By Mo Yan-chih
STAFF REPORTER 
Tuesday, Mar 11, 2008, Page 3 

During the final presidential debate on Sunday the two candidates focused on personal attacks rather than explaining their policies, making it unlikely that either would have expanded their support base or attracted swing voters, analysts said. 

National Sun Yat-sen University political science professor Liao Da-chi (廖達琪) said Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) criticized Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) over his moral character and "cross-strait common market" policy but failed to explain his own manifesto, including his "happiness economy" and "reconciliation and coexistence" policies. 

Although Hsieh's fierce challenges created an opportunity for Ma to defend and promote his policies, Ma still failed to present a clear explanation of his policies, especially the complicated "cross-strait common market" concept, Laio said. 

Hsieh lambasted Ma's economic policies and proposed putting the "cross-strait common market" to a public vote in a referendum during the debate and in his closing remarks, urged voters who support the common market to vote for Ma and voters that oppose it to vote for him. 

Ma, while being mostly on the defensive, focused his attacks on the performance of the DPP administration over the past eight years, hoping to connect Hsieh with the failures, as he sees them, of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration. 

Shih Cheng-feng (施正鋒), dean at National Dong Hwa University's College of Indigenous Studies, lauded Hsieh for portraying Ma's "cross-strait common market" policy as a threat to the nation's economy and for linking the policy to the sovereignty issue by proposing it be put to a referendum. 

"Hsieh is smarter than President Chen. Rather than discussing the Taiwan sovereignty issue directly, he wrapped the issue in the common market concept. It's a brilliant strategy," Shih said. 

However, neither candidate presented any new policies and turned the debate into a dull defensive battle in order to consolidate their support bases, Shih said. 

Comparing the different formats of the debates, Shih described the questions asked during the first debate on Feb. 24 as "out of focus" and "shallow." Shih criticized the organizers for holding the second debate two weeks prior to the election, giving voters little chance to gain a deeper understanding of candidates' policies. 

During the first debate, the two candidates were asked 20 videotaped questions from voters who were also given the opportunity to attend and question both candidates directly. Each candidate was given one minute to answer each question. 

Sunday's debate returned to a more traditional format, inviting managers from five major media outlets to ask 10 questions, with the candidates given three minutes to answer each question. 

Political analyst Wang Kung-yi (王崑義), a professor at National Taiwan Ocean University, said the questions, ranging from constitutional reform, economic policy to national defense, were more familiar issues for the candidates than the issues addressed in the first debate, such as environmental protection. 

"It was good to see the candidates focus more on economic policy than on national identity and sovereignty," Wang said. 

More focus on the economy rather than on national identity would lead the nation toward "normalization," he said. 

Liao agreed that the questions on Sunday gave the candidates the opportunity to elaborate more on their policies, but added that the first debate had been an innovative attempt at "civil" politics. 

"The questions raised by the public, although diverse, concerned our daily lives and should not be overlooked," she said. 

Liao said she was concerned about the lack of female representation from the media and the lack of questions concerning women's and minority issues asked during the debate. 

Wang Tai-li (王泰俐), a journalism professor at National Chengchi University, suggested the government should learn from the US and set up a commission to organize presidential debates. 

In addition to encouraging representatives from minority groups to participate, Wang also called on the organizers to redesign the debate format and allow the candidates to ask follow-up questions. 

The presidential debates were co-organized by the Central News Agency, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister newspaper), the China Times, the United Daily News, the Apple Daily and Public Television Service (PTS).