Sat, Jan 02, 2016 page8

• Debates are but a theatrical ‘show’

  • By Cheng Tzu-leong 鄭自隆
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Last weekend, the public was treated to two long-winded political shows. The reason I use the word “show” is that the six performers all came meticulously prepared and they only told us things that we already knew. None of the candidates had anything new to offer and it is unlikely that voters will respond with any kind of enthusiasm.

  The debate between the presidential candidates on Sunday last week, saw Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) snapping at each other, while People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) was caught in the middle.

  Chu and Tsai took aim at each other, completely ignoring Soong and not even including him when the candidates put questions to each other. As soon as Soong spoke, Chu and Tsai were quick to use his words as a way to attack each other.

  There was nothing new or fresh in the attacks between the KMT and the DPP candidates. As expected, Chu attacked Tsai for rejecting the so-called “1992 consensus,” adding that she would bring back former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) team, criticized her for enjoying the 18 percent preferential interest rate reserved for military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers and said that she was speculating in land.

  All these issues were easy to predict for Tsai and her team. Regrettably, Tsai’s responses were also hackneyed and she brought nothing new to the table.

  It makes one long for the debate during last year’s mayoral election in Taipei between independent Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and KMT candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) when Ko gave unexpected answers to his opponent’s attacks as he turned the attacks to his advantage. It is unfortunate that Tsai has not learned from Ko.

  In the same way, Tsai attacked Chu for replacing Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) as his party’s presidential candidate, for shirking his responsibilities as mayor of New Taipei City and for saying during a visit to Shanghai last year that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait both belong to “one China.” This was all hackneyed, rehashed material that was foreseen by the opposition.

  If election debates and policy statements are to offer the media and the public something fresh, new information is required. For example, when it had just been announced that Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) would be Tsai’s running mate, Chen talked about his father’s interactions with his wife and with his political foe, democracy activist Yu Teng-fa (余登發), in an interview with SET-TV. This was new information, but when it was brought up again during the debate between the vice-presidential candidates on Saturday last week, it was already old news.

  During the media questions to the candidates, the China Times, the United Daily News and the Central News Agency focused on cross-strait relations in an obvious attempt to pave the way for Chu, while the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) asked Tsai what achievements she hoped to make with four years in office.

  Asking candidates to make concrete pledges is the responsibility of the media, but Tsai was so busy attacking her opponent that she forgot to respond to the question. It would be great if the DPP could respond to the question at a media conference or in a press release.

  Compared with the attacks of the three presidential candidates, the vice presidential candidates debate was a bit more entertaining. These candidates did not pack as much firepower, but there were a couple of interesting discoveries — KMT vice presidential candidate Jennifer Wang (王如玄) believes in the same nation as the DPP, as she said that she supports the DPP’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future.”

  Republican Party Chairperson Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), Soong’s running mate, is a political con artist who led the audience to believe she was running for the Republican Party rather than the PFP.

  Chen Chien-jen is a political novice who opened himself up to attack.

  The fifth question from the public was whether Taiwan’s future should be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese. After stating that she respected the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, Wang said that she supported self-determination.

  This is the same thing that is promoted in the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” that the DPP published in May 1999, which states that: “Any change in the independence ‘status quo’ must be decided by all Taiwanese in a referendum.”

  We should all thank Wang for her support, as the future of Taiwan should always be decided by Taiwanese. No one else should make any irresponsible remarks on the matter.

  Had it not been for Wang’s involvement in the military housing units case, her performance would meet the public’s expectations of her as a lawyer. She is methodical and clear, switches effortlessly back and forth between Mandarin and Hoklo — also known as Taiwanese — and is expressive. Her performance was the best of the three vice presidential candidates, and her apology just before the debate ended should increase her popularity with deep-blue voters.

  However, swing voters might think that it all sounded too easy and that politicians say one thing and do another, and that she therefore should not be taken too seriously.

  Yu Hsin-ying is the PFP’s vice-presidential candidate, but throughout the debate she did not mention the party. From beginning to end, she promoted the Republican Party, in practice spending 20 percent of her time attacking the KMT and the DPP, 10 percent promoting Soong and 70 percent aggrandizing herself, turning her into a bona fide political con artist.

  The debate was organized to promote the views of the candidates, not to promote the political standpoint of their political parties. The reason Hsu was invited to participate in the debate was that she is nominated by the PFP as the party’s vice-presidential candidate, not because she is the chairperson of the Republican Party. Her performance was a serious violation of political ethics.

  Chen Chien-jen gives voters the impression that he is a warm, gentle man and the thing most abhorred in televised debates is the impression that a candidate is not in line with his or her image when engaging in an argument. A warm and gentle person should therefore maintain that image and avoid deliberate attacks on the other candidates and Chen should avoid harsh criticism of his opponents, as it is out of character for him.

  Chen failed when candidates were able to pose questions to each other. The team who helped him organize the questions should be given a scolding. Why would he ask Wang, a supporter of women’s rights, what she thought about the replacement of Hung?

  Hung was replaced for electoral concerns, not because she is a woman, and the replacement had little to do with women’s rights. It is difficult to understand why they would come up with such a question. It was even more ridiculous to ask Hsu what she thought about Chu and Wang. It opened himself up to attack and allowed Hsu to go on about herself and Soong.

  The televised debates between candidates is one link in the political campaign, and the audience (voters) are likely to take in the parts they like and ignore the rest. They are likely to think that the candidate of their choice is performing extraordinarily well and that the others are not performing well and this should not have much of an effect on opinion polls.

  However, few people are likely to pay much attention to the candidates’ political views. What they want, after all, is to be entertained for an afternoon, not an afternoon of heavy political talk.

  Cheng Tzu-leong is a professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Communication.

  Translated by Perry Svensson

  Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    German warships to pass through Strait

  • 2

    Sino-Russian air patrol designed to counter US

  • 3

    Court orders Ko Wen-je’s detention

  • 4

    Silicon photonics alliance formed

  • 5

    Ko Wen-je release quashed