Yesterday, the long-awaited first round of live televised debates between the two presidential candidates -- President Chen Shui-bian (
Before the debate, some commentators had said that in order to score in the debate Lien would need to leave behind his usual conservatism and go on the offensive for a change so as to attack the incumbent where it hurts. While Lien's efforts in this regard were evident, they simply weren't enough.
Even on the domestic issues that affect people's daily lives -- such as educational reform and economic growth, issues which are not only the focal points of Lien's campaign but were included among the debate topics at the insistence of the pan-blue camp -- Lien did not enjoy the upper hand. One obvious reason for this, and a fundamental problem for the pan-blue camp's campaign, is Lien's inability to offer solutions to problems once he has pointed out that they exist.
Another fatal flaw for Lien is that many of the problems he pointed out in the debate were as quickly pointed out by Chen to be attributable -- if not entirely, at least predominantly -- to government policies in the KMT era, including some policies decided on by the Executive Yuan when Lien was premier. One case in point was the Nine-Year Educational Program (
The fact that many urgently needed pieces of legislation remain buried in the Legislative Yuan, where the pan-blue camp enjoys an absolute majority, also crippled Lien in many respects. Cases in point are the political donations bill and the Judicial Yuan organization bill. Lien has been unable to offer persuasive explanations as to why these bills -- which he had supposedly endorsed and supported since the KMT era -- still await passage.
This is not to mention that Lien failed -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- to directly respond to Chen's request for a promise that the political donations bill be passed by the end of the month.
This is fatal considering that Chen has promised to place all of his personal assets in a trust if he is re-elected, so as to avoid future skepticism about illegal political donations and corruption.
On the issue of the KMT's ill-gotten assets, it was a major strategic error by Lien to defend his party on legal grounds, when the majority of the voters already believe that such assets were illegally gotten. What he should have done was to promise to return whatever rightfully belongs to the country and the people.
On the national referendum, Lien made the mistake of misquoting the relevant language of provisions of the Referendum Law (
Lien tried to take the offensive by asking Chen for evidence backing up allegations that Lien and his party are favored by China and manipulated by Beijing. While Chen's answers have been evasive, the problem for Lien, if this type of question continues being asked, is that Lien won't get any brownie points either, since the pan-blue camp has made so many unverifiable allegations against Chen and his family.
In any event, it is encouraging to see this debate finally take place. Now it is up to the voters to decide for themselves who speaks more convincingly and then make informed decisions about whom to vote for.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS