THE FIRST TELEVISED presidential debate left me feeling that the first and second part, with questions from the public, were well designed although more akin to a press conference than a debate. The third part, where the candidates questioned each other, was simply an extension of their usual war of words. Finally, during the concluding remarks in the fourth part, one party continued to question the opponent's issues whereas the other party offered his visions, so that the two were wholly unrelated to each other.
In the first two parts, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) showed a good grasp of policy, and both appeared at their best.
Hsieh's strong point lay in his analysis of policy trends through references to his achievements as Kaohsiung mayor and as premier, while seizing opportunities to attack his opponent. For instance, Hsieh demanded that the KMT divide its party assets among low-income earners in order to raise the average income.
Ma's strength, on the other hand, was to answer questions clearly within the allotted time, with references integrating his experiences as Taipei mayor and KMT chairman with information prepared by his staff.
Hsieh's strengths were Ma's weaknesses, and vice versa. For instance, on issues dealing with the economy and the standard of living, Hsieh's talent for debate was unquestionable. He was able to strategically avoid questions, point out inconsistencies in his opponent's policy for raising national income or subsidizing low-income earners, and ask him where funds are to be found.
In comparison, Ma answered every question that was asked, emphasizing his frankness and reliability. Also, Hsieh's responses on judicial reform, foreign policy and gay rights appeared to be completely detached from reality. Indeed, on the issue of how he would deal with corruption if elected, he completely missed the point and focused on irrelevancies. In contrast, Ma could hardly wait to deliver the goods to the audience. As for time management, Ma rarely exceeded the allotted time, whereas Hsieh routinely ran over his time so that his answers often were incomplete. Their performance demonstrated Ma's preparation and the need for Hsieh's camp to improve.
During the policy questioning sections, Hsieh won in answering questions about Taiwanese identity -- partially because Hsieh is truly Taiwanese -- although Ma had vastly improved his pro-localization discourse through his "long stays" in the countryside. Although Hsieh had a good grasp on economic and livelihood issues, Ma was most successful in his criticism of the DPP's isolationist attitude, and in his strong faith in his ability to improve cross-strait relations and boost the economy through government investment.
The final question, asking each candidate to list the other's strengths, finally relaxed the previously combative and tense atmosphere. Both candidates were humorous and deserved the applause they received.
I had hoped that both candidates would perform better when questioning each other. However, the results were disappointing. Hsieh's first question was whether Ma held a US green card 20 or 30 years ago. This negative issue may have forced Ma to change tack and turn to criticizing the DPP's failure to fulfill its promise to take care of central and southern Taiwan, small and medium-sized businesses, and low to middle-income earners. Hsieh then attacked Ma for failing to revamp the Tamshui River and Jiancheng Circle.
Finally, the kid gloves came off and the two blasted each other for corruption at the hands of subordinates during their tenure as public officials. Nine minutes was wasted on mud slinging, and not a word about Taiwan's future was mentioned.
Worth noting is the fact that while Ma was forced to stay on the offensive, he only criticized Hsieh on a policy level, and did not mention the controversial tape recording that helped Hsieh win the Kaohsiung mayoral election, or the anti-Hsieh conspiracy theories.
In the last section of the debate, Hsieh relentlessly pursued the green card issue and questioned Ma's capability and trustworthiness. Ma outlined his vision for saving Taiwan's economy, assisting marginalized groups, reducing the difference between rural and urban areas, forming a government without corruption, and constructing a harmonious society.
It is a pity that Hsieh failed to make the best of these precious three minutes by discussing the future. Ma's conclusion was concise and powerful, demonstrating a presidential candidate's breadth of vision and elevated character.
On the whole, Hsieh's debating skills remain undoubted. However, his adeptness at dodging questions makes it difficult the public to probe his character through questions and follow-up questions. There are two ways of improving this situation.
First, questions from the public can be kept secret to prevent candidates from giving prepared responses and questioners should be allowed two follow-up questions.
Second, the debate organizers could invite specialists recommended by both sides to form a question team, so that candidates would have no way of hiding their intentions from the public. In terms of policy, both candidates have their own merits. Yet in regards to specific solutions to problems facing the nation, Ma apparently was more able to grasp the general future direction. While both candidates showed a sense of humor, they maintained their characteristic trademarks: One came off as tactful and smooth, the other as frank and honest.
Being a famed orator, Hsieh's performance was rather disappointing, perhaps a case of underperforming because of pressure. Ma also had many shortcomings that need improving. However, Ma had a clearer vision of the nation's future and many commendable character traits.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS