Yesterday, the long-awaited first round of live televised debates between the two presidential candidates -- President Chen Shui-bian (
Before the debate, some commentators had said that in order to score in the debate Lien would need to leave behind his usual conservatism and go on the offensive for a change so as to attack the incumbent where it hurts. While Lien's efforts in this regard were evident, they simply weren't enough.
Even on the domestic issues that affect people's daily lives -- such as educational reform and economic growth, issues which are not only the focal points of Lien's campaign but were included among the debate topics at the insistence of the pan-blue camp -- Lien did not enjoy the upper hand. One obvious reason for this, and a fundamental problem for the pan-blue camp's campaign, is Lien's inability to offer solutions to problems once he has pointed out that they exist.
Another fatal flaw for Lien is that many of the problems he pointed out in the debate were as quickly pointed out by Chen to be attributable -- if not entirely, at least predominantly -- to government policies in the KMT era, including some policies decided on by the Executive Yuan when Lien was premier. One case in point was the Nine-Year Educational Program (
The fact that many urgently needed pieces of legislation remain buried in the Legislative Yuan, where the pan-blue camp enjoys an absolute majority, also crippled Lien in many respects. Cases in point are the political donations bill and the Judicial Yuan organization bill. Lien has been unable to offer persuasive explanations as to why these bills -- which he had supposedly endorsed and supported since the KMT era -- still await passage.
This is not to mention that Lien failed -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- to directly respond to Chen's request for a promise that the political donations bill be passed by the end of the month.
This is fatal considering that Chen has promised to place all of his personal assets in a trust if he is re-elected, so as to avoid future skepticism about illegal political donations and corruption.
On the issue of the KMT's ill-gotten assets, it was a major strategic error by Lien to defend his party on legal grounds, when the majority of the voters already believe that such assets were illegally gotten. What he should have done was to promise to return whatever rightfully belongs to the country and the people.
On the national referendum, Lien made the mistake of misquoting the relevant language of provisions of the Referendum Law (
Lien tried to take the offensive by asking Chen for evidence backing up allegations that Lien and his party are favored by China and manipulated by Beijing. While Chen's answers have been evasive, the problem for Lien, if this type of question continues being asked, is that Lien won't get any brownie points either, since the pan-blue camp has made so many unverifiable allegations against Chen and his family.
In any event, it is encouraging to see this debate finally take place. Now it is up to the voters to decide for themselves who speaks more convincingly and then make informed decisions about whom to vote for.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS