While Taipei mayoral hopefuls independent Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) have voiced consent on holding a debate, it seems that Lien is somehow insincere about his willingness to engage in a debate and reluctant to face voters directly, making it questionable that he would be a good, responsive mayor if elected.
Since earlier this month, Ko has been challenging Lien to a debate on their respective policy platforms, and while Lien quickly agreed to it, his campaign executive director Alex Tsai (蔡正元) has stipulated many conditions for the debate, which seems to be a de facto rejection of Ko’s invitation.
When Ko first asked his KMT rival to debate policy with him, Tsai said the debate should focus on women’s issues and that the host of the debate had to be a woman, since, at the time, Ko was at the center of some controversies for remarks he made that were criticized as sexist.
It is true that gender issues are important, but it does not make sense at all that Lien would accept Ko’s challenge to debate policy ideas, then stipulate that “by the way, the debate topic should be about women,” not to mention that whether the host is a man or a woman is totally irrelevant.
So, although Lien said “yes” to Ko’s proposal, the prospect has since faded in light of the conditions that Lien’s camp put forth.
Nevertheless, Ko continued to repeatedly propose the idea, and a second opportunity arose when representatives from the two camps met to negotiate details of the debate. However, the negotiation did not go smoothly, because Lien’s camp insisted that the debate involve multiple cross-examinations and rebuttals between the candidates, but rejected the idea of taking questions from civic groups or voters, while Ko’s camp said it believed that responding to questions from voters would be essential.
Although the dispute may seem irrelevant, it is significantly symbolic.
A mayor is elected — at least theoretically — because voters believe that the person can solve their problems and improve the lives of the city’s residents.
Hence, it is very important for a candidate to face voters directly, take their questions, respond to them and show voters what solutions there are to the problems troubling them, as well as presenting a vision for the city’s future.
A mayoral candidate’s ideas and policy proposals for a city can be well demonstrated while answering questions from civic groups or voters. When a question-and-answer session takes place during a debate, voters get the opportunity to hear clear responses to their queries from all competing candidates and make comparisons, which is very helpful when casting a ballot at a polling station.
Although it is equally important for the two candidates to challenge and question each other in a debate, this happens almost every day. Whenever Ko makes a comment, whether it is a policy proposal or criticism of Lien, the media take the comment to Lien and ask for his response. Such “crossfire” has been going on since the day both candidates decided to run in the election, and therefore it is not as important for them to have multiple exchanges during the debate as it is for them to answer questions from the public.
If Lien is reluctant to take questions from voters now, when he is in the midst of soliciting their support, it is hard to imagine that he will be willing to listen to and respond to Taipei residents if he is elected.
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,
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
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS