The Kuomintang owes us an apology: DPP
By Ada Shen ,Special to The China Post
July 9, 2014, 12:01 am TWN
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday called for the Kuomintang (KMT) to apologize for blackening the name and reputation of DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文).
The TaiMed Biologics case, which Tsai was accused of abusing her power, became a hot issue once again after the KMT argued that the DPP has been irresponsible toward the case, and that it deserved a explanation.
The spokesperson of DPP, Huang Di-ying (黃帝穎), announced yesterday that the KMT owed Chairwoman Tsai an apology for blackening her name intentionally regarding the TaiMed Biologics case.
Huang proclaimed that the KMT defamed Tsai when she was running for president in 2012, when the Special Investigation Division (SID) also provided assistance allegedly for political benefits. After the elections, however, the SID announced that Tsai was the victim of a frame-up and also proved the innocence of Tsai, to the incredulity of the KMT.
DPP spokeswoman Hsu Jia-ching (徐佳青) indicated that the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, along with the SID, claimed that Tsai was innocent and that former minister of the Ministry of Finance Liu Yi-ru (劉憶如) who was the person in charge of National Development Fund (國發基金) at that time. Liu, who was also the former committee chairperson of the Council for Economic Planning and Development (經建會), had even confessed to forging documents for the elections.
Ho Da-i (何大一) , academician of Academic Sinica, claimed that the stock price of TaiMed biologic (中裕新藥) was NT$175 at closing in June 2014. Ho said that the National Development Fund owns 40,000 stocks, which is equivalent to NT$26.4 billion worth of profits for Taiwan. “It's such a potential tech-industry,” said Ho.
Moreover, DPP's New Taipei chapter official Luo Chih-cheng (羅致政), held a press conference yesterday afternoon and stated that Eric Chu (朱立倫) was not qualified to compare the case of Tsai with his father-in-law Kao Yu-ren (高育仁), as the two cases were not similar in nature, despite both were supposedly related to business and politics.