Tsai Ing-wen Chooses Evasiveness

Tsai Ing-wen Chooses Evasiveness
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2011

Summary: How well did the three presidential candidates do in their first election debate? Different media polls show different results. Tsai Ing-wen's attitude during the debate gave people the impression she was reaching out only to her fans. She was not interested in reaching out to swing voters. Her performance during the debate was premeditated. She adopted an evasive attitude. Her evasiveness was intentional.

Full Text Below:

How well did the three presidential candidates do in their first election debate? Different media polls show different results. Outsiders however agree. Ma Ying-jeou made a strong case for himself, but overall the debate came across as lukewarm. Why did the debate lack spark, in spite of Ma Ying-jeou's strong performance? This is very baffling.

Perhaps it was because supporters of the three candidates differed over how their own candidate performed. But this was the first time the three candidates found themselves in the same place since they registered. Each candidate presented his or her platform. Each cross-examined the other two candidates. The public naturally hoped each of the candidates would explain how they stood on important issues. After all, this is a presidential candidate's responsibility. But people were surprised that Tsai Ing-wen evaded every major issue, including cross-Strait policy, two dollar persimmons, and whether she would pardon Chen Shui-bian.

Tsai Ing-wen's evasiveness provoked an uproar. Tsai and her staffers must have known her opponents would not let her off lightly. When Tsai Ing-wen and her staffers practiced for the debate, she must have known these questions would be asked. They must have run simulations. They must prepared their answers. Yet Tsai Ing-wen chose to dodge every one of them. She must have known that her evasiveness would alienate rational, moderate voters. Nevertheless this is the way Tsai Ing-wen decided to go.

Candidates and their political parties are well aware that given Blue vs. Green political divisions on Taiwan, most voters have firmly held political stances. Their support for their candidate is unlikely to be shaken by the outcome of a political debate. These voters decided whom to vote for long ago. What the candidates say during the debate is not terribly important to them. Therefore, the three presidential candidates' goal during the debate is to influence swing voters who "want to discover just exactly what the candidates' positions are."

The China Times polled registered voters who intend to go to the polls. Among them, 64% watched this debate. The number of viewers was impressive. The poll numbers for the Two Yings are extremely close. Therefore every vote counts. No candidate has any reason to forsake this opportunity to influence swing voters. James Soong stressed the need to look after the "three middles/mediums." Soong was referring to: the middle class; small and medium enterprises and lower and middle income households, and of course, middle of the road voters. Ma Ying-jeou cares about economic issues. He has been honest enough to admit he did not do enough during his three years in office. He reiterated his determination to work harder and do better. Ma Ying-jeou apparently knows that one cannot gloss over poor performance. It will not work. Voters are realistic. Therefore they will not tolerate it. Debates invariably include self-promotion. But Ma Ying-jeou has chosen to acknowledge that in some areas, he failed to do a good job and therefore owed everyone an apology.

By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen seems to care little about influencing swing voters. Many people are concerned about whether she will pardon Chen Shui-bian if elected. Tsai Ing-wen is clearly unwilling to answer this question. Instead, she implied that Chen's conviction was a miscarriage of justice. She implied that upon taking office she would consider retrying the Chen corruption case. She implied that she would grant Chen a pardon. Chen Shui-bian's corruption is well established. Tsai Ing-wen's attitude is disturbing. She is even sweeping Su Jia-Chyuan's luxury "farmhouse" scandal under the rug. Swing voters care about social justice. Tsai's behavior could cost her dearly. Do she and her staffers not know this?

Before the debate Tsai Ing-wen apologized for the two dollar persimmons controversy. But her attitude was unrepentant, people deeped her apology insincere. Sure enough during the debate Tsai Ing-wen made her attitude clear. She said that the DPP did not commit any real mistakes, and that she apologized not because the DPP did anything wrong, but only because she wanted to end the war of words. The fact remains that the fruit calendar was DPP propaganda. This was not something brought up by the KMT. Therefore the Green Camp was responsible for the war of words, not the Blue. Besides, the fruit price controversy was pure fabrication. It led to financial losses for many farmers. Tsai Ing-wen spun herself as the self-sacrificing mother in the Judgment of Solomon. The least she can do is acknowledge that although "I did not kill Bayen, Bayen died because of me." Since she has yet to engage in earnest soul-searching, how can her expression of regret be heartfelt and sincere?

On the eve of the debate, Tsai Ing-wen hurriedly raised cross-Strait issues. As a result, many anticipated a breakthrough in her thinking. But during the debate Tsai Ing-wen offered no fresh ideas. She merely played the same tune louder than before. The press conference she held the night before faded away like a dream.

Tsai Ing-wen's attitude during the debate gave people the impression she was reaching out only to her fans. She was not interested in reaching out to swing voters. Her performance during the debate was premeditated. She adopted an evasive attitude. Her evasiveness was intentional.

蔡英文選擇迴避與模糊的背後
2011-12-05 中國時報

三位總統候選人在第一次的大選辯論會上表現如何？各家媒體所做的民調已顯示出不同的結果。不過，外界對這次辯論會有個普遍的觀感：馬英九攻擊力道強勁，但整場辯論會顯得很平淡。為什麼儘管馬英九火力十足，但辯論會卻竟然是落了個「沒有太多火花」的結果？這就很耐人尋味了。

或許不同政治立場的選民和觀眾對三位總統候選人的表現各有定見，但是這畢竟是三位候選人登記參選後，第一次同台，除了各自申論，還有彼此詰問，人民自然期待候選人會針對幾件重要的爭議和疑慮，提出說明、甚至解釋；事實上，這也是總統候選人的責任。不過，讓人十分意外的是，蔡英文幾乎迴避所有引人關切的議題，包括兩岸政策、兩塊錢柿子是怎麼一回事，以及會不會特赦陳水扁等。

這幾件事情引發社會議論得沸沸揚揚，相信蔡英文和她的幕僚當然想像得到，對手肯定不會輕輕放過，在蔡英文為辯論會準備的「考前猜題」裡頭，應當不可能漏了這幾題，甚至在蔡英文與幕僚所進行的辯論模擬考中，也一定演練過對手質問這幾個問題的場景，但蔡英文還是選擇模糊以對；她明明知道這樣的回答對理性、在乎候選人理念的中間選民來講，是很難過關的，但蔡英文卻仍然決定如此。

候選人與政黨當然也都很清楚，台灣政治藍綠各有版塊，政治立場堅定的選民，對特定候選人的支持，大概不怎麼會受到辯論會的內容影響，這樣的選民對手中的一票要投給誰，早有定見，候選人在辯論會上到底講了些什麼，也不怎麼要緊。因此，三位總統候選人在辯論會上的表現，或者說表演，主要的目的是說服「想聽聽看候選人到底在講什麼」的中間選民。

據中時民調的調查，有投票意願的選民中，六四％有收看這次的辯論會，收視人數相當可觀。雙英民調僵持不下，票票珍貴，沒有理由放棄電視辯論會這個與中間選民對話、向中間選民喊話的機會，如宋楚瑜強調要照顧「三中」：中產階級、中小企業和中低收入戶，中間選民自然涵蓋其中；馬英九重視經濟議題，也坦誠面對執政三年多以來，做得不夠理想的地方，幾次表達要更努力才行。看得出來，馬英九也很了解，如果想用呼攏的方式面對確實做得不好的地方，是行不通的，因為「實事求是」的中間選民不會買帳，所以，在辯論會中無可避免的自我宣傳之外，馬英九也選擇在某些議題上表達「沒做好、很抱歉」的態度。

反觀蔡英文，比較令人納悶的是，她似乎並沒有那麼想「說服」中間選民。面對是否特赦陳水扁這個很多人關心、以致於擔心的議題，蔡英文不願清楚回應「不會特赦」，甚至她是用質疑司法不公、上任後會就扁案再做審議的答案，暗示特赦陳水扁的可能性。陳水扁的官司有多件已定讞，蔡英文的態度讓人不安，甚至於她對蘇嘉全豪華農舍的包庇，都可能讓她在重視社會公義的中間選民這一塊失分，難道她和幕僚會不了解嗎？

在辯論會前，蔡英文對延燒選情的「兩塊錢柿子」風波道歉，不過，由於她的態度很強勢，讓外界感覺她當時的道歉似乎有些「心不甘、情不願」，果然，在辯論會上，蔡英文明確表示：不認為民進黨有什麼嚴重的錯，只是為了遏止口水才道歉。水果月曆是民進黨的文宣，這個話題不是國民黨挑起的，所以論到口水大戰，綠營的「功力」如果沒有多於、那至少也不會少於藍營。更何況，這件無中生有的事情，的確造成了一些農民的損失，以「所羅門王面前的生母」自居的蔡英文，至少應該了解「我不殺伯仁，但伯仁因我而死」，難道沒有反省過，在道義上還是應該誠懇的表達歉意嗎？

在辯論會前夕蔡英文急拋兩岸議題，讓不少人對她出現突破性的思維有所期待。不過，辯論會中，蔡英文並無讓人耳目一新的想法，舊調重彈且彈得更為用力，彷彿前一晚的記者會是一場夢遊。

蔡英文在辯論會上的發言與態度，讓人感覺到她似乎只想要更緊密的擁抱粉絲，至於中間選民，那就算了吧。因此，或許可以說，她在辯論上的表現其實是經過了深思熟慮──迴避就是她的態度，模糊正是她要的結果。