Not long ago, Vice President and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate William Lai (賴清德) published an article titled “My Plan to Preserve Peace in the Taiwan Strait” in the Wall Street Journal, proposing a “four-pillar plan” for peace and prosperity — including bolstering Taiwan’s military deterrence, treating economic security as national security, developing partnerships with the world’s democracies, and steady and principled cross-strait leadership.
The four pillars’ careful arguments are straightforward and show Lai’s stature, while highlighting the major drawbacks of other candidates who lack the core ideas of national development.
The four pillars are a clear discourse on the key issues in Taiwan. Whether the nation should enhance its defense deterrence is an issue that the presidential candidates cannot avoid talking about. They should make it clear whether they want to support the country’s domestic manufacture of submarines, national defense autonomy and strengthening defense capabilities.
Also, they should make it clear whether to support extending the mandatory military service from four months to one year. They should not first claim to resume the short-term four-month service, then use the premise of cross-strait peace for resuming the service. If they try to avoid the problem in this way, voters can see through their tricks.
As Lai made a clear statement on economic security and partnerships with the world’s democracies, other candidates should also state their positions on these matters and whether they want to continue to rely on China economically.
A steady and principled leadership to cross-strait relations is perhaps the Achilles’ heel of other candidates. Compared with their wavering discourses on cross-strait policies, Lai’s clear stance provides voters with an explicit reference to make a choice.
The presidential election is not a child’s game and it is a candidate’s commitment to his national development vision. Each candidate must present their own policies and state where they want to lead the country. They should not aim to fool voters with election slogans calling for the DPP to be “pulled off the shelves” or the formation of a great opposition alliance. For the majority of voters, the presidential election is neither a feud nor a confrontation full of hatred among local factions.
Those running for president must have a clear plan and vision for national development and tell voters which direction they would lead Taiwan, so voters can choose accordingly. If they curry favor with a specific ethnic group, ally with other candidates and only focus on trivia during their campaign, they would be putting the cart before the horse.
Recently, Lai also proposed an annual subsidy plan for students attending private universities. This does not involve unification or independence and has nothing to do with whether you are blue or green, as it simply takes young people’s future into consideration. Other candidates not only fail to propose similar policies, but they also criticize Lai for spending taxpayers’ money just to attract votes. They try to stimulate voters’ anger without discussing the subsidy completely.
As of today, Lai has already shaped his discourse, showing his attitude toward the presidency. Hopefully, other candidates would follow up quickly and make their discourse clear and definite.
Wang Chih-chien is a distinguished professor at National Taipei University’s Graduate Institute of Information Management.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS