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.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS