When United Microelectronics founder and former CEO Robert Tsao (曹興誠) took on the role of leading the recall petition against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯), her KMT legislative colleague, Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), accused Tsao of backing out of fulfilling a donation of NT$15 million (US$456,565) to National Tsing Hua University.
Tsao on Sunday issued a rebuttal that detailed the entire donation process, explaining that it was made in the name of the tech company he founded, and that ultimately, the truth is now out in the open. The issue here is not Tsao or his donation, but: Who got their hands on private donor data and leaked it to Weng, and the attempt at using behind-the-scenes “united front” tactics to discredit Tsao’s support for the petition to recall and unseat Hsu.
The source of Weng’s accusation that Tsao is untrustworthy because of a “missing” university donation was certainly not something Weng dreamed up herself, nor did they come to her in a dream as some sort of divine intervention or mystical telepathic calling.
The information likely came from one of the two following scenarios:
First, a staff member at National Tsing Hua University broke financial information and privacy laws and regulations by searching for Tsao’s donation record, but mistakenly thought the donation would have been a personal one made in Tsao’s own name. They then failed to find any record and provided such “lack” of information as ammunition for Weng, which paired well with the latest stage act in Weng and Hsu’s counterrecall saga.
Second, looking at how certain media outlets reported the issue, publishing articles saying that “Tsing Hua stated” and “Tsing Hua reiterated” not having received Tsao’s donation, but these outlets never specifically indicated which university department staff or spokesperson made the claims, nor did they verify the donation details.
If this is the case, there is a possibility that Weng and certain media outlets collaborated to spread disinformation in an attempt to destroy Tsao’s credibility and ruin his image as the leader of the recall petition against Hsu.
Information regarding personal donations falls under the scope of the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法). If someone at Tsing Hua University violated the law by hunting down Tsao’s donation history and provided it to Weng as ammunition in a defamatory campaign, they have contravened the law and should bear full responsibility for their actions.
If it was a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation, and they went out of their way to damage another person’s reputation or credibility, they are going to have to pay civil damages to Tsao.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung County Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Tim Smith
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS