Many people have high expectations of the presidential debates, especially candidates with lower support ratings, as they hope that the leading candidate will reveal flaws as she comes under fire and that her approval ratings will drop, providing them with an opportunity turn the situation around. By the same token, if the leading candidate does not stumble, she is likely to be victorious.
The first debate showed that the combined firepower of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) was not enough to shake Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). The debate did not turn the campaign around; it only consolidated the willingness of supporters to vote for their candidate, swaying perhaps only a minority of swing voters.
As the unchallenged leader in the polls, Tsai only has to maintain a middle-of-the-road stance. Chu attacked her for not recognizing the so-called “1992 consensus” and said that she has not explained what maintaining the “status quo” means because she simply has no answer.
Tsai counterattacked, saying that “you can never wake someone up who is pretending to be asleep” and that given this situation, she has been clear and consistent on the “1992 consensus” — namely that she “will respect public opinion and democratic mechanisms in order to promote cross-strait relations within the current Republic of China system.”
She also said that the results of cross-strait efforts over the past two decades would serve as the foundation for how her team would handle cross-strait ties.
Tsai also questioned Chu over a statement he made during his May visit to China: that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the same “one China.”
She also said that although he had strongly criticized President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) during the Sunflower movement last year and said the KMT would have to engage in some hard introspection, he has showed no such tendencies since becoming KMT chairman. Chu has simply been repeating Ma’s record of failure, she said.
Chu said things must not be taken out of context, and that the KMT’s position has never changed — that Taiwan should adhere to the “1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations.”
Soong said that cross-strait relations are a matter of being “pragmatic, pragmatic and pragmatic,” and that time should be used to create space for cooperation and mutual understanding, and to further expand exchanges.
Although Chu launched a forceful counterattack and Soong attacked from the flanks, Tsai was well prepared for questions about cross-strait relations and fired back. In the end, there were no winners or losers on this issue.
The difference between the presidential and the vice presidential candidates is that those seeking the nation’s top office are seasoned politicians who are supported by strong and experienced teams. They have prepared for all the possible questions and answers on every issue. Therefore, the debates can only show how carefully prepared they are.
The crucial factor in the debates is their empty accusations, lies and superficial promises. Remember how Ma offered pie-in-the-sky promises during the debates in the past two presidential elections. He has failed to deliver on almost every one of those promises during his almost eight years in office.
The debates are political shows and the best performer is likely to come out ahead. The debates should not be taken too seriously because a politician’s abilities and honesty are unlikely to be revealed.
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