Will electoral friction spark the destruction of Taiwanese politics? After reading an article entitled "Can Hsieh Chi-ta clear James Soong" by Yu Ying-fu (??^?? (Jan. 3, Page 8) I would like to put forward a few comments on Yu's one-sided theories on the James Soong (宋楚瑜) issue.
But let me introduce myself first. I am a 16 year old high-school student from overseas, observing the political tension in Taiwan prior to the March presidential election as part of a research assignment.
To start with, Yu's comment, "Soong apparently hopes Hsieh's image would help vindicate him. Can this objective really be accomplished? I think not" seems a bit far fetched, when there are still 73 days until the election (as of Jan. 4), which is plenty of time for a suitable recovery.
Besides, how can Yu say "I think not," when nothing yet is set in stone?
Does this imply that Soong's opponents have enough dirt on him to totally destroy his chances? Does it mean Yu is in alliance with these people? If so, that would make his article biased, so why was he accusing Hsieh Chi-ta (謝啟?j) of being friendly with the Soong camp (while no evidence suggests this)?
What does the word hypocrisy mean? I think it's time someone found out. Further on, Yu stated, "The most credible investigator would be someone from the enemy camp, such as someone from the KMT."
This raises several questions. For a start, how could someone from the KMT be a credible investigator, if it was the KMT that brought the Soong issue to the limelight in the first place?
If their primary intention was to undermine Soong, how could they investigate justly?
Second, if a KMT member were to investigate and the result was to alleviate suspicion of Soong, thereby giving the KMT a bad name for making false accusations, would this investigator place loyalty to the party over morality when reporting on the findings?
Finally, should Soong be proven innocent, who will take responsibility for the KMT's false accusations and denials?
In no way am I suggesting that Soong is innocent, but I ask the related persons to think through the consequences should Soong be proven to be so.
Yu also questioned "Why did they ask a third party to investigate, instead of making public the information themselves?"
When the first NT$140 million came to the attention of the media, Soong explained that the sum was put under his control by President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
However, President Lee not only denied all knowledge of the sum, but said Soong was a lying thief and in Lee's own words, what Soong was saying was "a load of garbage." Because of this and other difficulties facing Soong as he tried to explain, he has seen the need to appoint Hsieh to investigate for him.
I'm sure that Yu, as a professor of law at three universities, would understand that the best way to win a court case would not be to employ your opposition to defend you.
It is ludicrous to suggest that Soong employ an investigator from the KMT -- if he believes he is innocent, why employ someone who doesn't even believe him, let alone someone who opposes him?
On another note, as no sufficient evidence has been collected yet to show that Soong is indeed guilty, perhaps we should refer to this case as an issue, rather than a scandal, especially in a political essay written by a famous scholar.
The appearance of the word scandal suggests that it is definitely the case, however the Soong issue is far from it.
For an article in an international paper such as the Taipei Times to use the word scandal is very misleading.
It would certainly seem the presidential election has resulted in more than just a few sparks.
It is certainly interesting to view the situation from a foreigner's perspective.
I am impatiently waiting the outcome of what will probably be the first important event to take place in Taiwan in the new year.
Ash Shenker
New Zealand
Poor soil for democracy
Regarding Cao Chang-ching's (曹長青) article "For China, a century of stagnant thinking"(Jan. 1, Page 9), I feel the question raised by Cao -- why true democracy has been absent from China -- requires further discussion.
Chinese political history is characterized by dictatorship. Chin Shih-huang (?始皇), who used military force to unify China, set a very bad example -- ?one which has been imitated by many other dictators and hovers over modern China still.
People are merely slaves to serve their dictators, or so-called emperors. Under such a rule, a country is like a prison, especially Communist China, where the only window to the outside world is to be opened through engaging in economic activity.
With such a bad historical record, how can the idea of human rights be fully realized in China just a hundred years after the fall of the Qing Dynasty (2M代)?
Look at the struggle for human rights in the West. It can be traced back to the Renaissance in the 14th Century.
The root of democracy is human rights, with respect for each individual's life and their potential.
But there has never been a political system in Chinese society to protect the life and the right of expression of an individual. How can the seed of democracy exist in Chinese soil with such a history of dictatorship?
The Dung Qing Dynasty (東晉) poet Tao Yuan-ming (332W明), in his famous poem Tao Hua Yuan Chin (桃花源記), described a fisherman who accidentally discovered a mysterious place where people lived peacefully and forgot the turmoil of the outside world. The fisherman returned home and later tried to find the special land again but was never able to do so.
The story symbolically expresses the longing of the common people for peace and their distrust of a government ruled by a dictator. That mysterious place is both a symbol and a dream today.
In the real world, a democratic system is better than a dictatorial one, for it can be improved through education and competition.
The above-mentioned story is well known to all Chinese readers. It is sad that the Chinese Communists appear to have learned nothing since the People's Republic of China was founded.
Ni Kuo-rong
Hsinchu
Don't worry about licenses
The recent letter on drivers' licenses for foreigners made me laugh. There is an English written test, so easy any idiot could pass it. Don't worry about studying for it.
The tough part is the actual driving test.
The test is conducted on a closed course, with stylized representations of the real world. The roads are lined with electric devices that beep when you hit them, costing you points.
The piece de resistance, however, is the dreaded S-curve, a masterpiece which you must back down without stopping or going forward to adjust -- all in one smooth motion. How often do you do that in the real world?
In addition, you must use their vehicle, not yours.
The purpose of the driving test appear to be to ensure failure, since, if you fail, you must take a class at that particular testing site to practice your driving skills on that course.
Once you have paid the class fee, you will have a chance to practice on the S-curve, not to mention schmooze with the test administrators.
The system's purpose is not to produce safe drivers, but to create a lucrative side income for the test administrators through legalized bribery disguised as driving classes.
To beat this system, one need only use the time-honored Taiwan way: go through the back door.
The first time I took the test, with an administrator I didn't know, I failed miserably. How-ever, the second time, the administrator, my friend's cousin's boyfriend's friend, told me I performed very well. And passed me.
Michael A. Turton
Kaohsiung
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS