It is not the appropriateness of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) referendum boycotts that is dominating debate, nor is it the cloud of uncertainty surrounding KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (
As many believe that Ma has a good chance of winning the election, they are flocking to jump on the bandwagon and demonstrate their correctness. Even fair-minded individuals are keeping their silence, while the media are enthusiastically directing the watermelon effect out of fear of losing the chance to score points.
Taiwan has become a de facto "Watermelon Republic."
What is the watermelon effect? It is the psychological effect of being on the winning side. Other than hoping that their ballots are not wasted, voters want to be in the winning camp to avoid the psychological consequences of losing.
Voters therefore end up neglecting the candidates' political platforms and their relationship to their own welfare. Indeed, they deliberately ignore squabbles over the character of candidates, as these background noises would interfere with a sense of personal fulfillment. Perhaps this is the most deadly weapon in the current election.
The media help create an environment that fosters watermelon psychology. The question of a "one China" market is therefore covered up and disparities between promises and actions diminished so that Ma could emerge from the green card controversy with hardly a scratch. Boycotting referendums is also rendered inconsequential.
All this contributes to producing a climate in which Ma is guaranteed to win. The uncertainties of elections have completely vanished, and it would now be more unacceptable if Ma lost -- since the maintenance of the watermelon effect has become the common enterprise, or rather, a common conspiracy, of the public.
Therefore, the greatest danger posed by this election would be a Ma loss. The US authorities are keeping a friendly silence over the green card issue, while Beijing has retracted its claws and kept a low posture. Even the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) appears to be preparing for the transition of power.
If Ma fails to win the election, then -- aside from once again proving his lack of ability -- the greatest source of concern would be the irrationality of the watermelon effect.
A rational examination and comparison of the candidates' political histories, the effect of their efforts for Taiwan's democracy, the results of their previous terms of office, the uniformity and viability of their platforms and their regard for national security and sovereignty would yield a clear picture on who is best suited for office.
This is called independent judgment, which is the main motivation behind the establishment of an organization called the Intellectuals' Alliance: The hope that room for rational debate can be illuminated despite the spread of the watermelon effect.
Unfortunately, the watermelon effect has already become part of mainstream society.
The only thing that intellectuals can therefore do is serve as historical witnesses to another period of darkness and warn against the enormous impact and obscuring of reason that is the result of the watermelon effect.
For now we can only comfort the disappointed and the frightened, while hoping that fanning the flames of reason can light the way for Taiwan's democracy.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Angela Hong
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS