 I'm actually representing Bonnie Glazer here, she's stuck on a metro between West Falls Church and Farragut West. She will arrive when she arrives but she asked me to not delay the proceedings on her account. This gives me an opportunity to thank her profusely for all she did and her staff did to make this event possible. We are really pleased to partner with her on this occasion and I think that we're going to have a really great event. I'm pleased that so many of you could come on such a nasty day. I'm particularly glad to see my former colleague Barbara Schragi, managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan. The program you have before you, three panels, a lunch and talk by yours truly, and we're particularly pleased to have so many outstanding scholars from Taiwan to help us understand Saturday's election and what it means for a variety of different issues. We're also pleased to have one of the People's Republic of China's most outstanding scholars of international relations, Chu Shulong, my former colleague. Since we have so much talent on tap, I think we should get going and I'd like to turn the proceedings over to Ed McCord. I don't know if his two remaining panelists have arrived but they're staying in the neighborhood so they should show up pretty soon. Ed? Well, I hope some of you are awake. I know a lot of us were in Taiwan and we're all a little jet lagged so I expect to see yawns today but that's okay, you know, we'll understand why you're yawning. Our panel this morning is titled Analysis of the Presidential and Legislative Elections so it's a very broad title and I think as we expected in this election as well, you saw the same kind of major themes that always happen in Taiwan elections. This time there was some attempt at emphasis on domestic issues, economic issues, and government efficiency issues, mainly by the DPP and by James Song. Then there's the perennial identity issues, much less than forced it seemed to me this time than in previous elections, and then finally, of course, cross-strait relations which always can overwhelm everything else. So those are the three kind of themes I thought really did provide kind of stability in terms of election to election. We also saw procedural things like charges of corruption or charges and counter charges of corruption or government mismanagement or dirty tricks, things like this, and then of course there's also the element of external forces influenced in the United States, influences of the PRC. So those are what I feel are kind of the broad issues in the elections but what I was hoping, of course, is to hear from our very expert panelists today to kind of straighten out what was really most important among that possible spread of issues. And so we're going to, since our other two people aren't here, we're going to reverse our order of people, and we're going to start out with David Fell, who's the senior lecturer in Taiwan Studies from the Department of Political and International Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He's also the Deputy Director of SOAS Center for Taiwan Studies. He's the coordinator of the European Association of Taiwan Studies. He's written a number of books on Taiwan. Most recently it was Government and Politics in Taiwan, which came out in 2011. So without further ado, I'll turn the podium over to David Fell. Right, thanks very much. It's great to be back in Washington. I was just here about a month ago looking ahead and making some predictions on the election. So it's nice to kind of come back and see what I got wrong or what I got right. Because I don't have the best record in the world for actually predicting Taiwanese elections. I've been very fortunate to have been in Taiwan for most of the major elections over the last 20 plus years, going back to the late 1980s. And each election has its unique features. From my perspective, perhaps the most unique feature of this election campaign has been the merging of the presidential and parliamentary elections. The first time this has ever happened. And one of the most interesting things for us political scientists in this election has been the interrelationship between the two campaigns. Now merging these two elections together has had its positive and negative sides. One of the stated motivation for merging these two elections, of course, was saving campaign spending. And I think to a certain extent that has actually been true. And also another positive aspect has been improved parliamentary voter turnout, which in recent years has been a decline in parliamentary voter turnout. But there have been some negative implications for merging these two elections. To a large extent, the parliamentary election has been overshadowed by the presidential campaign. At least until the final month of the campaign. Taiwan's legislative union is an extremely powerful body, but it's also an extremely unpopular institution. If you look at public opinion surveys, you find that voters have extremely low trust in legislators and political parties. And that has meant that in this election the parliament hasn't received the democratic scrutiny that it deserves. Of course, saving money was just the stated reason for merging these two elections. In reality, both parties were motivated by partisan advantage. The KMT's hope was that incumbent KMT legislators would help the campaign of a relatively unpopular presidential candidate. In contrast, the DPP's hope was that a strong DPP presidential campaign would help a large number of new parliamentary candidates. Now if you look in detail, I think we find that both were right. But it varies geographically in terms of the interrelationship. Overall it would appear to me that the DPP benefited more than the KMT by this merging. And I think the KMT would have actually done better. If the two had been split. Now, one of the things that I've been particularly focusing on in looking at in this campaign has been the parliamentary election. And hopefully that means that I won't be overlapping too much with the other two speakers. One of the things that I've been arguing repeatedly, both in my writings and talks over the last couple of years, has been the importance of Taiwan's parliament. In many ways I would argue that the parliamentary election was actually more important than the presidential one. But of course, in terms of media coverage, that hasn't been the case. If we think about the Chen Shui-bian era, one of the key lessons, as I've mentioned in my last talk in Washington, was that essentially without parliamentary control, presidents are extremely constrained in Taiwan. That meant that even if Taiwan had won this election, I think she would have been forced to moderate her position without control of the parliamentary majority. So to a certain extent, the KMT's terror message, the idea that Taiwan's election would have meant a ruining of cross-rate relations, economic relations, was a bit of an exaggeration because Taiwan would have been extremely constrained. Overall, if we look at the parliamentary results, we can see that the system still favours the KMT. But I think there have been some positive trends in this election, particularly the increase in political diversity, the fact that third parties have actually received seats. And I'll come back to that a little bit later. Overall, this parliamentary election was a disappointment to the DPP. Essentially, the DPP managed to win back seats that it should have won back in 2008. There were a few surprises in the results, places like Ponghu, which were won by the DPP for the first time. But the DPP also had some major setbacks. And of course, the DPP also lost some seats that it won in by-elections. Although the DPP only won 40 seats on this occasion, it could have won quite a lot more. And indeed, some predictions were talking about the DPP winning 50%, or even a parliamentary majority. One political scientist in Taiwan was predicting a possible DPP majority. And here it just would have required quite a small vote swing for the DPP to have done far better, because it lost narrowly in about six seats. So it just needed a small swing here. If we think back to this first mind-show term, the KMT lost quite a large number of seats as a result of vote-buying cases. This means that if we see a similar kind of trend, then the KMT's narrow majority could actually be eroded and become a less workable majority. So I think to a large extent, my mind-show is going to be constrained in the parliament, despite his seemingly working majority. Now, why didn't the DPP do as well as people like myself and others had been predicting? I think the DPP did make some strategic mistakes in this campaign. Some of these, I think, are focused on this campaign, but some of them are quite long-term mistakes. I think one of them, in particular, that I've been quite critical of the DPP over the last decade or so, has been that it's tended to put too much focus on presidential campaigning and not enough on the parliament. And I think we can see this in this election. In this election, I think it's also made some errors in terms of its nomination. In other words, it had too many inexperienced candidates in parliamentary district races. And I think this, and it also had many very strong candidates in its party list that could have won, or at least been more effective at the district level. I think the best example of this is the DPP's nomination in Taipei City, where most of the DPP's candidates were quite young and less experienced, up against very strong KMT candidates. Now, one of the things that I think we found as election observers this time is the question of how are the parties going to cope with defeat? Now, one conclusion that we came to was that defeat would have been far more damaging for the KMT. The KMT has been over-reliant on Mainjo for the last decade or so. And I think the KMT would really have struggled with losing the presidential election. It would have gone through a very serious power struggle. For the DPP, which is the losing party on this occasion, we have the question of whether Taingwan can actually survive as party leader and potentially presidential candidate in 2016. When we asked the question about who would be a potential successor to Taingwan if she doesn't continue to stand, it was quite disappointing to hear a number of old names, people like Su Densang. Nevertheless, if we look at the way Taingwan's political parties have coped with defeat or learned lessons of defeat, I think I would argue that the DPP has been much more successful at dealing with defeat and recovering from defeat. We see this in the way it recovered from setbacks in the 1990s and the way that it's within only a couple of years it recovered from the quite disastrous elections of 2008. In contrast, the KMT tends to be much slower at responding to defeat. And we saw that in the way it responded to defeat in 2000 and also in 2004. It took the KMT almost five years to really become electable again after the 2000 defeat. Now, parties don't always learn the right lessons of defeat. And in many ways, observing this election reminds me a lot of the British general election of 1992, when many observers expected Labour to come back to power. But at the last moment, voters opted for the safe option. After Labour lost in 1992, it went through very, very comprehensive reforms and made it electable. And this is the kind of lesson that the DPP needs to go through on this occasion. It needs to look at how it can expand its base, how it can win floating voters, swing voters. And it's going to need to look for a really convincing new vision. And I think it needs to look again at its cross-strait policy. Now, overall, I think there's been some positive trends in this election. One of them I'm particularly pleased with is seeing an increasing political diversity, particularly in the parliament. The fact that we see seats won by the Taiwan Solidarity Union and also the people's first party, I think, is a very positive sign. Even the Green Party was able to reach a record vote share and actually become the fifth largest party in terms of vote share in Taiwan, exceeding the former important party, the new party. I think it was also good to see the parliament become much more balanced. The election in 2008 saw the KMT getting almost three quarters of the seats, which made Taiwan look almost semi-authoritarian in some respects. So I think this new balance I think is a very positive sign. Of course, disproportionality is still a problem in the Taiwanese political system with this kind of single member district electoral system. But again, I think it was positive to see that following the election, again, there was some discussion of electoral reform of the parliamentary system. Whether or not it can really happen is another big question. So overall, despite some worrying signs, for example, in terms of external pressure on Taiwanese voters, I think there's a lot of positive signs. And I think the increased diversity and increased balance, I think, make Taiwan's democracy look much more optimistic than in the last four years. So we have our full panel now, so we'll go back to our original order. Our second presenter is Antonio Zhang, a journalist and a publisher. He was very active in the Dong Wai Democracy Movement in the early years. He was the co-founder of the new journalist magazine, editor-in-chief of Taiwan Daily News, founder of the Taipei Times. He also received a master's in political science from National Minister Daxue and served as a deputy secretary general of the National Security Council from 2000 to 2004. Remains today a political commentator, a columnist, and a senior fellow for the Institute for National Policy Research in Taiwan. So with those credentials, I'm looking forward very much to hearing from him. Good morning. Thank you. I'm very sorry to keep waiting. I mean, come to lay here. First of all, I have to thank CSIS and Brookings for the invitations. But I think the topic today is a lot easier for us. Because I will hope if DPP wins, we're more exciting. And if we have first female president, we have a lot to talk. But now seems back to the business as usual. So everybody could be very wise to explain what's happening in Taiwan. A lot of people are disheartened. A lot of people are overjoyed by the result. For people like me, I am not so surprised. Because I saw so many elections in the past, more than 30 years, constant elections. So I'm confident that the voter will have placed that kind of invisible hand, try to balance, compensate. They always compensate the defeat with some reward. And they teach some decent for the winner. For the past, we have already done more than four times of presidential election. So this is the fifth time. I think most of the people will agree. This is the first, the best election, presidential election we ever have. In terms of the electoral culture, election culture, the improvement of the platform, I mean, the vote buy-in. Nobody really talk about vote buy-in. And nobody talk about unification or independence. And the ethical, mainland Taiwanese issue is gone. And also, nobody talk about the history of Taiwanese history. So it seems that the whole page is turned over. Maybe because we have the best candidate from both parties, Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen, their personality, their style, their background is very different from traditional politicians. So I have to give them a credit for improving the, I mean, no much negative campaign when you compare US election. Best of all, we have no magic bullet this time. So everything seems to run very smoothly and professionally. The ready machine, the advertisement is very professional. I think we have enough know-how to export to people maybe in the Middle East. I remember the eve before the voting. We met with a lot of Chinese reporter and writer from China and Hong Kong. This time they have more than, maybe I'm wrong, but I know they have more than 2,000 people from mainland China observing this election. And I'm lucky to have a lot to meet with the very famous writers, poet and reporter from China. And they are so excited, the first weakness, the weakness, this democracy in action. They went to the headquarter of KMT to see how Ma Ying-jeou make a speech. And then they all went to Banqiao to see how, what happened in Tsai Ing-wen's last night, last evening, I mean, the biggest ready. And they are so excited and everybody come to the conclusion that it's no way for Ma Ying-jeou to win because it's no comparison. I mean, emotional enthusiasm, emotional reaction from a big ready. Tsai Ing-wen's big ready is emotionally, very big crowd and enthusiasm. That's very lacking in Ma Ying-jeou. And they come to, we have a very, very happy snake, nice snake, until three o'clock in the morning. Everybody gets drunk and they say, oh, Tsai Ing-wen win. I say, no, no, come on, come on. I said, you cannot judge from the number of the scene of the ready. Because KMT used to be more emotional, more and more, the border in DPP is more enthusiastic. KMT is very different. So we cannot judge by the result from the ready. So I just cool them down, but everybody gets drunk. And then they are so excited, they are so happy, and then they became so sad. They said, oh, come on, we can never have that kind of election in China. So, and this time it's not the question, the election. For me, I don't surprise that Ma Ying-jeou win. Because from the beginning, I believe Ma Ying-jeou win by a small margin. I believe that the political atmosphere is not ready for DPP to get power, to get the power back. I think Tsai Ing-wen still have the last mile to cross. That last mile can be a very long mile. So the issue here is now why DPP lost. The issue is why Ma Ying-jeou campaign so hard, so difficult. He enjoys such a perfect, more than any political leader enjoy, three-quarter of majority, and perfect ruling. I mean,完全執政, and he had the whole support of the business community. And those men from Washington DC, and the whole support, more than support, more than moral support from Beijing. He had all the good condition, as Yui Chani said, 10-10 people, and yet he campaigned so difficult, the campaign is so difficult. In the time, in the last stage, he almost lost the election. The anxiety and tension in the blue team, so obvious, so overwhelming. That's why in the last stage, they played that kind of crisis car. Everybody feel a crisis. If Ma Ying-jeou lose, it's a devastating for KMT. And some people think also straight relations. So this time, people wonder why, how Ma Ying-jeou is a decent man, how he lost that kind of mandate for the past more than three years. And the DBB didn't do much to improve. Tsai Yuen didn't say much. She had not enough charisma. He didn't do much to prove her leadership yet. Yet she almost make, I mean, she almost defeat Ma Ying-jeou. According to the poll all the time, I mean, especially the last months, the KMT almost lose the election. From every poll, there is a small, very small margin. So people wonder why is, a lot of people are thinking that DBB are going to win. But then, most, many people think why the piggy bank can defeat 92 consensus. And they almost defeated 92 consensus, only through a piggy bank. And, but I think we have to critic Jin Xiaodao, switch, break, Jin. He, I think he have come up with a very skillful strategy. And the main reason for Ma to win, the comfortable majority, is because this is the issue, a state, the state of, is about stability and change. And people vote for stability instead of change. Because, China is now, it's untested. And because, if China win, there's so much unpredictable. I mean, people already, they have no trust. And also, because during campaign, DBB try to avoid the substantial, I mean, the issue. The party platform from DBB is rather vague, evasive. And some slogan is rather slogan, and the slogan is empty, empty. So I, even the DBB, a lot of people from DBB think Taiwan will have a soft landing. She will cope with the crisis after she get elected, with a very skillful, I mean, way to calm down the tension. But in the end, people vote for stability. This election, as our friend Mr. Fair mentioned, I think I'm so great that I speak after him. He give a lot of comprehensive analysis, given all the facts. The LOI is very important. And this result of the LOI is more healthy, new balance. The KMT, even KMT win the election, but actually, KMT lose many votes, many seats. And DB increase to a more healthy opposition, I mean, strength. KMT is from 81 seats to become 64. And DBB from 27 now increase to 40s. So in fact, the DBB has increased on the rise. And KMT is declining. That's more healthy because they come back to the basic structure of society. And also the presidential election. The KMT, the Maingyo farmers last time 56% to now 51%. They downgrade, I mean, they lose 5%. And DBB is increasing 3%. So DBB is on the rise. The general trend is DB on the rise. And KMT is going down. But this is not surprised because I think that will be more healthy, more balanced. And as Mr. Faye mentioned, that the third party has more space. That's very, very encouraging. I say with that view, the TSU and people's first party also all have their caucus in the LOI. And but I think overall, our Taiwanese social structure is rather, it reflects the social structure is rather stable. The north and south and the central is, you know, the KMT is dominating the north part of Taiwan and DBB on south. And in the central is for everybody. So this structure is, it seems very difficult to move around. And the percentage of DBB and KMT in terms of percentage, I think it's about 45 to 55 and 40 to 50. The same, you know, the DBB and KMT's strength is very competitive. That means Taiwan is a middle-class society. It's now easy to make a drastic change. They always come back to the balance. Talking about this, the most sensitive issue is about 22 consensus. 22 consensus is kind of, I don't know, is it mantra or 92 consensus? 92 consensus, okay. Some people said this election results is a reflection, is a fermentation of the mandate of, is a kind of referendum of 92%, 92 consensus. But I think if there's a mandate, it's a reduced mandate. I think that maybe is overreach. People vote for stability, not necessarily vote for 92 consensus. Consensus is a secret code. It's a kind of prayer before breakfast. Somebody said, you have to pray before you eat. But DBB said, no, I just want to eat. I don't want to pray. And it's already 20 years, 92 until now, it's 20 years. The first phone, 20 years ago, it's not the first voter. They don't know what that means, 92 consensus. And according to the opinion poll, more than 70% of people don't understand what that means. 92 what, nobody know. But don't care, it doesn't matter, 92 is 92, okay. Just a prayer, we don't need to go into the contents. This election also shows this generational cessation. People, the old men like Lee Deng Hui and Lee Yuen Zhe. And I think this is their last chance to speak, to support DBB in public. A lot of people in DBB is very moved by Lee Deng Hui and also by Lee Yuen Zhe. They sincerely believe that Taiwan were in a turning point. But I think most of the general young people don't care about, they don't think this way. They don't think Taiwan is in a crossroad. So in the DBB and Lee Deng Hui and Lee Deng Hui show up in the reddit, have kind of, can be a backfire, you know, it makes the KMT very nervous. It didn't get much for, from the, no help for medium, for middle voters. And especially Chen Sui Bien. I think that this, the fact that he plays some politics in the hero. And that his son in the election make a lot of people very nervous. And then the depth from DBB is, I mean they do turn the bat, you know. From then on, from now on, DBB is, don't care about Chen Sui Bien. I think most of people are fed up with that kind of up and shadow. So I think the DBB is, get out of the shadow of Chen Sui Bien this time. And here I have to say something about Cai Yingwen. Because most of, maybe many people don't understand, don't know her enough. Including me, but I have some traditional, I mean I have some, I work with her for some, sometimes. And I have personal observations. I think Cai is very, very traditional politician. Is very different from traditional DBB. Her background, her education, her lifestyle. She is very different from, she is very new for DBB. And DBB is very curious about her too. But she has that kind of charm that a lot of people cannot resist. As a woman, lady candidate politician, she looks so innocent. Maybe disguised, I don't know. No ambition. And she pray very, very quiet, charming. Dootie sum, everybody. So all these affectionate was disarmed by her. She became a reluctant politician. Then it seems a strong sense of mission. And she is very soft-spoken and logic and rational in private. And when people talk to him, talk to her, I mean. She has special appearance to intellectual, to middle class, to young people, to women, and to high-tech people. And she very appeared into the professional. I think if she got elected, she was, maybe it's too late to say that. She will recruit a lot of professional technocrats in her government. Because maybe many people here, including Alexander Huang, have worked with her. And you know her personality. And she has a lot of friends in the middle class, I mean in the professional field. And I have confidence if she had the chance to run the government. She will run very careful. She very cool. She is more conservative than most of people think. But very persistent. As a negotiator, she will be very careful. She always talk about security net. She's not a leader that always lead in. She's more defensive, preserve the status quo. I think people should give her more confidence. But the fact that she's new in the party, she's by accident become the sure woman of the party. That she's reluctant to come up with her idea. Afraid of making somebody unhappy during campaign. That's why she try to be evasive. And as a professional lawyer, she's going to put all her stake in public. But DBP, everybody knows that time has changed so much. And so I think if DBP have a second chance, they will come up very differently in our straight relations. And they will come from, next time they will come from the 92 consensus. And this time the KMT also have some, they try to reform the party. Now this is by the party structure. But they try to come up with some new faces. I think we should give a credit to Ma Yingqiu and also Jin Xiaodao for that. Come a new face. They try to avoid no money politics this time. I mean the party didn't provide big money for the candidates. I know that because Ma Yingqiu run on the KMT platform. So in the end I think the election is always a humbling process for the politicians. But this time and every time the election is consolidating our democracy in Taiwan. And democracy is working and in action is marching this time. So I conclude my speech. Thank you. So I'm going to speak from down here so Professor Zhu can work in his PowerPoint presentation. So our final panelist today is Professor Zhu Yunhan. He's a distinguished research fellow at the Institute of Political Science, Academia Seneca, and Professor of Political Science at National Taiwan University. He's also the president of the Zhang Jinglu Foundation. Received his PhD in Political Science from the University of Minnesota. He specializes in Chinese and East Asian politics, political economy and democratization. He's the author, co-author, editor of at least 13 books. His most recent book in 2008 was How East Asians View Democracy. And I'm done, but I'm not sure if we'll be able to talk more about it as you get more set up. That's my trick, you know, to try to get more of that advertisement before I speak. Nevertheless, you know, good morning. It's truly a pleasure to be here. Thank you, Bonnie and Richard, you know, for inviting me to this very important event, the very first event within the bell way, analyzing this very important election. As a third speaker on the panel, actually I would only, you know, add a few footnotes following two great speeches. And I think I will actually just, you know, pick up from where Antonio left off. I think before I really get into the dynamic of the election itself, I will rather, you know, offer my assessment about the quality of democracy as had been, you know, revealed through this campaign process. And we see many signs of maturing democracy in this particular race. We know that this election is the fifth popular election for the highest executive office on this island, since the popular election for president was introduced in 1996. And for the parliamentary election, this is the seventh for the national representative body, since 1992. So in a way, competitive electoral election and power rotation have become normalized. And in a way, you might argue that the partisanship also had become steadily more crystallized. At the same time, I hasten to point out that, you know, the road to democratic consolidation has not been a very smooth one. You know, we have traveled down some bumpy road over the last decade. Based on survey data, you know, we can witness that the citizen confidence in the democratic system has suffered quite a setback due to the protracted political gridlock. And the escalation of conflict over national identity between 2000 and 2008, but has been gradually restored in the recent past. Let me, you know, get your attention to the turnout rate itself. I think it actually is not just a number. I think there's a very important story behind this number. If you look at the trend, you know, for the, you know, for recent presidential election, each time the turnout rate dropped about two to three, sometimes four-point percentage. So if you compare with year 2000, you know, it's a point, you know, drop, you know. And if you compare with the last election in 2008, it's almost two-point drop. I think, you know, this actually as a way, you know, Taiwan, democracy become more normalized, okay, more become, you know, a routine. But nevertheless, this, you know, almost 75% of turnout rate suggests that the passion of the island's electorate remain quite high, but no longer at a traumatic level. And before election, there had been a lot of prediction that this time the salary will actually, you know, be higher than the previous one. That's the prevailing view among the pundit. The pundit turned out to be wrong, okay. And, you know, they have two good reasons. One, that the perceived tightness, you know, there's going to be a very close, you know, race. So, you know, that usually will mobilize more people to come out. And also, you have the synchronization of the parliamentary election and the presidential race, right? So that might reinforce each other, but it didn't happen this way. But at the same time, I still have to say that this turnout rate cannot be sustained over the long term. You know, you require still a lot of passion in Sweden, you know, to have this kind of turnout. The reason why is that, you know, in Taiwan we don't have the absentee ballot. Okay, so there are a lot of people for physical reason, institutional reason, they were not able to vote, no matter what. Okay, we at any point in time, we have about 6% of population, believe it or not, they were hospitalized. Okay, waiting for surgery, you know, for, you know, recovery, whatever. Okay, usually they don't come out of the vote. We have active duty, you know, military officers who are stationed, you know, in places far away from their home. And also, we have a large number of people who, you know, live and working overseas, who not all of them can come back. You know, although this time, obviously, many, many, you know, Taiwanese expatriate return from China and also some of them from the West Coast of the United States. But most of them, you know, wouldn't have the time and energy and money. So if you take those, you know, people out of the picture, this 74.4 turnout rate, you know, can be translated into a defective turnout rate more than 85. Okay, much higher than any other mature democracy that we know, and higher than South Korea, by far, by far. But nevertheless, you know, it's just a slow trend, you know, meaning that signs of over-mobilization have gradually dissipated. And the scale of mass rally, you know, although I would say still, you know, very emotional, very impressive. But if you compare with what has happened in the past, you know, each time those rallies have drawn a steadily smaller crowd. Okay, so I think that's a healthy sign. And although, you know, this is a kind of passion. Okay, before the wedding, the bride, you know, managed to cast her ballot, you know, something even more important, you know, right? Then, you know, her wedding ceremony. Anyway, and I think another unusual, so that's what, you know, Antonio said, you know, the page of history has turned, in the sense that this is the first national election in recent memory where the Taiwan-dependent issue was not on the agenda. Okay, maybe it's still, you know, in the background, but not, you know, up front. The DPP held back its frontal challenge to the legitimacy of the state structure or the ROC constitution. Okay, no more tactical move to tie a provocative referendum to a presidential race. Remember what happened before that, okay? And so, and the national identity issue is overtaken by the debate over the 1992 consensus. So, I will argue that the politics of polarization had taken a milder and less divisive character. Aspiration for Taiwan-dependent has been replaced among the green constituency, the fear of being infiltrated and assimilated by China. Okay, that really, you know, is the key psychological, you know, factor, you know, drove them to the polling station. But nevertheless, I don't think for the green camp voter, for them it's no longer the case that, you know, it's the end of the world if Mao get re-elected. You know, they worry, but they are not desperate. But I think Mao's three no, no independence, no re-education and no war. The open pledge, you know, helped in part neutralize the anxiety and hold off this potentially explosive issue. I also, I think, you know, we should congratulate ourselves, you know, as a young democracy. This is an election, you know, with civility in many important way. Mind you, as a man land background, non-native status was never an issue, nor was Taiwan women's female or marital status. No major dispute, I wouldn't say non-dispute, but no major dispute over the fairness and freedom of the election. And Tony also mentioned that there are no more bizarre incidents, okay. Dubious shock in vain on the eve of election day. Both can, although both can still practice, you know, negative campaign, just like in any other democracy nowadays. But it was conducted by and large within limit of reason and popular tolerance. And in the end, the DPP, especially Lady Tai, gracefully and calmly accepted the result. I also think this election is election, you know, that carry another important feature. You know, we do have some meaningful and substantive debate over some important issue, over the future direction of Taiwan. So I think the election over meaningful choice for the citizen. I would condense, you know, on to three issue, which define the presidential race. The first and foremost is cross three relation. So mind you, you know, his more considerate approach was subject this time to a timely popular approval. The second issue is about the integrity, capability, experience of the leadership. And the third issue is related to the second, but I would think it's still separate, you know, conceptually separate from the second. It's about which party is more capable of addressing the economic challenge brought about the euro crisis in the short run and the growing socioeconomic inequality in the long run. Now then I moved to, you know, what account for the outcome? You know, Mars convincing wing and Taiwan, you know, didn't, you know, you know, get the kind of majority support the TPP had hoped for. I think it's actually quite simple, you know, in hindsight, basically, Taiwan electorate found no reason to replace incumbent with proven track record with someone with unknown quality. So Tai, her leadership is still untested, and many people still have done lingering doubt about her capability in managing the cross-strait relationship, but also the economy. The majority of voters, you know, 51.6% were not persuaded that they should unsee an incumbent president who had brought peace to the trade, earned the trust of major allies, especially the United States, expanded Ireland's international space, managed the impact of global financial crisis relative well, and kept his promise of delivering clean politics. So stability conscious middle class and business community, especially, wanted to stay on the course of cross-strait rapprochement and preserve the momentum of reinvigorating Taiwan's economic vitality. And the other side of the same token is, you know, will explain Tai's failure to expand DPP's electoral base. I was, nevertheless, I will argue that, you know, she did, you know, by and large, quite effective campaign in many ways, okay? At least she, you know, helped the party restore its, you know, the kind of electoral strength it used to enjoy. But nevertheless, I will still argue that DPP's cosmetic adjustment to its China policy did not boil well at both front. It is too vague to convince the independent voter. And it's too timid to governize its traditional supporter. And I have evidence to support this argument. The decision to place emphasis on the issue of socioeconomic equality or inequality did not give DPP a decisive competitive advantage. As the KMT itself is inherited with the legacy of the casual party and also is known for its ideological eclecticism. The DPP ticket, although I agree that, you know, Tai, you know, is a very, you know, I think attractive candidate among especially the younger generation voter. But I would argue that the DPP ticket was not as strong as it can be. I will argue that Sudentown plus Tsai Ing-wen will be a stronger ticket, okay, in comparison. And it turned out that the Su Jiaquan, you know, Tai's lonely mate turned out to be a liability rather than an asset. And also the DPP, I think their strategy, you know, tried to prop up Jim Soames' electability turned out to be counterproductive. Okay, because her, you know, the, you know, the entrance into the race and also the fact that he still maintained a considerable, you know, portion of public support well until the end of the campaign really, you know, created a sense of crisis among the Pan-Bru constituency. But the reason why Jim Soames can have that momentum in the beginning, you know, thanks a lot to the green-canned mass media. Okay, they gave him, you know, you know, the interview after the interview, you know, things like that. So basically in the end, Tsai only recovered the DPP's electoral strength, okay, the 40, 45, and couldn't really move beyond that threshold. And then everyone has to answer this question, you know, why must winning margin surpass most people's expectations, right? Including myself, I always predict that, you know, he might win the election by two, no more than 3%, you know, a percentage point. And the answer line is the question itself. Most people believe it's going to be a very tight race. And that is, you know, the reason why, you know, the many, many independent, you know, the, you know, stability-conscious independent voter and also reluctant, lukewarm, Pan-Bru voter, you know, eventually they will prompt it, you know, to come out to vote. And also many more Taiwanese inspectors has returned home. And some James Sones, a lot of them eventually in the end they decided to split their vote. So that's why the PFP got more, you know, more than 5% for the party list, you know, in terms of popular vote, but much less, you know, for himself. And in addition, you know, this is the last point is very important. Normally, if the pro-green constituency, they are truly, you know, enthusiastic and passionate enough, the turnout rate in the south would be higher than the turnout in the north, but this time it's just opposite. Okay, the Taipei and Taoyuan and, you know, and Xinbei, they all have, you know, at least 1% or 2% or even 3% higher turnout rate than Kaohsiung or Tainan-4. Okay, this is, you know, that explains, you know, what I just said. You know, this sense of crisis among the Pan-Bru voter. And another interesting, you know, the question is why the election has appeared to be too close to call. Okay, what really fumble and puzzle all the experts, including myself, you know, Antonio, you know, and people who get drunk, you know, you just mentioned. I think, first of all, you know, Ma initially looks kind of vulnerable, but he entered race with a 34% approval rate and 53% people who disprove his performance. But however, among those 53, many of them are the Pan-Bru or D-Bru voter. Okay, they blame, you know, team for a variety of reasons, obviously very different from the green camp. And secondly, no reliable poor figure, you know, due to very high portion of respondents refusing to indicate their preference, even, you know, up until the last day of the campaign. I think there are many Pan-Bru voters who are kind of really reluctant, you know, lukewarm. Okay, so they refuse, you know, to express, you know, very overtly. They are going to vote for Ma, or they might come out to vote at all. And also the prediction, all the forecast was inferred by an outdated, now I can say outdated. Yes, okay, receive, review, which assumes that the poll tends to underestimate DPP candidate real electoral strength. So everyone say, even though I would say most of the poll, I actually, this one I want to correct, you know, what Antonio has said, except for the lead with time poll, most poll predict Ma, you know, will enjoy a 3% to 8% lead, okay. But nobody believing that, you know, they have this assumption, okay. So, you know, you have to do some waiting, okay. Anyway, like, I think it was also very difficult to predict, you know, exactly how much vote Jim Song might eventually get. You know, how many people will, you know, vote sincerely and how many people will vote strategically. And both can wanted, you know, to sustain the public perception of the tirade for different reasons. The DPP, okay, to sustain the morale, to generate the bandwagon effect, okay. The KMT, you know, to play the crisis card, okay. So that, they converge. What's, I know I'm running out of time, but maybe I would just go quickly. I think what's the implication? I know, and I don't want to upstage the speaker of the follow-up panel, but I just want to say a few words here. I think this election consolidate the political collection behind the KMT policy of cross-strait political constellation and economic cooperation. And also, I think the center of political gravity has been shifted. The Dushuri independence agenda, including new constitution, new nation, U.N. membership, and self-determination, and so on and so forth, is overtaken by the more programmatic debate over how to maximize again and minimize the cost and risk that came with cross-strait economic integration and the larger process of economic globalization. I also believe that, you know, for the next four years, there will be less political obstacle to cross-strait economic integration. I think the Ma will stay on the course, and also he will feel quite confident. The KMT, although, you know, have reduced majority, but still a solid one, 64 plus three independent. I think they will stick together. And also, I also argue that, you know, while many people argue that many low-handing through, you know, I mean, in terms of cross-strait relationship has been picked, but I believe there are many more left to be picked over the next four years. And also, DPP will, I think, will revisit its full-dragging strategy as Tsai Ing-wen himself openly pledged that her party will not turn back the clock if she get elected. And I think this time, the two-party system has been, you know, further consolidated. And, you know, the TSU, when you look at the district election for the L.O.Y., if you add a popular vote, and this time the TSU actually they decide not to nominate any candidate in any district. So the DPP will be able to capture the entire potential electoral support among the constituency for the district L.O.Y. election. And I think the future fate of the minor party, I don't totally agree with my two previous speakers. I think they are quite precarious. I don't think maybe the green party might have, you know, a better future. But the TSU and PFE, I don't think they will survive the longevity of their charismatic founder. And this time the TSU get 9% due to the sympathy to Li Deng Hui. And this could be his last time, you know, come out on the stage. But lastly, I want to argue that the domestic political agenda will consume most political capital and energy during his second term. Okay. You need to overcome the resistance to economic openness, speed up the FTA negotiation with major trading partner, and prepare Taiwan for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is for the medium to long term. And also, he needs to accelerate the re-trafficking economy to upgrade and diversify Taiwan's export. And most importantly, he has to find a way to cope with the worrisome demographic trend that Taiwan will be wrestling with for the next decade. I'll stop right here. Thank you for your attention. Yeah. Well, I hear a consensus emerging that stability is very important. I was trying to think of any lessons for the accompanying American elections. Does Obama have to become the president of hope and change, become the president of stability? That's not the key. We have time for questions now, about 15, 20, 15 minutes for questions. What I'm going to ask, I'll pick people. Please make sure to identify yourself very carefully. Also, don't do a presentation, perhaps, you know, do a question. Make your questions very short because we want to get a lot of questions in. If you want to make your question to a specific member of the panel, say which panel you want to do to, otherwise we'll open it to all of them to respond. We also have roaming mics, so don't ask your question until you get a mic in your hand. Okay, so we'll just go ahead now. Thank you very much. Jack Zhang from the Eurasia Group. My question is about the future of partisanship in Taiwan. Do the panelists see the two major parties moving towards an increasingly polarized party platform going forward, as is often the case in the two-party system, or do we believe that for the next election, the parties will align increasingly to the center as we see in this election? Thank you. Yeah, I think it's a great question, because one of the things we saw in the, particularly the latter period of the Chinchui Biennial era, was a move towards polarization. I'm pretty sure that in this campaign, we have actually seen movement towards the center. The DVP's movement has not perhaps gone as far as it needed to win election. I think a couple of us have alluded to that. My instinct is that the DVP is going to continue to move towards the center in this next phase, at least if it really wants to win re-election in 2016. I think it should have a very strong chance, particularly facing a new KMT candidate. Overall, presidential and also single-member district electoral system does seem to be pushing Taiwan's parties towards a moderate position. The other thing we need to think about in terms of your question is that overall, Taiwanese voters are very conservative. If you look at the opinion poll data on national identity, if you compare the average voter to politicians, again, I think you'll find that most Taiwanese voters are very moderate, and I think that has a very major constraining role on political elites in Taiwan. Eileen Lin from Foreign Minister and Association for Public Affairs. Many aspects of this election were focused on domestic issues such as jobs and environment. According to certain polls, many people are not happy with the unemployment rate as well as the skyrocket housing rate. So why do you think the Taiwanese people prefer stability over change? Also, for Minister Chu, you stated that the election result reaffirmed Taiwanese people think President Ma's close ties with China is a better option. President Ma also has many other policies, not just the cross-strait one. So what specific evidence do you have to make such conclusion? Thank you. Thank you for the question. Well, first of all, on the one hand, yes, among the younger generation, especially people who are just off college, it's very difficult for them to find a decent job in this overall non-environment. Although this is not an issue, a problem unique to Taiwan, I think it's everywhere. So in relative terms, I would say the unemployment rate, you know, it's not comfortable but not very serious. You know, it's 4.8 at the end of the last quarter, the data, you know, when the data is available, the latest. And also I think that the DPP, although, you know, they are in the opposition so they can attack, you know, the mass penetration or many, many, you know, the aspect including, you know, the social, economic equality, you know, housing price, you know, unemployment rate for the younger generation. But I don't think they have the recipe or panacea at all. And most people I see in the middle class and this completely, they, you know, actually they worry that if there's a major rupture in the cross-relation, then the economy of Taiwan will suffer even more. So I think, you know, that's why the stability is not just stability, you know, versus unknown, it's not change, it's uncertainty and certainly, you know, in a negative sense. Whether people worry about the closer tie with China, obviously, yes, you know, some people, a lot of people, you know, including a lot of people who voted for, for, for, for Chinese, but I think this is a challenge. This is a dilemma we all have to face. Not even United States, you know, will be exempt from this dilemma. People will say, you know, United States owe too much to Beijing in terms of, you know, who own the larger share of abroad, of the U.S. Treasury bill. Every economy surrounding China now, you know, export, you know, more to China than anywhere else. Okay. And that trend will continue. Although you can argue that Taiwan obviously is exceptional in saying that, you know, we have to wrestle with the security implication, right? So that's why we really, you know, condom, unite support and security commitment under TRA. Not only that, I think what Antonio had just described, I think another very important defense, not in a traditional sense, you know, that might protect from any future coercive, you know, campaign from Beijing, you know, is how we might win over the heart and goodwill among the opinion leaders, among those, you know, emerging middle class in China. Okay. If they regard Taiwan on one hand, it's not productive, you know, at the same time, you know, it's a shining example of how democracy, you know, can be established in a culturally Chinese society. I think in and by itself, it will give, you know, the Chinese leader, you know, very little pretext, you know, to, you know, to be hostile, at least, you know, overtly, you know, toward Taiwan. So I would argue that it's not, you know, not a small challenge, but something, you know, we have to wrestle with wisdom and support from our major airline. Could I also have a quick response? I'm glad you asked this question. I think one of the things we have to be very careful about is oversimplifying Taiwanese elections just onto cross-strait relations, I think, particularly in this kind of setting. I think voting behavior is affected by a lot of domestic variables. And I think Taiwan was quite effective in using this kind of social justice appeal. And it's been one of the key dimensions to the new DBP under Taiwan since 2008. But I think that if we can, if we look at this kind of appeal comparatively, Chen Chui-bian was much more successful at actually offering some real solutions to social inequality, particularly using a kind of a social welfare appeal. While in today's kind of economic climate, it's much harder to make those kind of appeals. So I think Taiwan's really struggled with solutions beyond that kind of slogan. Oh, okay, that was my one point there. Doug Spellman from the Woodrow Wilson Center. I wonder, why does Taiwan not have an absentee ballot mechanism? Is there any chance that this might change? And if it were to change, would it have much impact? Well, I think any one of us can. Okay. I think there's little consensus between the two camps over introducing absentee ballots and how their assistance should be introduced and through what stages. For instance, we have so many Taiwanese expatriate living working in China. And people will say, well, they're living on free society. So how can you guarantee the secret ballot, things like that? And also at the same time, you have people with dual citizenship living on the West Coast. So there's a lot of complicated issue. In any sense, I think the DPP objects this reform more vigorously than the KMT. Much more vigorously. They really worry about the army of Taiwanese expatriate living and working in China. I don't think they will vote 100% for a month. No, not at all. But maybe 65 versus 35. So that's the ratio according to the convention with them. Gregory Ho from Radio Free Asia, the question is about many failures. Which poll will be more believable and trustworthy? Even the underground gamblers who know more about the sentiment, the election, they lost money. And even the future affairs exchange, they are predicting war this time. So could you give us any insight at which poll we should trust from now on? Let me get to your point, whether the bookmakers have a better sense. Unfortunately not. It depends on, in the South, yes, there are some bookmakers. They bet in Taiwan's favor. But in the central part and the northern part, it's opposite. People who are kind of influenced by their immediate surroundings, the ethnic fear. So people in the end, they are not very quote-unquote rational. If people are really fully informed, rational actor, then we won't have Lehman-Brother crisis. Now getting back to the poll, I think it nowadays, the internal poll, I believe that the KMT have conducted, turned out to be quite reliable. Looking at the hindsight, but nobody really entirely believing it. But my colleague, Hong Yong-Tai, he worked closely with the KMT headquarters, and they used a more systematic way to do the stratified sampling, and they enlarged the sample size to more than 4,000. So they can predict not just the island wide, but also the north, the central and south. Most media, I think the methodology they employ is flawed in many ways. It cannot cover people who use mobile phones only. They cannot cover overseas expatriate. And also they cannot overcome the fact that a lot of people who simply refuse to review their preference. So they have to do a lot of educated guess. So in this time of future market, the misfire in a totally different direction. So I'm sorry, I don't have any good answer to your question. So there are limits to what extent the poll can be reliable. But obviously we have to say the margin this time is not big enough. If it's more than 10% lead, then it gives you some kind of assurance. My one suggestion is look at previous voting patterns. I think that's probably much more reliable than looking at quite biased media polling. Microphone, it's now. Thanks, Betty Lin of the World Journal. Could the panelists address the timing issue? Because the election is only a few days before the Lunar New Year vacation. So a lot of people, southerners working in the North, they didn't bother to go back home and come back to work for a couple of days and then make another long trip. And do you think this is one factor for people not showing up in the South? Yes, I think there's an issue. So the DPP complained about the timing. Because Lunar, Chinese Lunar New Year, and it's difficult to go back to the South and come back to work. And the students are still in school. But the weather also played a role. It's clear weather until the close of the booth. The weather works favorable for KMD2. So all kinds of factors come together. You have one more question, maybe. So you had your hand up for a while. Well, thank you. My question is about the point to make the new healthy balance. On one hand, which is an encouraging sign, I agree. But on the other hand, do we need to worry about the possibility that we'll make the political gridlock that we often see even worse in the days to come? Thank you. I think if we think about democracy as having checks and balances, then I think this new parliament is very positive. I think the overwhelming domination that the KMT had, I think created a sense of alienation among many people in Taiwan in March 1st. So I think it's going to be very hard for March to actually push his agenda. And actually, I slightly disagree with Professor Jules' comment that there will be less obstacles for cross-strait development. Because I think this will probably slow down development in cross-strait relations with a smaller majority. And again, I think this is positive because you need to have checks and balances. That's a democracy. It's actually going to force, mind you, in the KMT regime, to actually look for some consensus. Even though the KMT was quite critical of Taiwan consensus per se, some of March's post-election comments show that I think he needs to reach out to other groups in society, not just the DPP, but I think reach out to civil society. So I think that's very positive. I just want to, at one point, I think the DPP have to think very deep about what kind of a role they want to play in the parliament, whether they want to continue this food-dragging strategy, which cuts both ways for their future electoral fortune. If they are content to be the parliament, I think they feel free to do that. If not, I think they have to revisit their strategy. And I think the fact that if you look at the ECFA, initially for DPPs, like over my dead body, at 3 a.m., they fully accept this fit of complete. And not only that, Taiwan owned her competitor. She promised that nothing will change. Maybe if she get elected, she might want to slow down the process. But I think we are DPP too. They now live under a new reality. No one can totally ignore the larger trend, which has been unfolded over the last decade. So, finally, I just want to see if any of the panelists had any last words they wanted to say after all the discussion. I think the last election is a landslide victory for my enjoying year 2008. That's unhealthy. Now it's back to normal. The rotational power of political parties will become a normal practice as a pattern. And if DPP can successfully overtake, I mean, about the mainland policy, trade relations, then DPP have much more chance to win back power than KMT. The key of the Taiwan relations is for DPP now in KMT. I think the Beijing know about this. And sooner or later, DPP are taken to power if they learn a lesson. It's not that I'd like to have you join me in thanking our panelists for a very enlightening session.