Sunday’s debate between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in his capacity as chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has generally been perceived as a victory for Ma. This has then been extrapolated and interpreted in terms of a 2012 presidential race between the two adversaries. An opinion poll by a media outlet showed that Tsai would lose by more than 10 percentage points if the election were held today. The poll also showed an increase of 5 percentage points in Ma’s approval ratings.
The National Policy Foundation, a KMT think tank, even said Tsai has disqualified herself from the DPP’s presidential nomination race.
While there may be good reasons for these analyses, I feel that if the public were to decide who would be more suitable to be the next president based on who gained the upper hand in a single debate — ignoring the current administration’s poor policy execution skills — then their political IQ is clearly low.
While it is true that we are looking at Ma in a different light after this debate — in terms of his ability to expound his views and attack his opponent in ways that made it difficult for Tsai to defend herself — I feel that Ma has won only so far as argumentative technique is concerned. When Tsai raised issues that required deeper thought, such as whether an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) would allow China to contain or control Taiwan, what impact the pact may have on Taiwan’s industrial structure and wealth distribution, as well as Taiwan’s position in global trade, Ma never gave any concrete policy answers.
Those who worry about the negative impact of an ECFA found no answer in Ma’s discourse. From this point of view, Ma lost the debate.
The ECFA debate was not held with an eye to any election, and what the public wanted to hear was not slogans and election promises or political posturing. What people wanted to hear was what advantages and challenges an ECFA would bring Taiwan and what strategies the government would adopt to avert any possible negative impact. One very simple principle is that dealings between the two countries will bring both advantages and disadvantages.
Just because the government wants to sign an ECFA is not an excuse for it to mention only the advantages to win over the public while ignoring industries or people who may be negatively affected by the pact. Tsai may not possess Ma’s debating skills, but she certainly didn’t lose when it came to alerting the public to these critical issues.
The debate may have given the KMT some momentum. If the government knows how to use this, and if it takes a square look at the issues that Tsai highlighted, carefully considering a response — avoiding fluff like “doing a good job with social welfare” and tax reductions that only increase social injustice — then the debate may indeed facilitate Ma’s re-election in 2012. However, if it is satisfied with playing up this short-term victory, forgetting its failed policies, charging forward in its haste to sign an ECFA and ignoring any admonitions about the widening gap between the rich and poor in Taiwan, Ma’s re-election is not guaranteed.
Hsu Yu-fang is an associate professor and chairman of the Chinese department at National Dong Hwa University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath