The long-awaited first televised debate between three of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential aspirants came to a successful close last Sunday. The debate could be seen as a milestone in breaking the chain of traditional court politics and political trickery that have been rife in the Chinese-speaking world. In one stroke it elevated the DPP to the status of a truly healthy and steadily improving democratic political party.
From the format to the content, the debate could compete with those held in other first-rate democratic countries.
When the three DPP presidential hopefuls -- Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) and party Chairman Yu Shyi-kun -- shook hands, greeted each other and stood on the stage at their respective podiums, they created some semblance of a US presidential debate.
What is even more commendable is that almost all of the questions from the moderators were good and incisive ones, and each presidential hopeful was compelled to explain his political views. There were four moderators in this debate, which was more comprehensive and fair than in US presidential debates, which usually have only one moderator from the media.
The three presidential candidates engaged in gentlemanly competition throughout the debate. In addition, President Chen Shui-bian (
All in all, this was a successful debate, about which the DPP and the nation should be proud.
Political commentators as well as pan-green and pan-blue media outlets generally agreed on the candidates' approach: Su concentrated on looking back at what Taiwan and the DPP had achieved over the past few years, while Hsieh primarily talked about Taiwan's current status and the restrictions imposed on the nation, as well as how his political policies were best suited to the conditions. Yu presented his vision for the future, pledging to reform the nation's political system and setting a goal of improving on the current administration.
With regard to a new constitution and changing Taiwan's official name, issues of great importance to the pan-green camp, the three candidates agreed that Taiwan should seek to become a "normal" country. But while Su and Hsieh said that they would wait until Taiwanese society reaches a consensus, at which point Taiwan will naturally become a normal country, Yu favored a more proactive approach, saying he would do his best to promote the normalization of Taiwan, no matter what.
In terms of polemics, Su and Hsieh treated the DPP's presidential primary like a presidential election, emphasizing how different they are from former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
The debate was not only a very good opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their political views to pan-green supporters, but also a big step toward ensuring that public opinion determines the final presidential candidate.
Most importantly, it also proved that no DPP faction or legislator can prevent public opinion from becoming the most potent force for the support that the DPP's presidential candidate will enjoy.
Cao Changqing is a Chinese writer based in the US.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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