The second round of the presidential debates is over. While many important questions have not been answered, at least one thing has been made clear.
In response to questioning from President Chen Shui-bian (
Lien had tried to remain ambiguous on this point. Cornered, he finally had to take a stand. But now it is too late to salvage the image of indecisiveness that he projected through his prior ambiguity. In addition, he has now left himself vulnerable to accusations of being anti-democratic.
As referendums are the most substantive demonstration of the democratic principles of popular empowerment, Chen put it best when he said that "Lien wants the people to cast their votes for him" but "he does not wish to vote for the people."
Furthermore, it has become very clear by now that contrary to what the pan-blue camp claimed before the debates -- that the Democratic Progressive Party was reluctant to participate -- Lien was the one who was less than inclined to participate in the debates.
This is clear because Chen invited Lien to participate in two more debates and Lien did not respond. In response to further questioning during the press conference afterwards, Lien dodged the issue again.
Overall, with the policy proposals of the two candidates overlapping on many important domestic issues, the biggest difference between them continues to be the issue of cross-strait relations.
Chen's statement that the sovereignty of Taiwan is indisputable and is not an issue to be cast aside (as was previously suggested by Lien) seems so much more forceful, easy to understand and, frankly speaking, more moving than Lien's position.
Lien's same old tune about the Republic of China being the "one China" of the so-called "one China" principle just pales in comparison. This is because no one in his or her right mind could truly believe what Lien is saying, not even Lien and the pan-blue camp -- not when the whole world knows that the People's Republic of China is the "one China" in question.
Chen's frank and positive attitude on the issue of sovereignty is consistent with the overall theme of his statements during the debates and in fact with his entire election campaign -- "Taiwan Number 1, Reform Number 1."
The differences between the two campaigns' themes is also reflected in the candidates' statements during the debates about economic development. While both men spoke about the nation acting as a management-and-design center for Asia, Lien emphasized utilizing China as a manufacturing base, something that has strong appeal for Taiwanese businessmen. Chen on the other hand emphasized that, even in economic development, Taiwan should never be the vassal or appendage of any country (implying China), and then was quick to point out that relocating the manufacturing base to China could cost the local work force job opportunities.
On this issue, it is obvious that the two candidates are targeting different voter groups.
Overall, while Chen was very clear and consistent about his attempt to deliver a sense of optimism and confidence to the voters about the nation and the future, Lien had a very difficult time in attempting to paint a gloomy picture for the voters.
This has much to do with the fact that Lien is a milder and more passive person than Chen. Moreover, even for those who agree that life is tough these days, it is very hard for Lien to convince people that he understands their pain and suffering.
Under the circumstances, the KMT has much work to do in terms of building up a persuasive theme for its election campaign.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS