No wonder some people are beginning to feel fed up with this presidential election. Just the questions of whether to hold televised debates between the presidential candidates and who is to blame for the inability to hold such debates thus far are enough to generate a real war of words between the pan-green and pan-blue camps.
After the Lunar New Year, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
However, Ma's new-found enthusiasm evidently took not only the enemy -- the pan-green camp -- by surprise, but also people on his own side, which in turn demonstrates a lack of coordination and rapport in the pan-blue campaign team.
Ma rarely speaks in such harsh tones. As if they were hesitating over Ma's new demeanor, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
This phenomenon is even more clearly demonstrated in the current discussions about televised debates. Signs indicate that Ma may not win much appreciation from his own camp for initiating the proposal for televised debates.
It is not hard to imagine that Lien, who is not exactly known as a charismatic and eloquent man, would not enjoy the upper hand in live televised debates. So, if he has reservations about such debates, it is entirely understandable.
According to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) campaign spokesman Wu Nei-jen (
The debate was never held.
This time around, Lien's campaign team acted as if they were clueless about Ma's proposal for the debates. Friday, when asked about the debates, KMT legislative speaker and pan-blue presidential campaign director Wang Jin-pyng (
As for Lien, his sole response on Friday was a brisk "[I] welcome [it]."
The awkwardness of the situation is further highlighted by the discussions over debate topics. Ma asked for debates on the issue of the legality of the national referendum, which was of course welcomed by the ruling DPP, since the national referendum is the core of its campaign platform. Yet, either unwilling to follow Ma's lead or thinking Lien wouldn't win too many brownie points on this issue, other voices from within the pan-blue camp began to say the first round of debates should be about domestic and economic issues.
The truth of the matter is Lien probably won't enjoy an advantage in a debate over such issues either, not with the rising stock market, declining unemployment rate and improving economy.
Perhaps detecting the reservations of the pan-blue camp about the debates, the DPP is pressing hard to hold the debates as soon as possible -- within 10 days. However, the pan-blue camp is again stalling, saying that a survey should be conducted to help the two sides decide the topics for debates and that the debates should not be held until at least 20 days after the DPP has released a white paper on the referendum issue.
It is to be sincerely hoped that this time around the debates can take place.
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse