The first presidential debate between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) was held on Saturday. All three candidates expressed themselves admirably, sounding very democratic and eloquent, which was good in that it showed the world how far democracy has come in Taiwan. The problem was that, as the debate unfolded, there was much of interest, but very little substance. None of the three candidates came up with any comprehensive ideas or policies.
Polls taken after the debate showed that Ma held up pretty well, maintaining his lead. However, this was more a reflection of how he had conducted himself in the debate, how good his delivery and debating skills were, rather than public preference for his politics over the other two candidates. For example, Ma was at considerable pains to lump Tsai in with former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), starting by criticizing Chen and his corrupt administration and going on to say that if Tsai were to win, she would forever be under Chen’s shadow. He concluded by saying Tsai was somehow an extension of Chen, playing on the public’s negative impression of the former president. Tsai countered that they were debating next year’s presidential election, that this was not 2008 and that Ma was standing against her, not Chen.
Anyone would think from the way Ma was relentlessly pursuing Tsai that it was Ma who was the leader of the opposition, and Tsai, calmly parrying the attacks, the head of government defending her record. Mounting strong attacks in a debate is a good tactic: It shows that you are strong, it keeps the opponent from attacking you and gets them on the back foot, hopefully responding rashly and making forced errors.
During the debate, Ma cited all sorts of facts and figures to back up his assertion of what his administration has achieved over the past three-and-a-half years and how hard he had been working to put the country’s house in order after the Chen years. The cold, hard facts may have sounded impressive to the president, but they were met with less enthusiasm by his audience. Tsai has managed to engage her supporters on a much more emotive level, with her piggy bank and “female Robin Hood” successes. Ma’s campaign has faltered because it has been overly centered on himself and has struggled to resonate with the public.
Ma is perhaps a little reluctant to make sweeping promises for the next four years, as the opposition and press alike have been reminding him of his failure to make good on those made in the 2008 campaign. Back then, he promised to achieve 6 percent annual economic growth, an average per capita income of US$30,000 and an unemployment rate of below 3 percent — better known as his “6-3-3” policy — by next year. Now, however, he has been famously non-committal.
Blessed recently with a lack of controversies or difficult political challenges, Ma has turned to talking up his idea of a “golden decade.” Instead of directly addressing issues relating to cross-strait political negotiations, joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership or finally implementing a two-day weekend for all workers, which government agencies have adopted more than a decade ago, he is just focused on pushing his “golden decade.” Think about it: If Ma does manage to secure a second term, what is he going to do with another four years? Where will Taiwan be at the end of it?
There is still more than a month before the election and there will be one more televised presidential debate. All three candidates still have a chance to strengthen their positions and to address their weak points. Ma may need to rethink his strategy. If he is going to continue attacking his opponents, in the absence of offering strong policies of his own, the moderate, swing voters will not be impressed.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS