Ever since direct elections were first held in Taiwan, there has always been a televised presidential debate. For the Jan. 16 election, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has agreed to participate in a debate on SET-TV, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) wants it to be broadcast by Public Television Service (PTS).
The DPP has since expressed reservations about the KMT’s alternative plan, sparking public concern that there might not be a televised debate before the election.
Given the huge impact that the first televised debate held during the Nixon-Kennedy US presidential election in 1960, televised debates have been viewed as an important way to influence the outcome of an election. If either candidate fails to adequately prepare, they will lose the opportunity to decisively change the course of events and win over the public. At the very least, presidential candidates aim to use the debate to lock in their core vote.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Taiwan Brain Trust, DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) continues to lead, with a support rating of 48.2 percent, while the KMT’s Eric Chu (朱立倫) has 19.4 percent and the People First Party’s James Soong (宋楚瑜) has 11.6 percent. Short of a major incident, a DPP victory appears to be a shoo-in. Perhaps for this reason, Tsai is reluctant to debate, fearing it may hand her opponents the chance to bolster their campaigns or cause the DPP to shed votes.
Conversely, the Chu camp, lagging behind, wants to put its all into the fight, and sees the television debate as an opportunity to reverse its political fortunes. Chu’s team also hopes to be able to expose and attack what it sees as a weak spot in Tsai’s politics: cross-strait policy. It hopes this will help to remove the bad smell that has hung around the KMT ever since it ditched its original presidential candidate, the dispute around the party’s legislator-at-large list and, more recently, allegations of dodgy property transactions surrounding Chu’s running mate, Jennifer Wang (王如玄).
Needless to say, the question over which television network hosts the debate is simply a technical matter and should not prevent it from going ahead. The teams of each presidential candidate should work to remove any obstacles that remain in place, to prevent disappointing the public.
Despite its importance, a televised debate is simply one means among many that the presidential candidates have at their disposal to communicate their views and policies to the electorate. Aside from the televised information programs and election bulletins provided by the Central Election Commission, what else can candidates do to inform the public of their views?
From relatively early on, Tsai has used a succession of press conferences to convey her political views to the public. Tsai has also released a book which sets out her political beliefs. In contrast, the KMT switched candidates mid-race, which has left its campaign team little time to get the party’s message out. To date, the Chu camp has only been able to put out a handful of advertisements: The flow of information is clearly insufficient.
Given the advances in communication technology, candidates should be able to make full use of social media Web sites to increase interaction and contact with the electorate. They can also use different forms of social media to engage in effective two-way dialogue on issues and problems that concern voters. Whether through text messages or video, voters would be able to directly pose questions to the candidates, and the candidates would be able to appeal directly to voters. This would be a far more effective and penetrative method of political broadcasting than a traditional televised debate.
Instead of the candidates squabbling among themselves over who should televise the debates, would it not be better if they each went online and faced the electorate head-on?
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US