A large sum of money from an identified source found in James Soong's hand has become the hottest topic in the country. Some people are anxiously a waiting further episodes of this thrilling soap opera, while others feel sorry and concern for Soong. Of course there are also those who have turned their back on Soong and no longer support him. In any event, everyone is waiting for further clarification.
After offering several different explanations, Soong finally held two news conferences in which he offered yet more accounts of where the money came from and who it was for.
Of course people from all camps immediately got busy. Some are busy investigating the matter, while others are busy offering a defense and refuting statements made by others.
Through these events, people are finally getting a closer look of the true nature of the politicians involved, as well as the absurd practices in Taiwan's political arena.
Although the entire scandal is still clouded by many unexplained issues, if we combine all the details that have been revealed and take out all the side issues, we can roughly piece together the silhouette of the story.
In olden days ?when Soong and President Lee Teng-hui were close associates ?Lee might have authorized a sum of money for the party to give Soong. Later on, after the two turned against each other, Soong ?feeling disillusioned about the relationship ?probably decided to withdraw the money. When Lee learned about the withdrawal, he might have instructed KMT legislator Yang Chi-hsiung to expose the matter, in the hopes of ending Soong's bid for the presidency with one lethal blow.
As far as the source of the money is concerned, it does not appear that Soong embezzled the money. It is quite likely that Lee authorized giving him the money. In either scenario, there was a funneling of party funds for private usage.
What about the money now? Soong has yet to return the money after withdrawing it on Oct. 4. This delay is unreasonable, no matter how strong the reasons offered. Why withdraw the money in haste if he was not going to return it immediately? The underlying motive is of course questionable. It is not unlikely that he intended to use the money for other personal purposes. Of course Lee became enraged upon learning about the withdrawal.
If Lee gave Soong the money, Lee may never admit it, but he has no reason to worry about people piecing the story together.
Those who place great weight on loyalty and friendship will condemn Soong for betraying Lee. Even more importantly ?and irrespective of whether the money indeed came from Lee ?by withdrawing the money, Soong has tarnished his ethical and righteous image. This is perhaps the greatest injury to him.
Soong originally explained the fund as being set up to take care of Madam Chang Ching-kuo and other members of the Chang family.
The KMT refuted this story by pointing out that the party had set up a trust fund and made other arrangements to take care of the Chang family. This has painted a portrait of the Chang family enjoying a luxurious life ?I wonder how they feel about it?
The issue is not whether the Chang family should receive care, but by what appropriate means?
Amid the differing statements issued, we can tell that the ruling party's handling of financial matters is flawed.
If Soong is telling the truth, then he was ordered to take care of individuals other than just members of the Chang family. On this issue, he appears to be holding back some further deep and dark secrets ?either deliberately or unintentionally. Hopefully, he will offer further clarifications.
If Soong was not telling the truth and simply decided to make up the story about the Chang family, then his intentions were loathsome.
Large sums of money have easily changed hands in secret ?whether through embezzlement or not. Sometimes the funds have been used it to buy support, othertimes to reward supporters. Isn't it time to change this system? Who knows how many similar incidents have taken place in the dark?
The issue is not the breakup of friendship between two persons nor any particular person's character. Rather, the revelation of the entire Soong scandal is that the KMT regime must end.
Chou Tien-jui is the chairman of the board of directors at Power News.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
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,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS