When it comes to Taiwan's upcoming presidential election, the candidate-centered campaign is often the focal point. But ironically it seems not be the case this time -- especially with respect to the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Recent efforts made by DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) to walk out of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) shadow and wage his own campaign against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have illustrated an essential need for Hsieh's camp to reorientate the focus of the election.
The most salient point in case was Hsieh's recent proposal to further open cross-strait trade. He suggested a wider opening to global capital, including investment from China; an amnesty to facilitate the return of capital previously remitted out of the country via underground or illegal channels; a lowering of taxes on inherited property and gifts to below 10 percent to encourage the wealthy to keep their money in Taiwan; and an increase to the 40 percent ceiling on investment in China on a case-by-case basis.
It appeared that Hsieh's new ideas contradicted Chen's -- namely, the policy of "proactive management and effective opening." Chen immediate reiterated his position that the 40 percent cap will not be charged during the reminder of his term.
Although Hsieh and Chen dismissed speculation that they were at odds over cross-strait economic policies and stuck to the consensus of letting Chen handle state affairs and Hsieh handle campaign strategies, Hsieh has no doubt ignited a political fire storm by trying to distinguish himself from Chen.
Particularly when Hsieh said: "Although there are things that [Chen] hasn't done -- or hasn't done quite right -- I will do them [right] and this is the reason for electing a new president. I believe he will accept my proposals."
This comment displayed the DPP candidate's determination to establish his own policies.
To a large extent, Hsieh successfully distracted the media from issues such as Chen's promotion of a referendum for UN membership using the name "Taiwan," growing public dissatisfaction with rising food and oil prices and the unification or independence debate.
Ma has continued to use the "economy card," calling for direct links and wider trade between Taiwan and China.
Hsieh's strategy is to marginalize his differences with Ma.
Since Ma has criticized the DPP government for focusing more on national identity issues than on the economy, what Hsieh has tried to do is strike a balance between Ma and Chen by promoting the idea that improving the economy and safeguarding national identity must go hand in hand.
Since Hsieh's campaign has been overshadowed by Chen's political maneuvering on sovereignty and referendum issues, not to mention Chen's appointment as the DPP chairman, Hsieh can regain the political spotlight by presenting a somewhat different attitude toward Chen's existing policies.
Bold initiatives may attract more median voters, but they also invite internal risks in terms of how to coordinate with the president and the Executive Yuan on key policies.
With only four months to the election, Hsieh desperately needs to create his own campaign strategy by re-framing the debate, rebuilding his image and resetting his agenda. Hsieh may not necessarily have to disassociate himself from Chen, but he will have to clearly tell the voters why he can do a better job than the previous DPP president.
For example, there is an apparent lack of internal coordination between Hsieh, Chen and the Executive Yuan on how the DPP should articulate the management of the current surge in oil and consumer prices.
Regarding investment from China and how it should be regulated, Hsieh argued that industries related to national defense, agriculture and people's livelihoods should be protected. The key issue is not whether to manage investment, but how to manage it.
Hsieh could have consulted Chen or the Executive Yuan before he tested the waters. If he had, the KMT could not have taken advantage of a DPP split.
To ensure a sound and healthy working relationship in the next four months, more communication and coordination are needed between DPP headquarters and Hsieh's campaign center.
Chen must lower his voice and give the spotlight to Hsieh.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past