Contenders for the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential nomination held their final policy presentations on Wednesday and telephone polls begin today to select the party’s candidate to run in the January election.
The DPP deserves praise for holding four presentations, each of which was broadcast live on national television. Its three hopefuls — former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), former deputy premier Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and former party chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) — used the time to elucidate their views on issues ranging from the economy, social welfare, defense, foreign affairs and cross-strait relations.
However, although the three stood on the same stage, they did not engage each other in debate. The decision to hold presentations as opposed to a debate was made by organizers to avoid the acrimony of the 2008 primary. At that time, barbs traded by candidates Su and former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) led to intra-party tensions that many felt undermined unity and ultimately reduced the party’s chance of winning the presidency.
In addition to being civil, the three candidates have been serious and articulate over the past few weeks, but the presentations were not thrilling political broadcasting — which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was quick to point out.
Sometimes conflict can be a good thing, even between political allies, and not just for its entertainment value. Vigorous public debate is the cornerstone of the democratic process. It allows old ideas to be revised and new ones to be tested. Eliminating the contentiousness of public vetting diminishes the urgency of the issues in play and the energy needed to resolve them. In the heat of argument, flaws are exposed and solutions found.
In a campaign such as the DPP’s primary, debate tests potential candidates as much as their ability to discuss ideas. Politicians who fold under the pressure of contending opinions are likely to perform similarly in office.
The most valuable lesson learned from the Su-Hsieh debates may have been that neither man was fit to lead a modern democracy in which one of the most important requirements is to be tough in deliberations, but to also know when to turn the other cheek.
There is no better example of what happens when open debate is lacking than the lax, bumbling, error-prone administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who on Saturday registered as the sole candidate for the KMT’s presidential nomination. Since Ma took office in 2008, he has been criticized for a management style that is decidedly top down.
Although the KMT seems to operate without the DPP’s endless internal bickering, this is due largely to the fact that no one dares openly challenge Ma and his clique.
None of this is new in Taiwan, where a cultural aversion to open conflict makes politicians unwilling to question colleagues for fear of being labeled troublemakers.
Some blame a similar aversion in Japanese politics for that country’s ineffectual government and the comfy relationship between the government and energy industry for contributing to its current nuclear crisis.
While politics should not be allowed to descend into insults and personal attacks, conflict — even heated conflict — can be avoided only at the cost of productive debate and effective government.
In 2008, US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced off in the Democratic Party presidential primary. Despite a combative campaign the two remained professional, and when it was over they put any personal grievances behind them and have gone on to forge what appears to be a successful political collaboration.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry