ANALYSIS: Analysts give Sunday's debate a failing grade

While some argued over who outshone whom during Sunday's presidential debate, analysts gave the first televised debate a failing grade.

Soochow University political science professor Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明) said there was much room for improvement in the format of the debate, the questions that were asked and the people allowed to participate.

Hsu said he would like to see more time allocated for candidates to answer questions. The 20 people asking questions did not represent a cross section of the public and academia did not play a role at all, he said.

Chan Chang-chuan (詹長權), chairman of the Taipei Society, said that Sunday's debate was not a debate per se because there were too many questions and too little time to answer them, particularly issues concerning national identity and sovereignty.

While there are only two debates scheduled before the March 22 election, Chan said that he would like to see a third held with intellectuals participating. Media managers have been asked to provide questions for the second debate, scheduled for March 9.

Describing Sunday's event as a "boring platform presentation," Allen Houng (洪裕宏), an organizer of the 2004 presidential debates, said that he would like to know why the two candidates were given the questions in advance and how those questions were picked.

"It seems only those who have a higher education, have access to a video camera or live in big cities were chosen," he said.

During the first segment of the debate, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) counterpart Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) responded to 20 videotaped questions selected by the organizers from among 456 questions contributed to a Web site specially set up for the general public for the debate. The 20 people chosen were then given the opportunity to attend and question both candidates directly.

Wang Tai-li (王泰俐), a journalism professor at National Chengchi University, said that the videotaped questions were an "innovative form of civil politics education."

She said the format is becoming a global standard, but she would like to see more people participate, saying that presidential debates should not be limited to only one form.

Ku Chung-hua (顧忠華), chairman of Citizen Congress Watch, criticized the time limits, saying: "It was beef soup without any beef in it."

While the two candidates had the opportunity to challenge each other with three questions in the second section of the debate, Ku said each candidate had only one minute to respond.

He was also disappointed by the questions the two candidates asked each other, Ku said, because they only focused on character issues such as corruption.

Hsieh got emotional when Ma questioned the integrity of his aides involved in graft charges. Chan said he understood Hsieh must have be upset by Ma's question, but it seemed he needed to work on his emotional management.

Since the candidates registered their candidacy on Jan. 27, Hsieh and Ma have slung plenty of mud at each other.

Hsieh has questioned Ma's loyalty, raising questions about his green card status and spying on democracy activists when he was a student in the US.

Ma, on the other hand, has been attacking Hsieh's character by saying he provided information about the democracy movement to intelligence agencies during the Martial Law era.

Little was seen of details on economic policy, foreign policy, national defense or cross-strait relations.

As presidential campaigning for the March 22 election officially began on Saturday, analysts said focusing on the issues may be the best way to win.

Chen Yen-hui (陳延輝), a professor at National Taiwan Normal University's Graduate Institute of Political Science, said that he would like to see the two candidates talk about real issues such as detailed economic policy and the direction of the country.

Chen said he expected national identity would become a hot topic as the election approaches, because it is a DPP strong point.

Reluctant to define the green card controversy as political mudslinging, Chen said it would be more appropriate to define it as Ma's lack of crisis management ability.

"The matter would not have gotten out of hand had Ma told the truth from the very beginning," he said.

Analyzing Hsieh's campaign strategy, Chao Yung-mau (趙永茂), a political science professor at National Taiwan University, said that it was a two-pronged approach, with the Executive Yuan presenting stimulus packages and Hsieh attacking Ma's weaknesses.

Chao pointed out the importance of swing voters, who are more politically moderate and may play a decisive role in the vote.

"The decisive engagement of the battle lies in centrist voters and the middle class," he said. "They don't want to see pork barrel polices or short-term stimulus plans."

Chan said he would like to see the two presidential candidates engage in an issue-based campaign, but unfortunately this does not seem to be in the cards.

"No matter who wins the election, that person will be stealing the presidency if he does not tell the people exactly where he is going to steer the ship," he said.