It’s no secret that politicians often use opinion polls to support, rather than determine, policy decisions. Knowing this, the public is well advised to always approach such polls released by government agencies with skepticism, as numbers can be massaged to fit predetermined policy, just as intelligence can be used to buttress just about any plan, however frivolous.
One need only turn to an opinion poll on cross-strait relations released on Thursday by the Mainland Affairs Council for a perfect example of a politicized survey masking self-serving purposes.
The third question in the poll — “Stance on status quo, reunification, independence” — seems innocuous enough, until one looks at the answer categories: “Maintaining the status quo in the broadest sense” (86.2 percent), “Maintain the status quo forever” (30.5 percent) and “Maintain the status quo, and then reunify [sic] with the mainland or seek independence” (34.6 percent).
While on the surface there’s nothing wrong here, a hypothetical scenario can enlighten the situation.
Imagine a group of 20 judges is asked to decide whether a man caught stealing a goat should be (a) stoned to death for his crime; (b) allowed to walk free; (c) that further deliberation on the matter is necessary, though the end decision must be death or freedom; or (d) that deliberation should go on indefinitely. Unbeknownst to most but his closest aides, the village chief has already made up his mind and wants execution, no matter what. However, as he rules over a democracy, he orders an opinion poll to give the decision some veneer of legitimacy.
In the final results, the first two options — kill now or release now — are not mentioned, while the last options — more deliberation then kill, and more deliberation and release — are conflated; in other words, the answer category reads “More deliberation, and then kill or release.”
One could ask why the organizers didn’t provide the numbers for the first two types of answers. Perhaps this is because only 1 respondent, or 5 percent of the total, provided the answer that was sought by the village chief — that is, kill immediately — while three, or 15 percent, said they wanted the man freed immediately. As for the judges who wanted more deliberation before making a decision, let’s say that one wanted more deliberation then kill, while three wanted more deliberation, followed by release. The remaining 12, meanwhile, sought deliberation with no verdict, meaning that overall, only two of 20 are in favor of execution.
The problem should be salient by now. First of all, while three times as many judges want the suspect released rather than killed, the survey does not tell us. What it also fails to show is that while most people favor more deliberation — or deliberation ad infinitum — again, three times as many judges favor ultimately releasing the suspect versus executing him. By conflating the two, however, there is no way of knowing this.
The same problems plague the council’s poll, as it fails to show that those who support the “status quo,” followed by a move toward Taiwanese independence, outweigh those who support the “status quo” followed by unification. Not only this, but in the past decade, support for immediate Taiwanese independence (not reflected in the poll) has grown, now reaching 16 percent, while support for immediate unification has dropped steadily, now at about 5 percent (also not reflected in the poll).
The poll therefore centers on the majority of people in Taiwan who support the “status quo,” but conveniently fails to represent growing support for independence and a drop in support for unification.
What this finagling does, ultimately, is mask the trend that runs counter to what the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is trying to accomplish; one in which Taiwanese nationalism is growing stronger rather than weakening.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS