WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL election but two months away, it remains difficult to determine what political parties will do.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continues to say what he would do if he became president and will likely continue his down-to-earth meetings with people throughout the nation. This is what a candidate does -- and should do -- to gain the numbers of votes to win an election.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at this point, has not had the complete support of the leadership in the party, much less that of the many voters who once supported the DPP but did not participate in the Jan. 12 legislative elections. Getting the support of the leadership of a party is crucial.
To gain broad support from both the leadership and the people takes time.
Time, unfortunately, is not on Hsieh's side and it is something he has precious little of.
The electoral battle that is now taking place in the US has similarities: One of the parties seeks to keep the presidency, while the other, the Democrats, has Senator Hillary Clinton, who initially seemed to be the obvious choice, but in a short period of time her lead was no longer assured.
About two months ago, Senator Barack Obama was hardly on the list of senior candidates, much less at the top. He was able to become one of the top-two candidates by first energizing young voters and even some Republican voters who are unhappy with the party. Today, various people from different sectors have rallied behind Obama.
Another similarity exists between Taiwan and the US, and it is the economy. In newspapers and on TV in the US, there is much discussion about a possible recession and whether the state of the economy is good or not.
It is clear that some segments of the country are being hurt by the mortgage crisis and that the high price of oil is also hurting many people financially.
This has costs jobs and and lowered wages in some important sectors of the economy. US President George W. Bush is now seeking an "economic growth package" from Congress.
Taiwan's economy, for its part, continues to grow, but like the US, some important sectors of the economy -- mostly small and medium businesses -- have seen a drop in sales. The rise in oil prices has had a marked impact there, too.
The two presidential candidates have both been talking about what they would do to remedy the situation.
Still, Taiwan is Taiwan. It has its own history and the DPP has gone down a road that many people did not like, including people who had supported the party.
It now falls on Hsieh to bring back those voters who did not participate in the legislative elections and energize as many voters as possible.
Two months to achieve all this is not much time, but it sill may be possible.
Meanwhile, the KMT has the triple advantage of a two-thirds majority in the legislature, more money and a divided opponent.
Hsieh needs a unified party and must find a way to distance himself from the past.
He has wisely supported bipartisan efforts with the KMT, which can be seen by voters as a man who, as evidence of willingness to work with the legislature in developing relations with China and the international community.
Both candidates have said a lot about the economy and, increasingly, about people's concerns over its state. The important difference between the two candidates has been China, including the "opportunities" in China for Taiwan.
Hsieh has laid out down-to-earth economic projects that are welcome by many people, but there does not seem to be a plan within the rest of the DPP.
There has been one on the KMT side, but many changes have occurred in the speeches that have followed, especially on matters dealing with China.
One other problem has been in Hsieh's calls for a public debate with Ma.
There is nothing better for the people than to watch, listen and learn from the debates between candidates. Having one every week would ensure that Taiwanese understand the issues at hand and could also show them the differences in the candidates' leadership styles.
Sadly, with only eight weeks left, there is little indication that public debates will happen.
On the KMT side, Ma has made many speeches that, on the surface, would have us believe that his policies have changed, although his wording is not always clear.
On the DPP side, Hsieh is now saying he hopes for a coalition with the KMT, even to the point of asking Ma to become his premier. These are issues that could be clarified through public debates between the candidates.
Taiwanese will soon decide which party they want to lead them. One part of that equation -- the legislature -- has already been decided on. The other, the presidential election, is still up for grabs.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS