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
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