Talk:Lee Teng-hui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

I'm still working on this one...I'll be back -- Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.170.5.117 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2003‎


Hoklo name[edit]

Li Teng-hui's name in Hoklo romanization is Li Teng-hui too?! --Menchi 06:42, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it's Lí Teng-hui. A-giau 09:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I delete this paragraph[edit]

A devout Marxist in his teens, Lee joined the Communist Party of China in ...he was a traitor.

Reasons: 1. Li Ao, is nothing near a historian, not many scholars treat his works seriously. 2. Lee never claims that he had been a communist.

Remove unverified statements[edit]

"Lee joined the Communist Party in 1946" have not been verified by any reliable source. If the manager insist on this statement, please show your evidence.

The relevant news article has been linked. It was in the Taipei Times in 2002 (a pro-Green newspaper). --Jiang 19:42, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The link you provided does not go to the Taipei Times website, but an article which refers to The Straits Times, a pro-China Singaporean newspaper http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,234006,00.html .

The linked article is based on the Chinese news reports by pro-China media TVBS [1], [2], [3], and [4].

Please read each articles carefully, Lee never admitted that he had joined the Communist Party in these articles. The closest statements made by Lee appears only in the first TVBS news article, which says "Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist."(李前總統沒有否認,這段加入共產黨的歷史).

The repoter write this sentences about three times in the first TVBS news article. The first time is in the end of the first paragraph. Ahead of it is the descriptions that Mr. Wu Ketai, a former PRC officer and friend of Lee, says Lee had been a Communist, and Lee says most of Wu's saying is untrue. Without any description that Lee was asked if he had joined the Communist Party or not, the repoter suddenly wrote that "; however, Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist."(;不過,李前總統沒有否認,這段加入共產黨的歷史。).


Actually, in the whole of the first TVBS news article, the reporter didn't make any solid statement that he had asked Lee if Lee had joined the Communist Party or not. There are only two related quotes in the news report. The first is: (After a series of criticisms to Wu, Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist. But this "Communist Lee"'s past, somehow always been intentionally neglected.) (在一連串的批評之後,李前總統沒有否認他曾經加入共產黨,只是這段 "共產黨員李登輝" 的歷史,總是在記憶中被刻意的遺漏。) The second is: (After that, "Lee had been a Communist", almostly became an issue of his past that difficultly for the outsiders to touch.)(從此,"李登輝曾是共產黨員" ,在他的生命中,幾乎是外人很難觸碰的議題。)


Moreover, in the last paragraph, the report wrote (He( Lee ) believes "The Communists only want to make themselves powerful men", and he ask people not to trust their words.)(他認為 "共產黨員只想讓自己成為有權有勢的人" 他請大家不必相信這些人所說的話.). From this description, it seems Lee implicitly denied he had been a Communist.


From the series of related TVBS news, it is not difficult to find they tried to bias the readers that Lee had been a Communist, and Wu exposed Lee's secrets. They follows Wu's statements in all articles. All the Lee's responses are indirectly quoted. The most important statements are all strange sentences; e.g. 從此,"李登輝曾是共產黨員" ,在他的生命中,幾乎是外人很難觸碰的議題。, what does this mean in Chinese? --anon

Please avoid the labels and get to the facts. When I added the paragraph, I was also basing it on a couple articles from the Taipei Times that explicitly said Lee admitted being a communist. Those articles seem to have been archived. This link provides and excerpt purportedly from the CNA:
2002-11-08 / Central News Agency /
Former president Lee Teng-hui (—›“o‹P) admitted that he was once a Chinese Communist Party member for the first time in a television interview yesterday. Lee told a Taipei television station that he joined the communist party out of a young man's naive vision for his country.
He made the confession after a senior Taiwanese communist, Wu Ketai, told a local historian, Hsu Tsungmao, in Beijing that he was the man who initiated Lee into the Chinese Communist Party in September 1946.
I can't comment on the news articles you have posted because I'm not literate enough to read them. The NPOV way to treat this is not outright deletion but attributing words and facts to their sources. But one question - if he really wasnt a communist, then why didn't he deny it? --Jiang 00:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now there are two main disagreements: 1)whether Lee had been a Communist, and 2)whether he has admitted so. For the first question we can refer to historical documents, which have been released by Li Ao. You can say Li as "nothing near a historian", but you cannot deny the evidences he collected, because no matter who hold these evidences, they are still evidences. According to Li, his claim comes from a confidential document printed by the National Security Bereau, A Collection of Spy Cases Over the Years(历年办理匪谍案汇编). In Vol.1 p.168 to p.190 there is a case about a Communist group in the Law Faculty, Taiwan University. In the first paragraph of that "case summary" it says "Ye Cheng-song was introduced into the Communist Party by Communist Lee Teng-hui..."(叶城松于三十六年十月间,由奸匪李登辉介绍参加匪帮...). So this means Lee was indeed a Communist, at least he was considered a Communist by the government. This historical document is certainly more reliable than Lee's own denial. I do believe that Lee actually said "The Communists only want to make themselves powerful men", but then we shall not forget his interesting and peculiar character: he is a fierce critic of KMT, despite of the fact that he was the president of that party for twelve years. Furthermore the Chinese Communist Party has also admitted that Lee was its member. On July 24th, 1995, in an article published in the official People's Daily, the author said that "Lee Teng-hui joined Chinese Communist Party in his early days, but he betrayed the party later."(李登辉早年加入过中国共产党,后来背叛了.) If we must be more sceptical, then we shall not believe both Lee Teng-hui and the CCP, but we cannot neglect the confidential document from the (Taiwannese) government.
For the second part, whether Lee has ever admitted he was a Communist, I cannot be sure. But in my memory I did remember that one of the member of the Taiwanese Solidarity Union, when asked about Lee's Communist background, responded that it was in his very early days and when he was young he was naive and so on. I am not sure about that. But if Lee was not a Communist he had every right to sue Li Ao or any other people who publicly claimed that he was. But he did not do that in the past decade and a half. He also did not make any attempt to clarify that he was not a Communist, although so many media reports said that he was.--Formulax 01:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Another comment on the news report on 2002-11-08: in Li Ao's book he also said that Wu Ke-tai was the person who initiated Lee. So far Li Ao's cliam is consistant and no one has yet raised any evidence against his claim (since 1990). So there is no logical reason we should not believe this.--Formulax 01:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Found the Taipei Times article: Lee admits to fling with communism. --Jiang 01:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Jiang, The CNA news atticle refers to Lee's interview with a Taipei television station. Which is TVBS, and I have linked the original TV news reports to you. When analysing the news sources, it is generally required to classify them as "Primary Sources", "Secondary Sources"...etc. In this case, the words Lee said in the interview is "Primary Sources", the content of the TVBS news reports I discussed are "Secondary Sources", and the CNA, Taipei Times news atticles which you refer to are Third Sources.

The only base of the claim that "Lee had been a Communist" is TVBS's news reports, which I have discussed, said "Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist.", not "Lee admitted the past of being a Communist.". These two statements are different. The former is actually a conclusion of TVBS reporter. --anon

Do you have a transcript of the interview? The links you have posted above do not work and need to be reformatted. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the Taipei Times article was written after examining the interview? I find it hard to believe that these separate sources would be outright distorting Lee's words when they could have easily accessed the primary source material. --Jiang 01:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The links works now. The mass media in Taiwan are generally as biased by the public, this is very similar to South Korea's mass media. Therefore, it is not safe to make statements based on "Secondary Sources": the TVBS reporter's conclusion or Li Ao's evidence. Li Ao had shown the evidences that Lee hired a Killer to assassinate James Soong. We shall prevent indirectly reffering to the raw data through the unreliable media.
That interview is the primary source for Lee's denial as a Communist. It is not a primary source for whether Lee was a Communist. One can be a Communist and refuse to acknowledge it. The primary source for wheter Lee was a Communist was that classified document released by Li Ao. So in my opinion it is already beyond doubt that Lee was a Communist. The only question remains is whether he admitted. I am not sure if there is a primary source for Lee's denial, but even if there is that may not be more convincing than a secondary source. For example if Lee was directly quoted as denying himself as a Communist in 2000, and then there is a secondary source saying that Lee has admitted, then we should trust that more recent report, especially when many others collaborated with it. If media is unreliable, then even the primary sources cannot be trusted. So it is actually safer to refer to many reports from many media, rather than refer to one primary source from one media.--Formulax 02:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Taipei Times article[5] didn't say anything like "Lee admitted he had been a Communist", but only stated "Lee admits to fling with communism". Theese two statements are quite different, the later is well-known, while the former is actully news. Many famous western scholars fling with communism, but never be Communists. As for Li Ao's documents, have them been checked in a reliable way? ....Li Ao, you can check this site.[6] --anon

Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) acknowledged yesterday that he had joined the Chinese Communist Party in the 1940s -- but said he did so in order to realize his ideas for Taiwan. I think it's clear that he admitted joining. --Jiang 04:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


The following statement in Lee Teng-hui " Lee himself admitted that he was a communist in a 2002 interview " doesn't come from the links of this 2002 TVBS interview [7], [8], [9], [10]. The The Taipei Times article[11] and The Straits Times article[12] base on the 2002 TVBS interview. Do you still think this statement is proper? Please google 李登輝 吳克泰 共產黨, only 94 pages can be found. Please check every pages, especially the Traditional Chinese pages, you can find all Lee-asmitted-being-a-Communist pages comes from the 2002 TVBS interview! (Li Ao discussed a different issue: whether Lee had been a Communist or not?). Therefore the Lee-asmitted-being-a-Communist statement has to be grounded on [13]. My question is: this statement is stronger than that the source[14] could provide. Look at the 2002 TVBS interview[15], it repeats "Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist." three times, but never explicitly stated any question like "Had you been a Communist before?" had be asked. On the contrary, Lee says "All that Wu said are lies"(「吳克泰所講的都是騙人的,根本不能相信」). Which was strangely not considered by the TVBS reporter as a denial of being a Communist before. --anon

For a comparison to be made, the transcript (not a description of the transcript) needs to be made available. I don't see why the Taipei Times would choose to publicize this if it wasn't really the case. --Jiang 06:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The [16] lists all news reports related to Wu. It seems the article[17] is what TVBS broadcasted. No matter how, if the event "Former president Lee Teng-hui acknowledged that he had joined the Chinese Communist Party" actually happened in 2002 TVBS interview, why did TVBS only use the descripition "Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist" in their news reports? The descriptions in TVBS news reports seems to suggest "Lee did not deny the past of being a Communist" is what actually happened in the interview, and "Lee acknowledged that he had joined the Chinese Communist Party" did not happen. Since TVBS is the source of The Taipei Times article, the descriptions written by TVBS should be more reliable than the TT article.
Richard Kagan has a new bio out on Lee, and it is very clear. First, Lee was not a "devout Marxist in his teens." Lee did not encounter Marx until his studies at Kyoto when he was 20, in 1943 The claim that Lee was a devout is a smear appearing in a pro-China paper by a pro-China writer. It should be deleted. Lee was not in the party for two years, but joined briefly in 1946, as Lee said in the 2007 interview in the Taipei Times. Can we get this changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.17.7.193 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Re my comment above. I've added some material on his experiences in Japan and Taiwan from 1943 on, deleted the nonsense of him being a devout marxist in his teens. 163.17.7.193 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton
Finally -- it should be noted -- the whole discussion of Lee's alleged Marxism is a simpleminded smear. Marxism had no detectable influence on Lee's intellectual life. This entry does not even mention Lee's encounter with Christianity and his conversion in 1961, which had a far greater effect on him. I will go ahead and add some material on that.163.17.7.193 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton
Michael Turton? Let me guess... "The View from Taiwan"? Wow, so I can find you here as well. You sure like to post comments on CNN articles a lot, don't you... -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 16:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Change "Japanese occupation" to "Japan era"[edit]

"Japanese occupation" is not a proper and neutral description of the status of Taiwan between 1895 and 1945. "Japan era", whcich are used by many scholars, is more precise than "Japanese occupation".

I disagree. Before 1895 Taiwan was part of China, and after the Sino-Japanese War it was given to Japan. Therefore it was an occupation. I don't know how "many" historians are using "Japan era", but I do know that in Taiwan, most historians use "日据时期"(Japanese occupation period). It is both proper and neutral. "Occupation" may not be a biased term. There is an article entitled U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.--Formulax 01:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But the difference here is that Japan legally and formally had control of Taiwan during the period. It was no more an occupation than saying New Zealand is "occupied" by the British because Queen Elizabeth is head of state.--59.121.192.203 09:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Japan seized control of Taiwan from China in a war of aggression. The Chinese have never recognized the legality of it, thus it is an occupation.173.67.9.39 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Japan had occupied many places, such as Malaysia. The name "Japanese occupation" is misleading that Taiwan's situation and Malaysia's are the same. Don't forget Taiwan is a legal part of the Japanese Empire.
It may be ambiguous, but it is a more common term. I thought Wikipedia always stick to a more common term.--Formulax 02:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
how's "Japanese rule"? --Jiang


The name "Japanese occupation"(日據) contains unnecessary judgmental meanings. Although 日據 is more popular than 日治 in Chinese literatures. But the later is a more neutral description, and prevents the unnecessary judgments. I think the English name of this period needs not to be the translation of the Chinese name.

Lee's position[edit]

Wrote out Lee's current beliefs. Someone should double check for NPOV (since I hate the man), but I don't think I've said anything that could be disputed. One thing to keep in mind is that even among TI-supporters, Lee takes a pretty hard line position. It is truly that more moderate TI-supporters at least try to make more of an effort to reconcile Taiwanese independence with some concept of China. But that belongs in other articles.

Roadrunner 03:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to tone down some of the wording. I am puzzled on the las two paragrph, since they centered more on Chen and US policy instead of Lee's position. I wish some other people can give us some opinion as to what should we do about them.Mababa 05:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Lee intensified the split between the mainland origin residents and Taiwan island origin residents under his term of presidency by speeding up the localization movement in Taiwan. His position is clear, Taiwan is a different country, he does not call mainland China Chinese communist, as his party Taiwan solidarity union call Taiwan and China differently. It is difficult for him as a president to make Taiwan's voice heard internationally, but his moves caused timely split between people in Taiwan with different political objectives, and his policies certainly make Taiwan independence possible within Taiwan politically, which is impossible 20 years before in Taiwan. Nowadays, many local Taiwanese adore him b/c of his stand on the Taiwan first, but there are people who detest him b/c he does not support Chinese unification, or in the very least, the Republic of China as the representative of China. When Lee took office, he faced challenges within the KMT about the presidency and chairmanship, he overcame those challenges. In the early years of his presidency, he supported the One China principle and removed martial law which gained overwhelming reputation for him as Mister Democracy by letting later elections to run effectivly including the presidential election. But he does not like KMT as stated in numerous books or interviews that revealed later, he had major struggles with the pan-blue supporters in Taiwan because he had defeated many pan-blue politicians in his political career, and he had alliances and associations with the pan-green leaders such as taking the same line to amend the ROC constitution to give the President supreme power till today. Politically, Lee also made alliances with some of the controversial figures/groups in Taiwan that symbolized as "black gold". It is undisputed in Taiwan that to make ROC Taiwanized, but near the end of Lee's presidential term he announced the special state to state relations between mainland and Taiwan, which concerned many in Taiwan that he sympathized the movement of Taiwan independence or leaned toward it or in the very beginning he is a TI supporter. In addition, Lee raised the issue of 228 incident publicly that KMT intended to cover the issue in the past to avoid social unrest with the KMT ruling, which caused the pan-blue supporters to hate him and pan -green supporters a step closer to him.

Overall, Lee's position as a politician is clear, which is to make ROC to the extent of Taiwan only. Even though trade volume between two sides of Taiwan Strait outpaced other trading partners but he is not eager to have contact with mainland as pan-blue does, rather, he focuses on streghthening political and military tie with the US and Japan. In Taiwan, his party claims that TSU is a centre-left party that cares about the middle and lower class in the society (in terms of income and etc) with an unique position on the unification or independence issue, which is not to support Taiwan independent but advocate that Taiwan itself is independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.174.141.55 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee's position is clear from his actions. The man was obviously pro-Taiwan independence and wishes he was born Japanese just like most old fart Taiwanese of his generation. Now he is just an old has-been that will say anything to get attention just to remind people that he is still alive. In today's Taiwanese political arena he is about as relevant as my dog's poop. 24.87.34.55 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Proven suspicion"[edit]

The following reasoning is not necessarily true:

"During his presidency, Lee was followed by persistent suspicions that he secretly supported Taiwan independence" (emphasis added) -> "The former suspicion was proven true by Lee's behavior after his Presidency"

For all we know this man could have had a change of heart. The latter proves little. At best it suggests consistency. And I would qualify what "secretly supported" means. It could range from "Lee harbored sympathy toward indpendence" to "Lee was a secret member of the World United Formosans for Indpendence", etc. What should be proof would be a quote from Lee (perhaps from one of his auto- or ghost-written biographies) saying so, IMO. A-giau 09:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the main reason the New Party split out from the GMT was because many people cannot stand Lee's support of Taiwan independence. Please read more about the New Party before calling him "a change of heart". Bobbybuilder 07:38pm, 28 June 2005 (TST)

Li Ao is not a historian[edit]

Is Li Ao a historian? Please give specific proof of him being an historian.

Li Ao's personal conspiracy theory[edit]

There is nothing wrong for Lee to exert his political freedom to join Communist party when KMT post war rule of Taiwan was so corrupted. Even Lee acknowledged it. However, Li Ao's highly biased theory attacked on the integrity of Lee by focusing on the possibility of Lee selling out his fellow based on his circumstantial evidence. This is not convincing and POVed, may not be fallacious but certainly lack of accuracy.

Li Ao has been a proliferative conspiracy theorist and his theories were not limited onto this one toward Lee. I highly suggest that this section should be moved to the article of Li Ao. His theory is as credible as theories claiming Eisenhower met with Extraterrestrials in 1954 and George W. Bush has been keeping information of UFO from the public who has the right to know.[18].Mababa 04:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says nothing about joining the communist party being forbidden.
I saw some previous discussion on whether he joined the party and I was trying to encourge people to be more open minded. I did not intend to argue that it was forbidden or not. :)
Other than that, I don't see an argument here regarding Li Ao. Please explain how it is a "conspiracy theory" if you believe it to be so. Let's not poison the well and stay on topic. Eisenhower and UFOs have nothing to do with this. --Jiang 07:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason for me to hold this belief is simple. There is no much evidence to support Li's claim that Lee sold out his fellow party people. Li Ao's theory is hinged on the fact that Lee is not dead whereas others are all dead. Li did not have any hard evidence or paper record to bolster his hypothesis. Please help me understand the importance of this claim to be on Lee's biography and the evidence for that claim to hold true. I am not arguing for erasing the entry but moving to somewhere more appropriate: Li Ao.
If I remember correctly from my last time watching his show, Li Ao also invited Yin Ching-feng's widow to his show and publicly suspected that Lee was behind the murder case of Navy Captain Yin Ching-feng (尹清楓) in 1993 during his show, again based on the fact that the investigation was stalled without progress. No documentary evidence and no other witness. Sheerly based on the fantacy in his brain. Should we also enter this claim from Li Ao too? Wouldn't the level of this encyclopedia be affected and become Li's soap box? :) Mababa 06:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Propose:

1)move Li Ao's theory to his own personal articl Li Ao. or 2)Add that Li Ao suggesting Lee has a role in the murder case because the investigation was stalled. Mababa 03:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i dont see why. what pertains to Lee Teng-hui is relevant here as long as a large segment of the population holds the opinion. info can be added to the Li Ao article, but shouldnt be deleted from here--Jiang 18:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Either way would be fine with me. With your support of retaining Li Ao's comments on Lee, I assume that you also support to add the Li's theory that Lee was behind the murder. Please comment on the second proposal. Many thanks.Mababa 01:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you explain why such an important case cannot be solved? Why does the most important tape record could "acccidentally" be lost when Chen Shui-bian "was moving"? Lots of links are traced back to Lee and stopped there, why? bobbybuilder 07:43pm, 28 June 2005 (TST)

Lee joined Communist Party of Taiwan[edit]

The following statement is somehow inaccurate. Lee joined the communist party of Taiwan, a branch of communists under supervision of Communist party of Japan and later supervised by CPC.

Lee joined the Communist Party of China in September 1946,

Evidence:

李登辉年表中所谓“日本共产党台湾民族支部”,就是所谓的“台湾共产党”,简称“台共”。台共是一九二八年的四月十五日成立于中国上海。该党成立时的创党党员,包括了:林木顺、谢雪红、翁泽生、林日高、潘钦信、陈来旺、张茂良等人。林木顺是首任主席,翁泽生是党书记。台共创党当天,中共方面也派了代表彭荣出席台共的创立大会。.....所以,在“共产国际”的组织架构下,台湾共产党纵然在组织体系上是日本共产党的支脉,而和中国共产党之间的“兄弟党”关系,远比和日本共产党的关系来得更亲密些。.....中共和台共两党之间本属“兄弟党”关系,在二次大战结束后,这种“兄弟党”关系发生了根本改变。台湾重归中国版图,此刻,台共自然纳入中共党组织,成为直接受中共领导的省级党组织......李登辉躬逢其盛,并且在战后台共蓬勃发展的阶段,忝为台共党员。斯时,李登辉认为中共最后终将击垮国民党政权,建立红色政权;一旦台湾解放,他将立刻摇身变为红朝新贵。尽管李登辉这些从日本回台湾的台共成员,在反对国民党统治的想法上基本是雷同的,但他们和中国共产党党员之间,在本质上还是存在着某种微妙的差异性。有过日本经验的台共成员多半是知识分子,而且自认受过日本先进教育,平日自视甚高,举手投足之间难免有些骄气,瞧不起从大陆派来台湾的“上级”,认为他们土里土气,没有文化,彼此在理念上也多有歧异,共处日久愈难弥合。矛盾日积月累,双方的尖锐冲突自然与日俱增,终于埋下李登辉和台共“分道扬镳”的伏笔。[19]

There are a few POVs in the cited article on the issue of Taiwan's legal status. I won't make much fuss on it here. One may argue that Communist Party of Taiwan is under the supervision of CPC; however, they are still different parties.

I also suggest removing the first link in the article. This is inaccurate (based on CPC's POV claiming Taiwan communist party to be part of it) and does not provide much useful information. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19780611 Mababa 04:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're going to have to translate/summarize all that and explain its source because I can't read it. Our article on the Taiwanese Communist Party suggests it no longer existed after being disbanded by the Japanese administration. The Taipei Times article specifically mentions that Lee joined the "Chinese Communist Party". The guy who inducted him, Wu Ketai, fled to the mainland in 1949 and is still a member.


在《台湾的主张》一书末尾,李登辉特意将“日本共产党台湾民族支部成立”列入年表的内容中(一九二八年项下)。[20]

Thank you for your response and your correction. For the question which communism party Lee participated in, I think I will have to read more on this topic in the future. Based on the article from strait times and other website I have glanced over so far (which may based on the same source), it seemed that Lee applied for joining communism party after the WWII in China. Based on Wu's deposition, he applied for CPC. However, if one read Lee's memorior, he referred the Taiwan branch of Japanese communism party in it. Thus, the question comes down to 1) whether the Taiwanese communism party continueously existed after WWII and 2)if it did, was it under supervision from CPC or 3)it was incoporated into CPC or it is a separate party from CPC.
I think this requires deeper understanding to the history and the structure of the party. I think I will accept the current statement in the article until someday I run into other source to help us to entangle the puzzle.Mababa 06:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I dont think the statement "The KMT was aware that Lee had been a Communist, but destroyed the records when he was promoted to the vice presidency." should be attributed to Li Ao. The linked Strait Times article attributes it to Wu Ketai. Your change of "Lee stated that he joined out of hatred of the KMT." to "Lee also publicly clarified that he joined KMT in 1971 out of his disillusion toward the KMT regime after the 228 incident." makes no logical sense. One would think disillusionment would not make him join the KMT. --Jiang 07:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. One would need some drive more than mere disillusionment to make him join the KMT. I think I was confused. I think I have accidentally watched one of the Li Ao's show which happen to address on this issue. In my recollection, Li Ao probably made the same argument perhaps based on the same source, Wu. Perhaps that's why I made the confusion.Mababa 06:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Lee Teng-hui is a good (oh really?) man (if you say so)[edit]

I would say that Lee Teng-hui is a good man. He truly cares about Taiwan and the truth about what Japan did to Taiwan. He is thankful of what Japan did for Taiwan. Even though Taiwan was a colony of Japan, the Japanese treated the Taiwanese with equality and gave education and wealth.

Good Job Lee!

CKS treated Taiwanese with "equality" and gave them "education" and "wealth". Why does he only get scorn!? Why does Lee Teng-hui not come out and praise CKS? Oh wait. He did when he liked being a lackey.

Hitler was a good man

I would say that Hitler was a good man because he truly cared about the German people and how much the allies mistreated the German people after WWI. He made Germany rich and strong, we should be thankful of what he did for Germany. Even though many Jews were killed by him, he always treated the good Aryans with dignity and gave them bread and education.

Sieg heil, heil Hitler!

What the F*ck? Why are you relating Lee Teng-hui to Hitler? It's the Chinese who killed 20,000 Taiwanese. Not Lee. I think he wants to say that Taiwanese are very different from Chinese.

Please, Hitler is much better, and at least he is not a coward. Please do not compare Lee to Hitler. During 228 many Chinese are killed as well, it's the spineless Lee covered up the history. You can even tell from the anonymous posts that even his supporters are spineless. Bobbybuilder 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that the real Lee in the funny picture or just a lookalike? BlueShirts 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is indeed him. Bobbybuilder 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

People often neglect the fact that Taiwan was an inseperable part of Japan before Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan by a peace treaty later. It is just so natural to people like Lee having their own Taiwanese view on Taiwanese history despite differences over the KMT one.

People also often neglect the fact that Poland was an inseperable part of Germany. Case closed. 68.162.141.199 23:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Lee Teng-hui is just an irrelevant old man now, his time in the spotlight have been over for years now. Who gives a flying fuck how "good" he is?

"unusual among Asians of his time"[edit]

I removed this parenthetical after the statement that Lee had an affinity for Japan. For one thing, Japanese people are Asian, so it doesn't make sense to say that Asians didn't usually have an affinity for Japan. Also, it wasn't all that unusual for people in Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule to have an affinity for Japan. That's a touchy subject, of course. Sigrid 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking affinity for Japan, different Asians have had different thoughts. As far as I can think, Taiwanese have had mixed thoughts of for and against Japan.--Jusjih 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Disappointingly biased for a Wikipedia page[edit]

This article reads suspiciously like a smear on a controversial political figure. Though I possess only some familiarity with East Asian politicians, I'm surprised at the clearly biased tone of writing and overwhelming use of references to partisan sources.

This page needs a good deal of work, particularly due to the Orwellian activities of an administrator that seems to have an axe to grind. NPOV has a spirit in addition to regulations; let's try to adhere to it.

I agree with the problem of partisan sources and the POV in the page. What really trouble me are statements such as:

"while others have claimed that he was an illegitimate son of a Japanese occupation force enforcer"
"used methods under the veil of "pragmatism" to sideline Hau and his backers in the face of the opposition"
"He participated in the 228 Incident during this time. Based on the fact that the Communists who associated with Lee were all executed by the government while Lee survived, Li Ao, a controversial scholar, historian, and writer, asserted that Lee must have sold out his comrades to avoid their fate."

These statements are speculative at best and contain good use of weasel words. I do have a few biases in the issue, but this page can almost be considered slander. As a balance, the page does contain some positive aspects of Lee Teng-hui, but far fewer than the negative accusations. Jumping cheese Contact 04:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Jiang has removed most of the bias in the page and added additional info. The pages looks much better now! =) Jumping cheese Contact 07:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited out the first since I couldn't find any information alluding to those rumors. I reworded the third. I really don't understand the second statement. I don't see how Hau Pei-tsun factors into the argument. It is argued that the streamlining of Taiwan Province, which Lee justified as reducing administrative efficiency, was really an attack against James Soong's power base, but this is for a later paragraph...--Jiang 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your edits. It removed POV, without removing significant facts. I don't really understand the second statement either, mainly because I'm not all that well versed in the politics. ^_^ Jumping cheese Contact 11:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"father" rumor must be edited out[edit]

This article is a poster child for the mean-spirited and dysfunctional state of Taiwanese politics today. Insinuating that Lee is really the son of a Japanese official (and thus, without saying it directly, that his mother was a whore, that he is a bastard, and that he is not really ethnically Chinese at all--that he is a traitor, his father was a traitor and a cuckold, and his mother was a cheating, traitorous slut) is a nasty, mean-spirited myth created to discredit Lee purely to satisfy the ideology of the more radical Chinese nationalist elements of the opposition.

This nonsense must be recognized for what it is and deleted forthwith. While rumors and myths can be reported (as long as they are identified as such), this is not even close to a mainstream rumor--it's a recently (and sloppily) manufactured slur and as such has no place in a biographical article on one of the most important political figures in 20th (and early 21st) century East Asian politics.


As I'm completely out of Taiwan's political game by my nationality and interests (I'm french), i can only agree and support the previous comment. The father rumor must be deleted. I'll wait a little while to see if another more experienced contributor wants to go ahead before doing anything.Popersman 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I have to agree that it is indeed sad how fucked-up Taiwanese politics is today, which Lee also had a hand in bringing about. Although I have to point out that Lee has never directly denied rumors of his alleged Japanese heritage. The man has even used a Japanese name in early life. 24.87.34.55 (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor who wants to spread rumours on Wikipedia as Fact.[edit]

This father business is nothing more than rumour and gossip, and until confirmed by conclusive evidence, should not be stated.

recent changes (3RR has reached)[edit]

  • Of course he would be viewed by many Chinese that he is a traitor, while he sided with Japanese, with who fought for 8 bloody years.
  • Even the pan-Green documents/videos (on the 228 incident) say that Taiwanese welcomed the Nationalist immediately after the war was over because the Japanese was oppressive (as a background story). The incident would of course change the overall attitude. But that cannot change the past!
  • Taiwanese is a dialect, as stated in the first sentence. Removing the word "dialect" would only give the false perception that it is a distinct language like the relationship between English and Chinese. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it was User:Certified.Gangsta who violated WP:3RR in the first place. (Times below in UTC)
  • 02:10, 25 November 2006 InfernoXV (Talk | contribs) (1) taiwanese is a dialect of minnan, there's no arguing this. if you don't know chinese, refrain from commenting. 2) learn to spell and write proper english.) (partial, let's call this 6.5th revert)
  • 01:21, 25 November 2006 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (rv care to discuss??) (6th revert)
  • 15:36, 24 November 2006 Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (Talk | contribs) (→External links - remove pending CFD discussion)
  • 02:16, 24 November 2006 InfernoXV (Talk | contribs) (5th revert)
  • 01:36, 24 November 2006 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (rvv) (4th revert) ← violation
  • 06:49, 22 November 2006 Yao Ziyuan (Talk | contribs) (added category for surname)
  • 02:53, 22 November 2006 InfernoXV (Talk | contribs) (nonsense pov edit reverted) (3rd revert)
  • 02:32, 22 November 2006 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (rv quite a few especially after the 228 incident were not, as evident that some view themselves as Japanese after the assimilation attempt) (2nd revert)
  • 02:14, 22 November 2006 Chochopk (Talk | contribs) (partial revert (most Taiwanese welcomed Nationalist after WWII just proved not all were so pro-Japan)) (1st revert)
  • 01:40, 22 November 2006 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (→Japanese connection)
  • 01:38, 22 November 2006 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) m (→Trivia)
  • 01:37, 22 November 2006 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (NPOV violation)
I posted the earlier thread around the time of 3RR, and nobody cared to join. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a violation of 3RR. The rule is three reverts for each editor per 24 hours. So if there were two editors involved, there can be up to six reverts. Nevertheless, can we please discuss controversial edits before actually making them. It's basically politics, so there is never a wrong or right answer, but we can always compromise. =D Jumping cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ct 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. As for my edits, many older generation Taiwanese still idolize the Japanese and calling Lee a "Chinese" traitor is unjust because many Taiwanese do nto consider themselves as Chinese.--Certified.Gangsta 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So now, this is reduced to a number problem. How many is "many older generation"? How many are there do not consider themselves non Chinese? There is hardly an answer for this complicated question. But as an over simplified answer, the hate-him, like-him population roughly corresponds to Pan-Blue and Pan-Green camp. And it's about 50 50. Since the article must be NPOV. I will change accordingly. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with edits. Now it's down to the Taiwanese dialect or language issue. Right now, it's only stated as "Taiwanese" (without dialect or language), which I also agree with. So I hope we're all good.
Oh...I made a few minor edits to help it read smoother. =) Jumping cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ct 00:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee Teng-hui's Japanese name[edit]

Did he have a Japanese name before 1945, and if so, what is it?Erik-the-red

Sorry about that Erik - I'm still a Wikipedia noob, and deleted your comment accidentally.  :( --Folic Acid (talk | contrib) 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

His Japanese name was "岩里政男", as noted in the article. Aquarius • talk 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Taiwan, Republic of China" vs. "Taiwan"[edit]

I see that quite a bit of change has gone back and forth between listing Lee as a politician in (and having been born in) "Taiwan, Republic of China," and just "Taiwan." As far as I know, the government is still the government of the "Republic of China," despite the fact that the vast majority of its sovereignty (such as it is) is limited to the island of Taiwan. Until the ROC declares independence under the name "Taiwan" or officially changes its name, a NPOV would seemingly dictate that we use the term "Republic of China" to describe what is commonly known as "Taiwan." Any thoughts? --Folic Acid (talk | contrib) 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Even though it is correct and accurate, it confuses other people that don't know the Chinese history. Taiwan is the common name, ROC is the official and conventional name. Therefore, I think it would be more appropriate to use Republic of China (Taiwan) or Taiwan (Republic of China).--Jerrypp772000 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying Jerry. I'd be fine with using either of your suggestions too. I guess my point was not so much in favor of "Taiwan, Republic of China" as it was against just calling it "Taiwan," even though that's what most Americans (and, I presume, much of the rest of the English-speaking world) call it. If we're striving for accuracy, we ought to call the place by its proper name, not its colloquial name. What form that proper name takes to ensure clarity and understanding doesn't matter that much to me. --Folic Acid 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind Taiwan at all. At least it's better than Formosa. I wonder how many TWese know that there is a town called formosa in South America... 68.162.141.199 23:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just have a general comment - this is an encyclopedia. Accuracy is important. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chochopk and Folic. Taiwan is part of Republic of China. TingMing 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when Lee was born, the ROC wasn't even on Taiwan, it was still in China.--Jerrypp772000 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee was actually born in Empire of Japan[edit]

When Lee was born in 1923, Taiwan was part of Empire of Japan actually.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.158.212 (talkcontribs)

8th and 9th president[edit]

I removed the "8th and 9th" part of the tag under Lee's photo because

  • It doesn't make sense. He can't be both because if he is the 8th, the 9th would be the person who follows him. This applies even if he serves 2 terms.
  • It doesn't match the list on the President_of_the_Republic_of_China page. According to that list, Lee is the 6th President under the 1947 constitution, and something like the 21st President_of_the_Republic_of_China overall.

Readin (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The convention in Taiwan is not to order the office holders (屆) but to order the terms (任). He is the "8th and 9th-term president".--Jiang (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
On the Japanese Wikipedia, Chen Shui-bian is the 5th, so I'm guessing Lee should be the 4th.--Jerrch 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Are we supposed to trust the Japanese Wikipedia over the Chinese Wikipedia? Actually, we shouldnt trust Wikipedia at all We should follow convention.--Jiang (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
When you say the "convention in Taiwan", are you saying that it is the convention in Taiwan to ignore the meaning of English words and use them in another way? (I know that it probably is in some cases - is this one of those cases?) And if it is the convention in Taiwan to do so, is it the convention of Wikipedia to favor such abuses of English? Lee is clearly, in English, not both the 8th and 9th president of Taiwan because his terms in office were consecutive without interruption. In Chinese, "8th (di-ba)" and "9th (di-jyo)" may have slightly different meanings, but the English is clear. Also, it is clear in English that when we refer to the "president" we are referring to the person, not the term of office.
Given all that, if Lee is to be labeled with the "8th and 9th President", some kind of note is needed to clarify to English readers what is meant by "8th and 9th". As an alternative, we could write in the article that "Lee served the 8th and 9th presidential terms of office of the Republic of China". Readin (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007

(UTC)

It looks like something similar was done for President Chen. Readin (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful to use the word "term" after the number, as the word "ren" is always used in Chinese. I dont see how this is misleading in English.--Jiang (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the word "term" has been inserted it is no longer misleading. Readin (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 任 and 屆 are both "terms." The American convention orders the "terms" as well. See List of Presidents of the United States, the list includes the terms served by the presidents.--Jerrch 16:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia provides ordering of terms. Bush 41 and Bush 43 don't represent the 41st and 43rd terms. Nor does the common knowledge that Lincoln was the "16th President" mean that 15 terms were served before him. Anyway, now that this article specifies "term" the confusion is gone. Readin (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen any ordering of U.S. presidents by terms. I think we can say it is just not done. Bush if the 43rd president, not the 55th term president. Perhaps they are there to provide links to other articles.--Jiang (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced election info[edit]

I just removed this from the article:

76% of registered voters participated in the election.

It had been changed from saying 95% of citizens participated. Small changes to numbers always look suspiciously like sneaky vandalism hoping to evade detection. In this case however the change was made by a non-anymous editor and more was changed than just the number. However, I couldn't check a source to verify who was correct. Anyone have a source for levels of voter participation?Readin (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kyoto Imperial University[edit]

It is not correct that Kyoto Imperial University was called Kyoto Technical School. It was established as Kyoto Imperial University in 1897. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.131.252 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A sinner of ten thousand years?[edit]

I have read that Lee has been called "a sinner of ten thousand years" by the communists in Beijing. Is that true? What does that mean? Is there any reliable source for this? --13Peewit (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Beijing hates Lee because Lee wants Taiwanese people to be free to determine their own future and because he doesn't hate Japan. I believe you're right that Beijing has called him "a sinner of ten thousand years" and they have probably called him much worse. But noting Beijing's hatred of the man is noteworthy, which particular childish names they call him is not. Readin (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Photographic undue weight[edit]

Lee served as president of a nation for eight years. He was instrumental in moving it from authoritarianism to Democracy. He is loved by some and hated by others for his strong support of Taiwan's independence. Why is it that the only pictures we have are of his early days in a Kendo outfit and next to a soldier in a Japanese uniform? It gives undue weight to the idea that he's really Japanese. Readin (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Support[edit]

Most of the information in the "Japanese Support" section appears to come from the PRC's People's Daily. Given the attitude of the PRC toward Lee I don't think we should consider the People's Daily a reliable source for this article. Unless someone can come up with better sources I'm going to remove the entire section (there is other sourced information in the section but without the PRC source information there isn't enough to be more than trivia). Readin (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2012‎ (UTC)

You should search other sources, before move the contents. If the contents cited from PRC are forgery, there are contradictory imformations.--Syngmung (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the 2002 statement that I deleted and that you put back in the article and that I am deleting again following Wikipedia WP:RS guidelines, I did do some searching for other sources. I wasn't able to find any. I was able to find a source for the 2012 statement so I added the quote and provided a source. I wasn't able to find any source for the 2002 statement so I deleted it. If we can't find a reliable source it needs to be deleted.
As for the other information, frankly I think it is overblown and mostly trivia so I'm personally unwilling to invest much time finding a source for it. However before deleting it I thought I should give you or anyone else who thinks it is noteworthy information a chance find sources for it. If you want to keep it, find the sources. Readin (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I found Japanese gov, PRC and RC english souces.[21][22][23]--Syngmung (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
WantWant newsgroup is pretty well known for openly pro-Beijing bias, but I've never heard of any problems with the Japan Times so that's fine. I'll wait a while before deleting the other content to give you some time to show they're noteworthy and have reliable sources. Readin (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Lee's Name[edit]

The editors have kindly interpolated that "This is a Chinese name; the family name is Lee."

Thank you, editors. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I would never have imagined such a thing if you hadn't taken the trouble to tell me.

Astonishingly this is true of many other Chinese people who appear in Wikipedia, and the editors have inserted similar information in every case. Isn't it a pity that Alfred Noel died before he could establish a Nobel Prize in Assiduity of Editors?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have concerns regarding the standard procedure to apply such templates to Chinese biographical articles as encouraged by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, you can feel free to voice your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles. Even though it might seem obvious to you, it's assumed that the majority of readers from western countries such as the US and Britain may not know this, since the general norm is to place the family name after the personal name. --benlisquareTCE 04:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unknown Parameters[edit]

The following information was in the infobox template. Looks like it is Lee's different names, mostly different transliterations. Anyways, the parameters do not exist but didn't feel comfortable just deleting so I am posting them here in case there is some use for them in the article somewhere else. |child = yes |t = 李登輝 |s = 李登辉 |bpmf = ㄌㄧˇ ㄉㄥ ㄏㄨㄟ |w = Li3 Teng1-hui1 |mi = [lì tə́ŋ.xwéi] |p = Lǐ Dēnghuī |tp = Lǐ Denghuei |mps = Lǐ Dēng-huēi |gr = Lii Denghuei |poj = Lí Teng-hui |tl = Lí Ting-hui |h = Lí Tên-Fî |j = lei5 dang1fai1 |kanji = 岩里政男 |kana = いわさと まさお |romaji = Iwasato Masao

XinJeisan (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is the infobox Chinese removed?[edit]

Why is the infobox Chinese removed? LoveVanPersie (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Teng-hui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lee Teng-hui. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)