After revealing her intention of running for the president two days ago (3/9), DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) delivered a speech, titled "I heard Taiwan's voices - Tsai Ing-wen for the DPP presidential primary" in a press conference today to make the formal announcement, becoming the 2nd to roll into the race - after former VP Annette Lu (呂秀蓮).
It probably took many by surprise, cos judging from the behaviors of all potential runners in the past, people might expect that Su Tseng-Chang (蘇貞昌) would have made his announcement before Tsai did. Su managed to put himself into the spotlight again and again with activities one after another - music concert, book publishing, photo exhibition, etc, since his a-bit-embarrassing loss in Taipei mayor election last year (Nov, 2010) -- an election in which he behaved in a not-very-glorious manner of total disregard on the power and responsibility structure of the DPP. Not following the nomination process, he made a public announcement of his intention to run for the Taipei mayor at a time of turmoil when the DPP was suffering the possibilities of splitting and losing in the two southern cities, Tainan and in Kaohsiung. His move forced Tsai and the nomination team of the DPP to face a choice of either accepting his term unconditionally, or suffering a storm of yet another splitting on the north if they opted to pick a candidate of their choice to run for Taipei (not Su) by following the nomination rule. That wasn't really a choice for the DPP, 'cos they couldn't possibly afford to having another splitting impact. As a result, Tsai and the nomination team were forced to bend the rule for Su. Su's move was considered a power-grabbing one, made at the cost of his own party and comrades having to give away their power of determining candidates. Since Su wasn't in any party staff or official, it became that he took the power that was not followed by responsibilities. It apparently angered many green supporters.
With that inglorious history, as well as some very questionable moves he made in the past, it's natural for people to expect him to behave the same way to make an early announcement.
But the DPP's president candidate is to be decided solely by public opinion polls in which Su doesn't seem to get an edge, albeit the continuous effort of the Liberty Times to promote him by (systematically) filtering out positive news about Tsai Ing-wen -- sometimes you have to go to the pro-blue media, or even China Review News, to see important news about Tsai. Last week, when reporting an article of aiming at criticizing Tsai and promoting Su, the Liberty Times deleted a sentence, "(Su) himself voluntarily told DPP legislators that his support in polls was advancing" (告知自己民調逐步攀升的訊息), which (accidentally) revealed the secret of whom might have been behind a recently circulated rumor that Su was leading in DPP's internal polls (the DPP denied any internal poll was ever conducted). It doesn't look good for Su. The LT reported everything else (criticizing Tsai and promoting Su), but this sentence was deleted. Other media - if they do report it - reported that sentence faithfully. The most recent filtering of Tsai's news was a speech, titled "Dynamic new world - the young generations and the future" (變動中的新世界-青年世代與未來), given by Tsai to university students. The speech is an important one to show Tsai's vision on future generations and is a prelude of her speech today. It can be found in many media but not the LT.
And these are just a few of many many examples. The LT has been criticized to operate like Su's personal advocating organ ever since the infighting between Hsieh and Su for the previous presidential primary way back in 2007. For its bravery of continuous flattering Su albeit years of complaints, the LT (自由時報) has earned itself a nickname "自由蘇報", where 蘇 stands for Su.
So it makes no surprise that the LT continues its tradition of blowing Su's popularity out of proportion, which would mislead its readers into believing that Su is in the lead. But all that efforts don't seem to make a significant achievement this time. The following are some quick pointers of support rates (in percentage) between Tsai and Su:
| Date | Tsai | Su | Host | Type* | Stance^ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/21 | 23% | 25% | TVBS | Calls | blue/red |
| 1/21 | 37% | 38% | TVBS | Calls/Comp | blue/red |
| 2/12 | 81% | 5% | Black Rain blog | Online | green~blue |
| 2/24 | 42% | 23% | Apple Daily | Calls | green~blue |
| 2/25 | 73% | 13% | Boss Talk | Call-in | Deep Green |
| 3/1 | 37% | 39% | TVBS | Calls/Comp | blue/red |
| 3/1 | 65% | 31% | Future Market | Market | green~blue |
| 3/8 | 69% | 30.6% | Future Market | Market | green~blue |
| 3/9 | 73% | 25.5% | Future Market | Market | green~blue # |
| 3/10 | 31% | 31% | udn.com | Calls/Comp | blue/red |
| 3/11 | 77% | 19.5% | Future Market | Market | green~blue @ |
One thing noteworthy is that the only host media reporting Su is barely winning over Tsai is TVBS, which aligns very well with the "promoting Su, denouncing Tsai" phenomena seen in the blue camp. All the other available data - except that of udn, which happens to be a pro-blue media - shows that not only is Su losing to Tsai, but also he is losing big. At best, Su can only get half of what Tsai has. The report (on 3/8) of Tsai intents to run boosted Tsai's support by 4% and lowerer Su's by 5.1% (a 9.1% gap), and the formal announcement today (3/11) put another 10% gap between them, making Su's support barely higher than 1/4 of Tsai's.
Not only so. Even before Tsai expressed her intent, there are groups of different stances formally expressed their endorsement on Tsai: domestic and oversea scholars and researchers, WUFI, students and The Formosan Statehood Movement. I haven't seen any group come out to endorse Su.
With the huge odds against him, Su's only chance is to "bypass the game rule" again, by pushing a coordination process in which a consensus might be reached in a closed door manner, with the endorsements from several DPP old guards who are supporting him and/or against Tsai.
He first made a move to have a so-called secret meeting - a secret meeting that was all over the news immediately - to initiate a talk with Tsai, such that "Su is the one who is seeking consolidation but not friction."
About a week later (3/6), a more formal meeting, consisting of all those important DPP big heads, was held. It was said that a consensus was reached -- on the sense of the necessity of consolidation, but not the sense of who should be the one.
Tsai's sudden announcement came two days after that meeting. Something probably happened - or should have but did not - during that meeting, pushing Tsai to think that it's the right time for her to come out. One explanation is that those old guards in the DPP attempted to enforce a "Tsai-Su" pair or even "Su-Tsai" pair, bypassing the polls entirely. The attempt might have been sensed by Tsai, and a quick decision to announce her campaign was needed to stop the manifestation of that attempt.
There's another explanation that Tsai has got everything set in the party, in such a way that if she leaves the chair position now, the party could move forward smoothly for the future duties.
Tsai will take a leave from the chairperson post. It was originally circulated that Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) could be assigned the acting chairperson to perform the party duty. Hsieh has done an excellent job organizing the campaign for the DPP in Taichung last year during the Five-City election, and has maintained good relationship with Tsai and her team. Surprisingly, DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) was picked as the acting chairperson instead. It was said that Tsai wants to avoid the impression of a Tsai-Hsieh alliance that could potentially intensify the conflict of sector fighting inside the DPP.
Tsai has already organized part of her campaign team, some were party staff, resigned from their posts to follow her. It fits well with her style -- everything thoroughly thought and well planned before making a move.
In the mean time, a Central Standing Committee meeting held on Wednesday (3/9/2011) decided to assign 5 people as members of Polling Committee (民意調查委員會) to operate the upcoming polls for nomination of candidates.
The committee will decide 5 organizations on 4/25 to carry out the polls for the president primary, with 3000 valid samples in each poll. The primary process is scheduled as follows:
3/17: announcement of primary process
3/21~3/25: registration
3/31~4/22: speeches for each runner
4/25~4/29: polls
5/4: announcement of presidential candidate
24 comments:
The more informative a post, the shorter its commenting thread will be, Echo. Checking the search words that get my own blog found, I doubt that the internet really helps to make the world much smarter.
"I doubt that the internet really helps to make the world much smarter."
I think the internet makes info -- both correct and incorrect -- flow faster. So the smarter get smarter, the dumber get dumber. :)
"The more informative a post, the shorter its commenting thread will be"
Yea, nowadays, too much info to consume, so people lose the patience to read a post that has too much info. So that sort of post scares people away.
I believe the best way for a post is like 80% info with 20% analysis. Or maybe 90:10. But, when people get older and have a life time of words to deliver, they tend to comment on 1% info with 99% analysis. That's when people pay less and less attention.
This response to your comment serves the example. :)
I think the internet makes info -- both correct and incorrect -- flow faster. So the smarter get smarter, the dumber get dumber. :)
Once I'll have done some thorough research, you'll find a related global Gini-coefficient on my blog.
And the commenting thread will still be short.
I guess the life time of words is referred to as experience by the elders who own it. Experience replaces analysis. Experience plus conclusions can be smart. Experience without conclusions... oh, well! (*sigh*)
"I believe the best way for a post is like 80% info with 20% analysis..."
I have one word for the both of you:
Principles.
I don't think that principles are not what makes a blog or paper catch attention, Mike. Principles make sense in politics, business, family, and all other kinds of fields - but a blog may actually surprise people with its stances on a daily basis, and fascinate them exactly that way.
"I don't think that principles are not what makes a blog or paper catch attention, Mike."
Then you're exactly wrong about that.
You're considering the question absent context and any clear notion of audience: who may be paying attention may carry far more import than merely how many.
A blogger whose absence of principles offends readers may get at least as many comments as a consistent one, Mike. Sure - who is reading has a stronger effect on the number of comments, than how many people are reading.
But how would principles translate into more, and the absence of principles into fewer comments? And to what kind of principles did you refer, on 23/3/11?
I would argue that articles with flip-flopping principles (that is, no principles) often invite more comments.
Did my comment get eaten?
Could be. One of mine got eaten, too, a day or two ago.
Crap! ... I checked and copied missing ones from my mailbox. This is not the first time blogger did that. Have u guys encountered similar event in others' blogs ?
---------------------------------
from justrecently
date Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:04 AM
subject [Echo Taiwan] New comment on Tsai Ing-wen for 2012.
justrecently has left a new comment on your post "Tsai Ing-wen for 2012":
A blogger whose absence of principles offends readers may get at least as many comments as a consistent one, Mike. Sure - who is reading has a stronger effect on the number of comments, than how many people are reading.
But how would principles translate into more, and the absence of principles into fewer comments? And to what kind of principles did you refer, on 23/3/11?
---------------------------------
from Taiwan Echo
date Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM
subject [Echo Taiwan] New comment on Tsai Ing-wen for 2012.
Taiwan Echo has left a new comment on your post "Tsai Ing-wen for 2012":
I would argue that articles with flip-flopping principles (that is, no principles) often invite more comments.
---------------------------------
from mike
date Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:38 AM
subject [Echo Taiwan] New comment on Tsai Ing-wen for 2012.
mike has left a new comment on your post "Tsai Ing-wen for 2012":
As I know from my own blog and from what others elsewhere have said, number of comments is not always, or even often, a reliable indicator of how many people may be paying attention - to say nothing of who is paying attention, or with what level of interest they may be attending.
What kind of principles? Collectivist or Individualist.
As for flip-flopping, I wouldn't know since I'm a thorough anti-politicist.
Echo: "justrecently" (awkward name) presumably had a different comment to the one you've reposted there...
And yes it happens sometimes, most recently at my place yesterday to commenter Steve. He complained of losing a large comment, but there was nothing in the spam filter. It's generally good practice to copy your finished comment (if it's a fair size), reload the page and paste it into the comments box again.
Anyway... on Tsai Ing-wen and the subject of flip-flopping, I am not at all clear what her energy policy would be and in particular whether she would cancel the Longmen plant or not.
People who find the name justrecently awkward may refer to me as JR.
"JR" it is then, JR! Since we're on the subject of principles, and since Echo's post is about Tsai Ing-wen, what do you and Echo think Tsai should do and what do you think she likely would do in relation to energy policy were she elected President?
I think that Tsai would - most likely, but not definitely - stop the construction of Taiwan's fourth nuclear plant. She could do so with more ease if, as is reportedly the case in Germany, Taiwan's energy reserve would go unharmed by doing without one or another nuclear plant. Obviously, she would have to bear in mind that energy consumption in Taiwan is 1.5 times as much per capita, as in Germany (my country), and that Taiwan's industry is in quite a need of energy. (If nuclear energy is really the cheapest solution should be a debate of its own.)
What should Tsai do? It depends in part on what I wrote above. For the long run, she should encourage R&D, plus application, of renewable energies.
In terms of campaigning, it wouldn't surprise me if she'd prefer an easy ride on the issues. I believe that this is more about what the press should do: asking Tsai, Wu, and president Ma the questions that need to be answered, and keep squeezing them.
As far as Ma is concerned, the topics should, obviously be relations with China, ECFA and its supposed benefits, and economic (or political?) integration.
"I think that Tsai would - most likely, but not definitely - stop the construction of Taiwan's fourth nuclear plant."
Agreed.
"She could do so with more ease if, as is reportedly the case in Germany, Taiwan's energy reserve would go unharmed by doing without one or another nuclear plant."
I'd need to check the numbers again, but I don't think this would be possible without compensating for the loss of a nuke with e.g. a bunch of natural gas power plants...
"Taiwan's industry is in quite a need of energy. (If nuclear energy is really the cheapest solution should be a debate of its own.)"
Agreed. I think that debate would be more interesting if we were to focus on the financial aspect and stipulate to the assumption of an end to State subsidies for all forms of industrial energy production. On those grounds, and bearing in mind externalities, I'm not entirely sure whether nuclear would hold its ground against renewables, though I suspect it still would.
"For the long run, she should encourage R&D, plus application, of renewable energies."
Disagree. I say she should consider extracting the State from the business of providing subsidies for all forms of energy production including coal, oil, gas and nuclear as well as the renewables. If the renewables are worth it (and I think in some cases they might be), they'll be able to look after themselves.
"In terms of campaigning, it wouldn't surprise me if she'd prefer an easy ride on the issues."
Agreed.
"I believe that this is more about what the press should do: asking Tsai, Wu, and president Ma the questions that need to be answered, and keep squeezing them."
Agreed.
"As far as Ma is concerned, the topics should, obviously be relations with China, ECFA and its supposed benefits, and economic (or political?) integration."
Partially agree. I think there are plenty of worthwhile domestic issues to be pressing Ma about also, e.g. military policy and policy on natural disaster relief management.
Lots of commodities, from energy to water, are underpriced in Taiwan. I agree that consumption subsidies for established commodities should be phased out.
But I disagree with you when it comes to the role of the state in promoting new industries. Taiwan today is different from the 1950s / 1960s, but it is also different from the U.S., where everything from the manufacturing industry to the railway systems seems to have depended on private enterprise, ever since the 18th century.
To push agriculture and industrialization, to protect domestic industries from foreign competition during the years of import substitution, and to phase out that protection mercilessly at a given deadline have made Taiwan what it is today.
I can understand people who are skeptical of government involvement in economic growth, but I do think that they can play a useful role in Taiwan.
"Lots of commodities, from energy to water, are underpriced in Taiwan. I agree that consumption subsidies for established commodities should be phased out."
Oh I'll go a step further (as you might have guessed) to encompass production subsidies also - and the reason for this is that price distortions (whether consequent to either kind of subsidy) are especially important to the extent they encourage malinvestments of capital. I think we may (i.e. I'm not sure) be about to see that with the solar industry in Taiwan, for example.
"I can understand people who are skeptical of government involvement in economic growth, but I do think that they can play a useful role in Taiwan."
Well perhaps... (the history of Hong-Kong gives undermines the infant-industry protection argument)... but useful to whom? Why should some people benefit at the expense of others? In any case, the larger point I would make is that I don't think there is sufficient reason to believe Taiwan's economy would collapse if the State began withdrawing its' "support" for certain industries. In fact, there may be good reasons to believe it would do better.
JR - I enjoy this kind of debate, but I might take me a little time to respond to each comment because I'm quite busy this week...
I won't be able to make serious comments 'cos obviously you two have more solid ideas as for what should be done.
But let me throw in what I know to see if it can stir something:
-- Tsai mentioned in a recent interview that the idea to stop the nuclear plant #4 is the goal, but it still depends on how things proceed and how people acknowledge the need of it ;
-- Tsai's plan of "2015 No nuke" has already been under heavy attacks from the blue camp, so it is already not an easy ride;
-- Taiwan has a law to go for "no nuke." The law says it's the responsibility of the government to make a schedule for gradually reducing dependence on the nuke energy and going toward that goal. It seems that the Ma government did not follow the law. So what Tsai propose is to steer back to the law.
Some more recent info on Tsai's approach can be found on Michael Turton's blog.
My main function now is to watch carefully if every comment went to my mailbox actually got posted ... :( :(
NOTE: mike's msg came 16 hrs ago, followed by several attempt of the same msg ... :(
-----------------------------
mike has left a new comment on your post "Tsai Ing-wen for 2012":
JR - saw that already: Turton is right that Tsai would likely be a "better" candidate than Su (i.e. more likely to win).
Echo... this is the nth time I've tried to post the following comment:
* * * *
- Hide quoted text -
"...to stop the nuclear plant #4 is the goal..."
Actually Echo, according to today's op-ed in the TT, Tsai would apparently allow the plant to be completed and then demand it stand there idle doing nothing.
"...Tsai's plan of "2015 No nuke"..."
I thought it was 2025?! Replacing nuclear power by 2015 (3 years!) would be impossible.
"...heavy attacks from the blue camp..."
From what I've seen of these "attacks", I wouldn't call them "heavy" - Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑) for instance, was quoted in the TT yesterday as complaining about the narrow financial costs of shutting down the Longmen plant (i.e. a couple of hundred billion). Given the scale of the possible economic and social consequences, the money is not at all the most important thing here.
"Taiwan has a law to go for "no nuke."
So? That law can be either changed or ignored - and in my view it should never have been passed in the first place because the State should get out of the business of subsidising the energy industry and let people decide for themselves what kinds of energy they want - whether nuclear, wind, solar, gas, coal, hydro... whatever.
My most recent letter to the Taipei Times on the subject of replacing nuclear energy with renewables was published in Friday's edition. The original is here.
The ROC government was in possession of huge property after the war - Japan's colonial government had apparently either bought up or simply confiscated much of it. This helped the KMT in its land reform programs of the 1950s/1960s.
As for your letter to the Taipei Times, land theft isn't the only option. If the state still owns a lot of land (and from news reports over the past years, my impression is that it still owns a lot), the state can play a role in promoting energy sources other than nuclear fuel, this time.
I think that rule-of-law practise is crucial here, rather than complete reliance on market mechanisms. Whenever the state acts - and even as a night-watchman state, it would still act in certain fields -, you will need the rule of law. Land theft is no automatic ramification of state involvement.
As I said before - I can understand your reservations about such a state role, but then, our views of state involvement are quite contrary anyway, and in Taiwan, neither the KMT nor the DPP would subscribe to the economic teetotalism you'd like to see, anyway. It's not a Taiwanese option unless there's another big political party.
The state isn't outside business when it comes to nuclear energy either. Nuclear fuel is hard or impossible to be insured commercially - when large-scale accidents happen, the state, rather than business, is "on risk".
Mike's reply to my previous comment can be found here.
Post a Comment