The first two policy sessions for the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) three presidential hopefuls were not very electrifying performances. Instead, there was a lot of mutual respect and self-introspection.
Both DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who took a leave of absence to run in the party primaries, and former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) had already said all they wanted to say in exclusive interviews ahead of their televised presentations.
Gaining the upper hand in the presidential primary, which is decided by opinion poll results, could well have depended on their performance in the final session last night.
Former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良), who said he only wanted to participate to promote his ideals, did not have much to worry about and could speak frankly. Naturally, Tsai and Su did not let Hsu’s participation alter their strategies, but his passionate focus on some inconvenient truths that many DPP leaders refuse to face offers the two an opportunity to review the party’s policies, especially regarding China, which have been kidnapped by domestic politics, hurting Taiwan’s diplomatic relations.
Another significance of Hsu’s participation in the presidential primary is that it restates the party’s democratic spirit, allowing Hsu, who has been called a “political chameleon,” to attempt to represent the party. Although his ideas on cross-strait policy lie outside the party’s traditional stance, they are a precious asset and intellectual stimulus as the party prepares to regain power.
On the same day that the first session took place, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) attended an event organized by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) representatives to discuss his political achievements over the past three years in an attempt to balance the news impact of the DPP’s televised presentation. Compared with the evenly matched DPP frontrunners, who are catching up with or even surpassing Ma in the opinion polls, Ma has made much of the Presidential Office’s lost documents, the Council of Grand Justice nominations, the proposed -construction a Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co naphtha cracker and the new luxury tax.
In addition, Ma has adhered to the KMT’s feudal tradition of unwavering support for the supreme leader, creating a public impression of incompetence, conservativeness and regression.
Continued rule is always the goal of a political party. If Ma’s approval rating were to reach 50 percent or more, he could sit back and relax and would not need to worry about the challenge from potential opponents inside and outside the KMT.
However, since the flooding caused by Typhoon Morakot in August 2009, Ma’s approval rating has remained low. According to long-term opinion polls conducted by Global Views Monthly magazine, his approval rating was 35 percent and his disapproval rating was 52 percent last month.
Recently, his nominations for candidates to the Council of Grand Justices were criticized because one had made a controversial ruling in a child molestation case and others were found to once have held residency status in the US and Canada.
He also rushed through the luxury tax to restrain housing prices and visited the site of the planned Kuokuang plant in Changhua County to listen to local protesters, but his visit did not explain why he had not done so in the first three years of his presidency. Why hadn’t he thought of beginning a dialogue with the public before the election campaign started?
Ma only qualifies for a “C-” for his performance. Even though he seems to rule the country by obtaining his information from newspapers and he remains aloof from mainstream opinion, there is not a single person inside the KMT who dares challenge Ma in the way Hsu has done in the DPP.
I am sure that many KMT members must be displeased with him, but no one dares expose the paper tiger at this stage.
If the century-old KMT had a Hsu, who insists on his ideals no matter what, he might stimulate Ma and the KMT to engage in some reflection. At least that might keep the public from feeling completely desperate.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at Taiwan Brain Trust.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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