THE FIRST TELEVISED presidential debate left me feeling that the first and second part, with questions from the public, were well designed although more akin to a press conference than a debate. The third part, where the candidates questioned each other, was simply an extension of their usual war of words. Finally, during the concluding remarks in the fourth part, one party continued to question the opponent's issues whereas the other party offered his visions, so that the two were wholly unrelated to each other.
In the first two parts, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) showed a good grasp of policy, and both appeared at their best.
Hsieh's strong point lay in his analysis of policy trends through references to his achievements as Kaohsiung mayor and as premier, while seizing opportunities to attack his opponent. For instance, Hsieh demanded that the KMT divide its party assets among low-income earners in order to raise the average income.
Ma's strength, on the other hand, was to answer questions clearly within the allotted time, with references integrating his experiences as Taipei mayor and KMT chairman with information prepared by his staff.
Hsieh's strengths were Ma's weaknesses, and vice versa. For instance, on issues dealing with the economy and the standard of living, Hsieh's talent for debate was unquestionable. He was able to strategically avoid questions, point out inconsistencies in his opponent's policy for raising national income or subsidizing low-income earners, and ask him where funds are to be found.
In comparison, Ma answered every question that was asked, emphasizing his frankness and reliability. Also, Hsieh's responses on judicial reform, foreign policy and gay rights appeared to be completely detached from reality. Indeed, on the issue of how he would deal with corruption if elected, he completely missed the point and focused on irrelevancies. In contrast, Ma could hardly wait to deliver the goods to the audience. As for time management, Ma rarely exceeded the allotted time, whereas Hsieh routinely ran over his time so that his answers often were incomplete. Their performance demonstrated Ma's preparation and the need for Hsieh's camp to improve.
During the policy questioning sections, Hsieh won in answering questions about Taiwanese identity -- partially because Hsieh is truly Taiwanese -- although Ma had vastly improved his pro-localization discourse through his "long stays" in the countryside. Although Hsieh had a good grasp on economic and livelihood issues, Ma was most successful in his criticism of the DPP's isolationist attitude, and in his strong faith in his ability to improve cross-strait relations and boost the economy through government investment.
The final question, asking each candidate to list the other's strengths, finally relaxed the previously combative and tense atmosphere. Both candidates were humorous and deserved the applause they received.
I had hoped that both candidates would perform better when questioning each other. However, the results were disappointing. Hsieh's first question was whether Ma held a US green card 20 or 30 years ago. This negative issue may have forced Ma to change tack and turn to criticizing the DPP's failure to fulfill its promise to take care of central and southern Taiwan, small and medium-sized businesses, and low to middle-income earners. Hsieh then attacked Ma for failing to revamp the Tamshui River and Jiancheng Circle.
Finally, the kid gloves came off and the two blasted each other for corruption at the hands of subordinates during their tenure as public officials. Nine minutes was wasted on mud slinging, and not a word about Taiwan's future was mentioned.
Worth noting is the fact that while Ma was forced to stay on the offensive, he only criticized Hsieh on a policy level, and did not mention the controversial tape recording that helped Hsieh win the Kaohsiung mayoral election, or the anti-Hsieh conspiracy theories.
In the last section of the debate, Hsieh relentlessly pursued the green card issue and questioned Ma's capability and trustworthiness. Ma outlined his vision for saving Taiwan's economy, assisting marginalized groups, reducing the difference between rural and urban areas, forming a government without corruption, and constructing a harmonious society.
It is a pity that Hsieh failed to make the best of these precious three minutes by discussing the future. Ma's conclusion was concise and powerful, demonstrating a presidential candidate's breadth of vision and elevated character.
On the whole, Hsieh's debating skills remain undoubted. However, his adeptness at dodging questions makes it difficult the public to probe his character through questions and follow-up questions. There are two ways of improving this situation.
First, questions from the public can be kept secret to prevent candidates from giving prepared responses and questioners should be allowed two follow-up questions.
Second, the debate organizers could invite specialists recommended by both sides to form a question team, so that candidates would have no way of hiding their intentions from the public. In terms of policy, both candidates have their own merits. Yet in regards to specific solutions to problems facing the nation, Ma apparently was more able to grasp the general future direction. While both candidates showed a sense of humor, they maintained their characteristic trademarks: One came off as tactful and smooth, the other as frank and honest.
Being a famed orator, Hsieh's performance was rather disappointing, perhaps a case of underperforming because of pressure. Ma also had many shortcomings that need improving. However, Ma had a clearer vision of the nation's future and many commendable character traits.
Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS