When it comes to the question of presidential debates, time limitations force the audience to judge the candidates on performance and personality, not detailed explanations of their campaign platforms. Yet what most voters need is a firm and clear stance on specific policies and issues. In this regard, President Chen Shui-bian (
In a face-to-face confrontation such as a TV debate, self-confidence and a politician's adherence to his or her philosophy are two keys to win support from the audience. Usually the challenger is more aggressive in attacking the incumbent's policies. But last Saturday it was Chen who seemed to be playing the role of gladiator and Lien was on the defensive. While Lien asked if the pan-green camp had any evidence of China's alleged collaboration with the pan-blue camp, Chen focused attention on Lien's long-time embracing of the "one China" principle and highlighted the differences between Lien and his running mate, People First Party chairman James Soong (
Moreover, Lien's suggestion that sovereignty issues be pushed to the side illustrated his lack of determination to adhere to Taiwan's national interests. His response was simply more oscillation on the "one China" issue. Hardly the image of a strong and patriotic leader that one would think Lien would want to be pushing.
Lien could have accused Chen of being sitting on the fence on cross-strait relations by advocating "a future `one China'" and "political integration with China," while insisting that there are two countries on either side of the Taiwan Strait. Chen, however, gained support by remaining steadfast on Taiwan's independent sovereignty. Lien's personal shortcoming lie not only in his conservative, stiff and always looking-to-the past political mindset but also in his inability to coordinate differing opinions within the pan-blue camp.
In their attempt to boycott the referendum, pan-blue politicians have adopted diverse approaches. Contrary to Soong's explicit rejection of the referendum, Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
The pan-blue camp has long portrayed the Chen administration as vacillating in implementing policy. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant fiasco, the bid to reform the farmers' and fishermen's cooperatives and its cross-strait policies are the most frequently cited cases. But to sabotage the government's efficiency is one thing, how to translate it into votes in the ballot box is another.
Lien's about-face in accepting the referendum as one step toward Taiwan's democratic consolidation and his bold proposal on constitutional reform demonstrated a lack of integrated policy within his camp. All his proposals reek of electioneering.
Lien owes voters a fair explanation of why he has introduced such dramatically different policy proposals over the past few months and in what direction this change will lead the nation. He needs not mute his desire for change or modify his ideas, but he must make sure his style matches the public's mood. Most importantly, by trying to convince voters that "moderation" is much more a key element of his personality than of Chen's, Lien will have to explain how he could turn moderate ideas into flexible and sometimes affirmative action.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS