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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers