The nation’s three presidential candidates yesterday clashed at the first platform presentation organized by the Central Election Commission, with each candidate scrapping over various issues.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), was first to speak, followed by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Vice President William Lai (賴清德) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲).
In the first round, the focus was on foreign policy. In terms of cross-strait issues, Hou reiterated his opposition to Taiwanese independence and “one country, two systems.” Similarly, Ko promised to bring peace and maintain Taiwan’s democratic system, adding that Taiwan’s biggest issue of the past few decades is bipartisan conflict between the DPP and KMT, and the solution is a coalition government.
In contrast, Lai offered the most solid foreign policy by stating he would follow President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) policy and not rely on the enemy’s benevolence for peace. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) made clear that the so-called “1992 consensus” is China’s “one China principle,” Hou and Ko’s policies are downright unfeasible as China only recognizes itself. Adopting Hou’s and Ko’s policies would mean defending the Republic of China with the “one China principle,” or opting for a fake peace built on eventual unification.
In the second round, Hou chose to address the housing problem and to raise the monthly minimum wage to NT$33,000. He proposed a mortgage program for young people to take out a maximum of NT$15 million (US$479,509) with no need for a down payment when buying a home. Even lacking risk control measures, Hou misses the point of young people’s aversion to buying a home, as the issue is not mortgages, but low salaries. Even without a down payment, it is an extreme burden for young people to have a NT$10 million loan, knowing they would have to pay it back in full.
Lai chose to directly address the controversy over his family’s property. As the government has yet to lay out plans for old houses in coal mining areas, he took the initiative to vow to protect the living rights of other miners in the area and would donate his house as a memorial hall to commemorate Taiwan’s mining industry.
Ko proposed pushing for reform in four main areas, including finance, the legal and civil service systems, and digital management, all of which required improvement under DPP governance. He wishes to reform the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and establish a tax fund redistribution committee to oversee fund allocation. On legal reform, he would also push for legislation on whistle-blowing, judicial peddling and obstruction of justice, all of which have been critiqued as serving the interests of elites and the rich.
In the third round, Hou went for the DPP’s Achilles’ heel by accusing it of promoting green energy out of personal gain and flip-flopping on nuclear energy. On this point, Hou does score a point in that the DPP has yet to propose a solid energy plan to ensure power supply and environmental protection.
From another aspect, Lai questioned the “back seat driver” presence of Hou’s running mate, Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康). Since Jaw has been leading on policies, Lai reminded Hou that presidents do not have babysitters.
Ko chose not to engage by focusing on residential justice. He vowed to promote building social residences and refurbishing old houses for young and elderly people to rent.
In view of the debate, Lai is the one who has the most solid and reassuring plan on foreign policy, yet he still leaves much to be desired in terms of legal, social and governance issues. Only by proposing policies could the public know that the DPP would become better with his leadership and not wallow in corruption for staying in power for too long.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS