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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS