest it, move it, buy more, use it to suppress Taiwanese for decades, ensconce its KMT tentacles everywhere within Taiwan’s government, military and society so that it was hard to distinguish the nation from the KMT, and resist facing the music now after it has had so long to come to terms with its past.
The KMT, in part under the guidance of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), actually moved its assets around, liquidated unlawfully owned property and used the money for its own purposes (perhaps also moving money or assets outside Taiwan for the eventuality the KMT would have to face obliteration as a consequence of its endless defalcations against Taiwan).
Selling unlawfully owned property and converting the property into cash, and then using the cash or putting the cash elsewhere is money laundering. A Harvard lawyer should know that.
As Fu Jen Catholic University philosophy professor Shen Ching-kai (沈清楷) said, in a democracy, political parties do not own property or investments or companies, because those things invite corruption and conflicts of interest.
The KMT proved this true by running the government to favor itself and its ideology and dogma, and keep power for 50 years.
How can a political party be so utterly misguided as to continue to argue with a straight face that its theft of uncounted billions was okay at the time because the government it completely controlled allowed it? Has the party learned nothing? Is it insane?
It is time for the KMT to pay the piper. The KMT must face its unethical and unlawful failure to distinguish between itself and the state, and its accumulation of so many billions in assets as a result of its control, and immoral and unethical manipulation of the government to benefit itself.
The KMT must relinquish every cent it took and stole, and empty its coffers completely of its ill-gotten gains, and all the proceeds thereof produced and accumulated over these many years, wherever that trail may lead.
Just listen to the excuses and the case is made out of the mouth of the KMT itself.
Hubris. Lots and lots of hubris.
Lee Longhwa
Los Angeles, California
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry