As the election campaign heats up, we can see the predicaments facing the blue and green camps in terms of strategy and implementation.
For the blue camp, the lack of a quick response mechanism and the poor ability to manipulate issues are merely superficial problems. Its most serious and fundamental problem is the lack of a consistent attitude and discourse on core issues. Simply put, does the blue camp have consistent and clear views on core campaign issues -- be they on the cross-strait front or the economic front? Once they hammer out these viewpoints, other problems can be readily solved. Otherwise, the blue camp will fall into a predicament in which it can only react to its opponent's moves as they come, being always passive and slow to respond.
This has already happened over three issues: the "one-country on each side" dictum, referendums and the creation of a new constitution. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was the first to present these issues. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) have always opposed the DPP's stance in a formulaic response, and then revised their positions after discovering a poorer-than-expected response from the public.
If the KMT and PFP do not have a complete set of views on these issues, then they will be unable to break out of this cycle even if they have a better rapid-response force. One concrete manifestation of this is the disparate statements often made by KMT-PFP representatives in media comments.
Though in a passive position on these issues, the KMT and PFP still have room to develop their platforms and are not necessarily at a disadvantage. For example, regarding "one country on each side," the KMT and PFP could have quickly defined it as a description of the status quo, with the People's Republic of China on one side and the Republic of China on the other. They could have claimed that there was no conflicting point between the two camps -- if there was one, that would mean that the DPP's "other side" is the Republic of Taiwan.
On the referendum issue, the KMT and PFP should have supported the spirit and conduct of referendums while stating that referendums should not obstruct economic development, that there should be complementary accountability measures and that referendums should be held after legislation.
As for creating a new constitution, they could have countered the green camp's plan by proposing constitutional amendments. They could also present a complete version of constitutional amendments to prove their sincerity and ability to carry out reforms. There is also a consistent pattern to these approaches -- seeking differences amid similarities. They must agree with their opponent's views on the general direction of localization and reforms, while using differences beneficial to themselves as a keynote in their debate. Only then will they not be painted as anti-reform; only then will they have an opportunity to pull the campaign back to economic issues.
Being in a relatively disadvantageous position, the DPP has raised many major issues to try to strike at the existing structure. On the surface, such an aggressive approach may create an appearance of leading the debate, but at the same time it also carries a relatively higher risk of making mistakes. The fact that the DPP has been able to take this approach has very much to do with the KMT-PFP camp's passive responses. For example, the DPP made a major mistake in its campaign when it used a spurious cut-and-paste approach in a TV commercial to insinuate that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was "abandoning Taiwan and toadying up to China." But the KMT-PFP camp let go of this opportunity. Compare this to the DPP's vehement response to the PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien (高明見) incident [in which Kao was accused of collaborating with Beijing to create an impression that China was helping Taiwan during the SARS crisis]. No wonder the D PP has so much room to make mistakes and try out different tactics one after another.
In a one-to-one campaign battle, however, it is highly questionable whether the green camp's tactic of raising ideological issues will win the election battle. After consolidating its basic voter base, the green camp must return to the middle way at a certain point. Only then can it possibly win the election. A key factor influencing this election campaign lies in whether the DPP will be able to smoothly return to the middle after moving to such extremes.
Another question is the accuracy of President Chen Shui-bian's (
At this stage of the campaign, the important point is what role it will play in the development of democracy in Taiwan, no matter whose tactics are superior and no matter which side wins. Do we have to invoke agitated, confrontational debates on national identity and the future of the Constitution during every election cycle and then spend four years after the election to heal the wounds and build consensus? Campaign strategies have been reported extensively in horse-race-style discussions, but there has been no room for proposing and debating policies. Changes in the support rates have become important points to keep track of, but no one has been concerned about exactly which issues are of immediate concern to the electorate.
As campaign emotions run high, we should pause and think about whether this election will be one for choosing a country or a constitution, or for choosing to change Taiwan's political culture.
Emile Sheng is an associate professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Francis Huang
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS