Taiwan Tati Cultural and Educational Foundation

 
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Taipei Times


Title Filter     Display # 
# Article Title Author Hits
2381 Taiwan needs to make a choice Nathan Novak 787
2382 Merging elections has hidden costs Pan Han-shen 潘翰聲 752
2383 The ugly face of misogyny Taipei Times Editorial 847
2384 Government starts to sound like PRC Taipei Times Editorial 744
2385 Stopping at nothing to win elections Taipei Times Editorial 757
2386 The selective application of law is no law at all Mei-chin Chen 陳美津 770
2387 Antiquated structure of the KMT on full display James Wang 王景弘 789
2388 Has the KMT gone crazy? Taipei Times Editorial 760
2389 Rule of law or rule by law? Taipei Times Editorial 772
2390 No more ‘Chinese Taipei’ Michael Scanlon 900
2391 Open letter to Ma Ying-jeou’s KMT government Nat Bellocchi, Coen Blaauw, Et Al 848
2392 Doubts over fortitude of Taiwanese democracy Peng Ming-min 彭明敏 893
2393 Is Ma living in cloud cuckoo land on economy? Lin Cho-shui 林濁水 882
2394 Unravelling the truth of Ma’s latest policy gaffe Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒 778
2395 Empowering women in the world Shirley Chang 778
2396 The case of the missing documents Taipei Times Editorial 872
2397 Taiwan can help freedom to flower in East Asia Nat Bellocchi 白樂崎 748
2398 Taiwan does need new constitution Taipei Times Editorial 837
2399 Could Taiwan be the next Japan? Engelbert Altenburger 古堡 980
2400 What about Taiwan? Sophia Solivio 1161
 
Page 120 of 145

Newsflash

Accusing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government of ramming the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) through without regard for public concerns or democratic process, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday vowed that it would revisit the trade pact if it regains power in 2012.

“Taiwan will have to one day pay the price for its reckless passage of the ECFA,” DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said, one day after the KMT-dominated legislature approved the bulk of the trade pact. “This important piece of national policy should have been carefully considered, transparent and subject to legislative oversight, but we did not see this take place.”