Sat, Feb 21, 2004 page8

• Editorial: Character and personality count

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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 (陳水扁) outperformed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) in their first debate.

  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 (宋楚瑜) on future unification scenarios.

  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 (王金平), a KMT vice chairman, expressed his willingness to vote in the referendum. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) isn't saying what he will do. Lien will have no choice but to face the question of whether to support the referendum in the debate this afternoon.

  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.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER

  • 5

    Taiwan wants bilingual, AI-ready graduates — but tests for yesteryear