United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 28, 2015
Executive Summary: The first televised 2016 presidential election debate was held yesterday. It would be hard for voters who spent two and a half hours sitting in front of their computers or television sets, not to be disappointed with the three candidates' performances. The event was referred to as a "political debate". But where was the beef? The three candidates spent most of their time pointing fingers at each other and shirking responsibility. By debate's end, many people were more confused than ever, unclear where political differences between the three, if any, lie.
Full Text Below:
The first televised 2016 presidential election debate was held yesterday. It would be hard for voters who spent two and a half hours sitting in front of their computers or television sets, not to be disappointed with the three candidates' performances. The event was referred to as a "political debate". But where was the beef? The three candidates spent most of their time pointing fingers at each other and shirking responsibility. By debate's end, many people were more confused than ever, unclear where political differences between the three, if any, lie.
During the policy presentation stage, James Soong and Eric Chu each made explicit policy commitments. Soong proposed to "Surpass Korea by 2030". He promised to surpass South Korea's annual growth rate by 1.5%, to cut government debt to 1% under the growth rate, and to increase Internet speed on Taiwan to the world's top ten within a decade. Chu proposed a "three policy strategy". He promised that four years after taking office, he would increase base salaries to 30,000 dollars or more, impose a wealth tax on the wealthiest One Percent, and provide interest free student loans within five years. These policies provide specific numbers that can be tested.
Tsai, meanwhile, probably assumed victory was at hand. She may have recalled President Ma's "Six Three Three Policy” rubber check. She offered virtually no explanation of her vision, let alone specific policy objectives. Instead she devoted all her energy to attacking Chu and Ma. Was she overly defensive, or insufficiently tolerant? That is hard to say. She took only one clear position yesterday. She would allow the importation of US pork containing clenbuterol, providing they met the same standards as Japan and South Korea.
The first thing Tsai did during her opening remarks, was attack the KMT. She said "No matter how poorly a ruling party has performed, as long it is pleased with itself, it can tell pretty lies, make empty promises, and ignore peoples' pain". Her own words were pretty enough. In fact, they applies just as well to every president beginning with Lee Teng-hui, including Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou. In fact, they were a warning that applied to herself. If she becomes president next year, will another challenger accuse her of precisely the same sins four years later?
Based on yesterday's performance, the political differences between Chu, Tsai, and Soong are imperceptible. There are three reasons for this. One. The largest political parties on Taiwan differ mainly over blue vs green, and reunification vs. independence orientation. Their differences are not over left vs. right, or poor vs. rich. As a result their basic policies overlap considerably. It is easy for one candidate to claim his opponent's position as his own. Two. The blue and green camps differ primarily over cross-Strait policy. Reporters yesterday were particularly concerned about the 1992 Consensus. As usual, Tsai fell back on "strategic ambiguity". Most voters could not even begin to decipher her meaning. Three. All three candidates unanimously emphasize unity, communication, transcending partisanship. Their rhetoric is pretty. But voters have been listening to their braggadocio for the past 20 years. Have they not tired of it yet? Judging by the expressions on the faces of the three candidates yesterday, they don't think so. They hold out little hope that their ideals will ever materialize.
Eric Chu, Tsai Ing-wen, and James Soong are battle-hardened veterans. The three were provided an opportunity to clarify their political philosophies by means of political debate. They were given a chance to present elevated political visions and broad-minded national policies. Instead, they wallowed in Taiwan's political morass, which necessitates grandstanding and belittling one's opponents. For example, Tsai Ing-wen accused the KMT of not knowing how to engage in self-reflection. She then boasted of her own achievements under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. She engaged in not one iota of self-reflection. She displayed not one iota of humility. Eric Chu began by saying that a leader must advise people what to do, rather than merely parrot what they say. But when someone mentioned the high-handed manner in which he replaced Hung Hsiu-chu, he argued that his candidacy was "a response to public opinion". James Soong said leaders must "build trust by practicing what they preach”. But how many times has Soong said, "If I lose this election, I will quit politics"? How many times has Soong said, "This is my final battle”? Given all Soong's inconsistencies, where is this alleged "trust"?
How candidates perform during an election debate, demonstrates the maturity of a nation's political culture. Yesterday's presidential debate was lackluster, and demonstrated the inadequacies in Taiwan's democracy. We can only hope that the next debate will be better.
The debate left much to be desired. Yesterday's broadcast showed Tsai Ing-wen subtly changing her stand as she gets closer to the presidential palace. For example, the DPP has obstructed passage of the “Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations” for two years. But yesterday Tsai Ing-wen announced that the DPP will pass this most important bill during the next legislative session. Another example is US pork imports. The DPP formerly vowed undying opposition to US pork imports containing clenbuterol, on the grounds of national interest, Taiwan's pig farmers, and public health. Now however, Tsai Ing-wen is tacitly backing down. She now says she will adopt “the same standards as Japan and South Korea". Such changes are at best a case of "new position, new tune”. At worst, they are a case of "I am allowed to commit arson, but you are forbidden to light a lamp”.
Will solemn promises become pretty lies? Time will tell. But wise voters must act now, and not wait on Father Time.
今天的美麗承諾，會不會變成明天的謊言
2015-12-28聯合報
首場總統大選電視辯論會昨天舉行，
在申論階段，宋楚瑜和朱立倫分別作出了一些具體的政治承諾。
反觀蔡英文，不知是否她自覺勝券在握，或者鑑於馬總統「六三三」
值得注意的是，蔡英文的申論發言一開口就痛批國民黨：「
觀察朱蔡宋昨天的表現，三人的政見差異並不明顯，原因有三：
朱立倫、蔡英文和宋楚瑜都是久經政壇的沙場老將，
大選辯論的表現，反映的是一個國家政治文化的厚度；從這點看，
而即使是這麼一場強度不足的辯論演出，透過昨天的轉播，
嚴肅的承諾，會不會變成美麗的謊言，時間是最好的檢驗；
No comments:
Post a Comment