Q: If you are elected, what will be your positions on national defense, arms procurement, and maintaining the peace?

A: I have always said that active friendliness is better than passive friendliness. Nothing is more important than the security of Taiwan. We should not get into an arms race with the mainland, but should undertake the most effective defense within the realm of the acceptable, and let the problem peacefully evolve within the framework of international order. If the international community does not support us, a war with China would be a terrible danger. One good thing about our dependence on US weapons is that the US won't give us anything with which to provoke mainland China. For example, the US has long blocked us from developing nuclear weapons. Lien Chan's long-range missile idea, and the two states formula, are both dangerous theories. Ah-Bian [Chen Shui-bian] favors a counter-strike capability, that is, the ability to strike back after absorbing a first blow. But that is not acceptable. Taiwan does not have adequate capability to develop its own weaponry, we could only get such weapons abroad, and that would be impossible. Taiwan cannot secretly do weapons development.

Q: If elected, would you implement the much-discussed "three direct links" to mainland China (direct shipping and air, direct trade, and direct mail)? How would you change the current policy of "no haste, be patient"?

A: I advocate allowing the three direct links and would immediately end the "no haste, be patient" policy. I would actively move to manage the mainland market. I was the earliest to propose a bold policy to "go west" into the mainland. Many people are afraid the three links would allow Communist China to influence Taiwan politically through business channels, but this is why we have to be in the World Trade Organization. Under a multilateral trade regime, if mainland China tried to impose economic controls on Taiwan, we could appeal for mediation within the multilateral system. Anyway, businesses that would move to mainland China are those that are already not very suited to Taiwan's development. Under globalization, the tendency of these types of firms to invest in the mainland will only get stronger, so to talk about de-industrialization is out-of-date thinking.

Q: What do you believe the term "Taiwan's sovereign independence" means in concrete terms? How can it be realized internationally?

A: I think that we shouldn't go out of our way to bring up the controversy over sovereignty. The only thing that will really help Taiwan is to put aside the argument over sovereignty. Under an international structure of globalization, Taiwan should agree to "one China" in exchange for a promise of fifty years of the status quo. One China is only a formality, 50 years of the status quo would be the reality. This period of time would allow for major changes in mainland China and international society, and Taiwan would hold even better bargaining chips.

Q: Do you think ethnicity is an issue in Taiwan? How can inter-group friction be resolved?

A: The reason there is inter-group hatred in Taiwan society is because political parties irresponsibly take ethnicity as their only weapon for mobilizing voters. Taiwan society originally had no conflict between ethnic groups, but Taiwan political parties are built on hatred between groups. Unless political parties are reorganized and a new party is built on the foundation of globalization, there will be no way to resolve the crisis of ethnic group hatred that is a legacy of the three main political parties.

Q: What do you think the biggest problems will be over the next four years? How will you handle them?

A: The biggest problem for the future is the cross-strait problem. The next president should, in his inaugural address-and indeed, even in his campaign-be making concrete proposals. I have always thought that in our dealings with the mainland we should concentrate first on economic and trade relations, and set aside the dispute over sovereignty, in order to tone down the political wrangle between the two sides. But we cannot, as we have in the past, get stuck on economic issues and postpone discussion of political issues indefinitely. In other words, the root of all cross-strait problems is the political one; this is a problem we cannot avoid addressing.

Q: Why do you think you would be a better leader of Taiwan than your opponents?

A: I have always thought that to be a leader you should have your own views on major issues. You must be really knowledgeable and have good judgement. My advantage is in being far-sighted and in saying what I really think. Early on I raised some ideas, and they have all proved to be correct. For example, I was the earliest to promote pragmatic diplomacy, and in May of 1986 I foresaw the formation of an opposition party. In 1993 I promoted the pension system for the elderly, and in 1994 I explicated the new world order. I was also the first to propose boldly "going west." Others did not dare raise these ideas. Though when I raised them I was criticized by many colleagues in my party, I stuck to my ideals. I say what I truly think, and this makes me different from the other candidates.

On Valentine's Day, staff members arranged for Lien Chan and his wife to join in an event to wish all lovers the best of luck.