The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has accused Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of being “empty” and “ambiguous.” However, KMT presidential candidate Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) performance in yesterday’s televised presidential debate showed that he is the empty one.
The debate started with each candidate expressing their general policy direction, but instead of presenting a concrete vision for the nation, Chu began by attacking Tsai, although he sounded self-contradictory by saying that voting for Tsai would be both choosing a road of “rash advance” and being “contained.”
How could a national leader be making both premature advances and constraining the nation at the same time?
Chu did not explain.
On the issue of judicial reform, Tsai proposed that, if elected, she would improve training for judicial personnel — especially enhancing their understanding of human rights protection — while pushing for a mechanism to eliminate incompetent judges.
To make verdicts more reliable, Tsai promised to push for a jury system, while providing more resources to assist people who might have suffered from wrongful verdicts.
Chu agreed that there should be a mechanism to help people suffering from questionable verdicts, but he said that one of the reasons people do not trust the judicial system is that verdicts might change on appeal, adding that incompetent judges who need to be eliminated include “baby judges.”
Is it not contradictory for Chu to call for a mechanism to make up for wrongful verdicts, while complaining that the result might be different after an appeal? An appeal system is designed as a mechanism to help those who think they might have suffered from wrongful judgements.
Why should “baby judges” be eliminated? Age does not necessarily relate to the professionalism and ability of a judge. Younger judges might be able to pay closer attention to detail and make better judgements because they still have a passion for what they do.
While Chu was passionate about attacking his rival, he was less enthusiastic about taking questions.
When Tsai asked what he would do to prevent election irregularities — as four KMT legislators have recently had their election revoked due to vote-buying, while KMT legislative candidate Cheng Cheng-chien (鄭正鈐) stands accused of vote-buying for throwing a banquet for more than 10,000 non-paying guests — Chu avoided directly addressing the question, saying that no political party would allow vote-buying in a democracy, and quickly turning to accuse Tsai of “judging before a trial.”
Despite Tsai saying that it is still too early to say whether, if elected, she would allow US pork products to be imported — as it would require a substantial negotiation process — and adding that she would strive to defend public health and the interests of Taiwan’s pig farmers during any negotiations, Chu accused Tsai of intending to unconditionally allow imports of US pork products.
Less than two months ago, Chu said that Taiwan should follow the standards of other Asian nations for imports of US pork products, but seems to have adopted a total change in attitude on the issue and pretended not to hear Tsai when she asked him to explain why he has changed his stance.
While many people might consider a presidential candidate debate to be only a show, it is a worthwhile show, as it allows voters to see a candidate’s immediate response — or non-response — to a question from a rival, and, in the usual war of words during the run-up to an election, it allows voters to see who the “empty” one is.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS