Yesterday, the long-awaited first round of live televised debates between the two presidential candidates -- President Chen Shui-bian (
Before the debate, some commentators had said that in order to score in the debate Lien would need to leave behind his usual conservatism and go on the offensive for a change so as to attack the incumbent where it hurts. While Lien's efforts in this regard were evident, they simply weren't enough.
Even on the domestic issues that affect people's daily lives -- such as educational reform and economic growth, issues which are not only the focal points of Lien's campaign but were included among the debate topics at the insistence of the pan-blue camp -- Lien did not enjoy the upper hand. One obvious reason for this, and a fundamental problem for the pan-blue camp's campaign, is Lien's inability to offer solutions to problems once he has pointed out that they exist.
Another fatal flaw for Lien is that many of the problems he pointed out in the debate were as quickly pointed out by Chen to be attributable -- if not entirely, at least predominantly -- to government policies in the KMT era, including some policies decided on by the Executive Yuan when Lien was premier. One case in point was the Nine-Year Educational Program (
The fact that many urgently needed pieces of legislation remain buried in the Legislative Yuan, where the pan-blue camp enjoys an absolute majority, also crippled Lien in many respects. Cases in point are the political donations bill and the Judicial Yuan organization bill. Lien has been unable to offer persuasive explanations as to why these bills -- which he had supposedly endorsed and supported since the KMT era -- still await passage.
This is not to mention that Lien failed -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- to directly respond to Chen's request for a promise that the political donations bill be passed by the end of the month.
This is fatal considering that Chen has promised to place all of his personal assets in a trust if he is re-elected, so as to avoid future skepticism about illegal political donations and corruption.
On the issue of the KMT's ill-gotten assets, it was a major strategic error by Lien to defend his party on legal grounds, when the majority of the voters already believe that such assets were illegally gotten. What he should have done was to promise to return whatever rightfully belongs to the country and the people.
On the national referendum, Lien made the mistake of misquoting the relevant language of provisions of the Referendum Law (
Lien tried to take the offensive by asking Chen for evidence backing up allegations that Lien and his party are favored by China and manipulated by Beijing. While Chen's answers have been evasive, the problem for Lien, if this type of question continues being asked, is that Lien won't get any brownie points either, since the pan-blue camp has made so many unverifiable allegations against Chen and his family.
In any event, it is encouraging to see this debate finally take place. Now it is up to the voters to decide for themselves who speaks more convincingly and then make informed decisions about whom to vote for.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS