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.
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