The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has accused Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of being “empty” and “ambiguous.” However, KMT presidential candidate Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) performance in yesterday’s televised presidential debate showed that he is the empty one.
The debate started with each candidate expressing their general policy direction, but instead of presenting a concrete vision for the nation, Chu began by attacking Tsai, although he sounded self-contradictory by saying that voting for Tsai would be both choosing a road of “rash advance” and being “contained.”
How could a national leader be making both premature advances and constraining the nation at the same time?
Chu did not explain.
On the issue of judicial reform, Tsai proposed that, if elected, she would improve training for judicial personnel — especially enhancing their understanding of human rights protection — while pushing for a mechanism to eliminate incompetent judges.
To make verdicts more reliable, Tsai promised to push for a jury system, while providing more resources to assist people who might have suffered from wrongful verdicts.
Chu agreed that there should be a mechanism to help people suffering from questionable verdicts, but he said that one of the reasons people do not trust the judicial system is that verdicts might change on appeal, adding that incompetent judges who need to be eliminated include “baby judges.”
Is it not contradictory for Chu to call for a mechanism to make up for wrongful verdicts, while complaining that the result might be different after an appeal? An appeal system is designed as a mechanism to help those who think they might have suffered from wrongful judgements.
Why should “baby judges” be eliminated? Age does not necessarily relate to the professionalism and ability of a judge. Younger judges might be able to pay closer attention to detail and make better judgements because they still have a passion for what they do.
While Chu was passionate about attacking his rival, he was less enthusiastic about taking questions.
When Tsai asked what he would do to prevent election irregularities — as four KMT legislators have recently had their election revoked due to vote-buying, while KMT legislative candidate Cheng Cheng-chien (鄭正鈐) stands accused of vote-buying for throwing a banquet for more than 10,000 non-paying guests — Chu avoided directly addressing the question, saying that no political party would allow vote-buying in a democracy, and quickly turning to accuse Tsai of “judging before a trial.”
Despite Tsai saying that it is still too early to say whether, if elected, she would allow US pork products to be imported — as it would require a substantial negotiation process — and adding that she would strive to defend public health and the interests of Taiwan’s pig farmers during any negotiations, Chu accused Tsai of intending to unconditionally allow imports of US pork products.
Less than two months ago, Chu said that Taiwan should follow the standards of other Asian nations for imports of US pork products, but seems to have adopted a total change in attitude on the issue and pretended not to hear Tsai when she asked him to explain why he has changed his stance.
While many people might consider a presidential candidate debate to be only a show, it is a worthwhile show, as it allows voters to see a candidate’s immediate response — or non-response — to a question from a rival, and, in the usual war of words during the run-up to an election, it allows voters to see who the “empty” one is.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS