The nation’s three presidential candidates yesterday clashed at the first platform presentation organized by the Central Election Commission, with each candidate scrapping over various issues.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), was first to speak, followed by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Vice President William Lai (賴清德) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲).
In the first round, the focus was on foreign policy. In terms of cross-strait issues, Hou reiterated his opposition to Taiwanese independence and “one country, two systems.” Similarly, Ko promised to bring peace and maintain Taiwan’s democratic system, adding that Taiwan’s biggest issue of the past few decades is bipartisan conflict between the DPP and KMT, and the solution is a coalition government.
In contrast, Lai offered the most solid foreign policy by stating he would follow President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) policy and not rely on the enemy’s benevolence for peace. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) made clear that the so-called “1992 consensus” is China’s “one China principle,” Hou and Ko’s policies are downright unfeasible as China only recognizes itself. Adopting Hou’s and Ko’s policies would mean defending the Republic of China with the “one China principle,” or opting for a fake peace built on eventual unification.
In the second round, Hou chose to address the housing problem and to raise the monthly minimum wage to NT$33,000. He proposed a mortgage program for young people to take out a maximum of NT$15 million (US$479,509) with no need for a down payment when buying a home. Even lacking risk control measures, Hou misses the point of young people’s aversion to buying a home, as the issue is not mortgages, but low salaries. Even without a down payment, it is an extreme burden for young people to have a NT$10 million loan, knowing they would have to pay it back in full.
Lai chose to directly address the controversy over his family’s property. As the government has yet to lay out plans for old houses in coal mining areas, he took the initiative to vow to protect the living rights of other miners in the area and would donate his house as a memorial hall to commemorate Taiwan’s mining industry.
Ko proposed pushing for reform in four main areas, including finance, the legal and civil service systems, and digital management, all of which required improvement under DPP governance. He wishes to reform the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and establish a tax fund redistribution committee to oversee fund allocation. On legal reform, he would also push for legislation on whistle-blowing, judicial peddling and obstruction of justice, all of which have been critiqued as serving the interests of elites and the rich.
In the third round, Hou went for the DPP’s Achilles’ heel by accusing it of promoting green energy out of personal gain and flip-flopping on nuclear energy. On this point, Hou does score a point in that the DPP has yet to propose a solid energy plan to ensure power supply and environmental protection.
From another aspect, Lai questioned the “back seat driver” presence of Hou’s running mate, Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康). Since Jaw has been leading on policies, Lai reminded Hou that presidents do not have babysitters.
Ko chose not to engage by focusing on residential justice. He vowed to promote building social residences and refurbishing old houses for young and elderly people to rent.
In view of the debate, Lai is the one who has the most solid and reassuring plan on foreign policy, yet he still leaves much to be desired in terms of legal, social and governance issues. Only by proposing policies could the public know that the DPP would become better with his leadership and not wallow in corruption for staying in power for too long.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS