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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS