There have been heated discussions online about retired navy captain Kuo Hsi’s (郭璽) allegations that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Ma Wen-chun (馬文君) shared classified information about Taiwan’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program with foreign entities.
Minister of Justice Tsai Ching-hsiang (蔡清祥) said an investigation has been launched. Certainly, these allegations deserve a serious, impartial and hopefully swift investigation.
However, many members of online defense communities are already jumping to conclusions based on Kuo’s allegations even though Ma has yet to be implicated.
This is partly due to the public’s mistrust of the KMT being able to handle defense matters. KMT politicians have been known to be unfairly critical of Taiwan’s efforts to shore up defense against a bellicose China.
For instance, Ma appeared on the political talk show Situation Room (少康戰情室), criticizing Taiwan’s Indigenous Defense Submarine project; the clip of her appearance was then shown on Chinese state media.
It is undeniable that the construction of Hai Kun-class submarines is an important milestone for Taiwan’s military-industrial complex. Itcan be expected to bring new capabilities to Taiwan’s navy and serve as an effective deterrent against Chinese aggression.
Although submarines are generally expensive investments, once all eight Hai Kun-class vessels are built, the fleet would certainly become a headache for Chinese military planners as it would add an extra dimension to maritime warfare.
Nonetheless, there are multiple components to the potential information leak that seem to paint a more complex, if not contradictory, picture.
Allegedly, after Kuo’s business negotiations with a South Korean submarine consultant had broken down, the consultant released a substantial amount of information about the Indigenous Defense Submarine project to several legislators, including Ma.
Recordings released by the KMT Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) allegedly indicate that Kuo wanted to be the intermediary between the South Korean submarine consultant and the navy, implying that Kuo had much to gain financially from the submarine’s construction.
Kuo said those recordings were edited out of context, and that the South Korean consultant released the recordings because he was bitter after being fired from the project.
It is becoming more difficult to separate defense policy from politics. This is particularly true when it comes to this investigation.
The KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party are seeking to capitalize on this investigation in light of the upcoming presidential election. Political pundits have discussed this case disproportionately on their talk shows, despite limited unbiased information. The escalation of discourse is unproductive.
With the conflicting business interests and political motivations involved in this investigation, the truth most likely lies somewhere between Kuo’s allegations and Ma’s counter-allegations. At this point, Kuo and Ma should be presumed innocent.
This scandal should not distractfrom the important role the Hai Kun-class submarines can be expected play in the defense of Taiwan’s waters.
It is premature to jump to any conclusions regarding the allegations without an official verdict. All the information released at this point paints a murky picture.
Linus Chiou is a part-time writer based in Kaohsiung.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS