The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus on Thursday last week held a news conference at which it suggested that Minister of the Interior Hsu Kuo-yung’s (徐國勇) meeting with the Reverend Peter Koon (管浩鳴) from Hong Kong was decidedly suspicious, saying it looked like a “deal with the devil.”
The caucus gave two reasons for its suspicions. First, Koon is a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). Second, it said it suspected that the two men had discussed the case of Hong Kong murder suspect Chan Tong-kai (陳同佳) behind closed doors.
That these occurrences were spelled out by pan-blue camp legislators in the capacity of the KMT legislative whip cannot but set a political tone — it is very different from an average person spuriously giving their opinion at a bar.
The minister has made it clear that he only met the clergyman on one occasion, and that he was unaware prior to their meeting that Koon was a member of the CPPCC.
Hsu has also said that he had thought the meeting would be about religious matters, and that since the conversation had turned to the Chan case, he informed the Mainland Affairs Council immediately after the meeting.
This explanation failed to satisfy the KMT, which said it might investigate further.
Due to the political sensitivity of Koon’s role in Chan’s potential return to Taiwan to stand trial for the alleged murder of his girlfriend, Poon Hiu-wing (潘曉穎), there is also interest in another individual who is being linked to the Chan case even more than Hsu, and who could even be central to the whole issue.
He is C.V. Chen (陳長文), a lawyer at the Taipei-based law firm Lee and Li.
As the situation stands, Chen has said that he has met Koon on one occasion, but when asked whether he would take on the Chan case he replied that, due to the sensitivity of the issue, he would neither confirm nor deny that he would.
Koon’s public remarks about the matter have essentially revealed Chen’s hand, for people now know that Chan’s parents have visited Taiwan to discuss the case with Chen, and that Chen had also traveled to Hong Kong to see Chan.
According to facts that have come to light, Chen has not only met Koon, but he is also the subject of a “deal with the devil,” as defined by the KMT caucus.
If it is confirmed that he is to be Chan’s lawyer for the murder and dismemberment case, and is receiving remuneration for this work, the question is whether Chen was the person who suggested that Chan come to Taiwan to turn himself in to the authorities.
After all, why else would Lee and Li have accepted the case? Would this not constitute, according to the KMT caucus’ stated criteria, not only the devil, but the “devil within the devil”? People can come to their own conclusions.
Of course, it could also be construed as fair comment on a fact subject to public criticism.
The case pertains to the rationale behind the proposed extradition bill that has caused so much unrest in Hong Kong, and which has got Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) into so much trouble. Yet, it is arguable that this case also vindicates Lam to a certain degree, and therefore gives her a way out.
The bill is already dead in the water; it has been scrapped. What other purpose would advocating for Chan to come to Taiwan, at Lee and Li’s expense, to stand trial serve, and does this not constitute sacrificing the individual merely to serve political goals?
Is it not undertaking to bring prodigious legal resources to bear to see to it that Chan gets off with a light sentence in Taiwan?
Who exactly is Chen? In the absence of the KMT’s disclosure, he is a mentor of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), and hovered in the background during Ma’s eight years in office, although their acquaintance goes back several decades. He is known to be a loyal friend of Ma’s.
Ma has been involved on at least two occasions after Lam called for assistance on having Chan come to Taiwan. His involvement preceded that of the KMT itself.
The first occasion was when he lambasted the Democratic Progressive Party government for asking the Hong Kong government not to release Chan, and for always talking about Taiwan’s sovereignty while at the same time jettisoning its legal jurisdiction.
The second was when he blabbered about the pain he, as a father of two daughters, felt for the victim’s parents, because of what they must be going through.
If Ma is not pulling strings for the sake of political manipulation and to throw some business the way of his old friend, and if his tears for Poon’s parents are genuine, how does he explain bringing in a high-powered attorney to represent the suspect, thus taking the opposite side of the victim’s parents?
Given how near the presidential election is, it would be difficult for Ma to avoid questions concerning the intentions behind his involvement. If he does not come clean he could well make it difficult for the KMT to maintain any pretense of holding the higher ground.
The KMT seems so sure that Ma knows what he is doing and that his intentions are pure, and now they are finding out that there is much more to this whole situation than meets the eye.
Everyone will just have to wait to see what other devious machinations reveal themselves, and for Taiwanese to work out exactly what the details behind this supposed “deal with the Devil” are.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Paul Cooper
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
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with