When it comes to the question of presidential debates, time limitations force the audience to judge the candidates on performance and personality, not detailed explanations of their campaign platforms. Yet what most voters need is a firm and clear stance on specific policies and issues. In this regard, President Chen Shui-bian (
In a face-to-face confrontation such as a TV debate, self-confidence and a politician's adherence to his or her philosophy are two keys to win support from the audience. Usually the challenger is more aggressive in attacking the incumbent's policies. But last Saturday it was Chen who seemed to be playing the role of gladiator and Lien was on the defensive. While Lien asked if the pan-green camp had any evidence of China's alleged collaboration with the pan-blue camp, Chen focused attention on Lien's long-time embracing of the "one China" principle and highlighted the differences between Lien and his running mate, People First Party chairman James Soong (
Moreover, Lien's suggestion that sovereignty issues be pushed to the side illustrated his lack of determination to adhere to Taiwan's national interests. His response was simply more oscillation on the "one China" issue. Hardly the image of a strong and patriotic leader that one would think Lien would want to be pushing.
Lien could have accused Chen of being sitting on the fence on cross-strait relations by advocating "a future `one China'" and "political integration with China," while insisting that there are two countries on either side of the Taiwan Strait. Chen, however, gained support by remaining steadfast on Taiwan's independent sovereignty. Lien's personal shortcoming lie not only in his conservative, stiff and always looking-to-the past political mindset but also in his inability to coordinate differing opinions within the pan-blue camp.
In their attempt to boycott the referendum, pan-blue politicians have adopted diverse approaches. Contrary to Soong's explicit rejection of the referendum, Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
The pan-blue camp has long portrayed the Chen administration as vacillating in implementing policy. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant fiasco, the bid to reform the farmers' and fishermen's cooperatives and its cross-strait policies are the most frequently cited cases. But to sabotage the government's efficiency is one thing, how to translate it into votes in the ballot box is another.
Lien's about-face in accepting the referendum as one step toward Taiwan's democratic consolidation and his bold proposal on constitutional reform demonstrated a lack of integrated policy within his camp. All his proposals reek of electioneering.
Lien owes voters a fair explanation of why he has introduced such dramatically different policy proposals over the past few months and in what direction this change will lead the nation. He needs not mute his desire for change or modify his ideas, but he must make sure his style matches the public's mood. Most importantly, by trying to convince voters that "moderation" is much more a key element of his personality than of Chen's, Lien will have to explain how he could turn moderate ideas into flexible and sometimes affirmative action.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS