The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a lot to thank the Control Yuan for. If Control Yuan members had not instructed the party to return the piggy banks donated to DPP Chairperson Tsai Ying-wen’s (蔡英文) presidential campaign by three young triplets because they violated the Political Donations Act (政治獻金法), the party would never have hit upon the idea of a “little pigs month,” distributing piggy banks to supporters, who are then encouraged to return them filled with donations.
It has been a fabulously successful initiative, so much so that the nation’s shelves have been stripped of piggy banks by people wanting to do their bit for Tsai’s campaign.
The impact has gone beyond injecting the campaign with much needed funds; it has also created an interesting focal point, bringing the candidate and the electorate closer together.
Irrespective of the actual results of January’s presidential election, the piggy bank drive will endure as one of the more intriguing aspects of the campaign.
Think of it as Taiwan’s version of the Jasmine Revolution or the Occupy Wall Street movement. It has handed countless middle and working-class voters the opportunity to find their own voice through micro-donations, in contrast to the still fabulously wealthy Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), once the richest political party in the world. The piggy banks are a symbol that people are rejecting the KMT’s pro-big business and pro-China leanings, as well as its lack of environmental credentials.
They are a rallying point for much of the anger over social injustice and oppression that pan-green supporters have felt for some time now, as the gap between rich and poor widens, housing prices rocket and the threat of compulsory unpaid leave and potential redundancy looms.
There is much to unite these sections of society, and they now believe there is something that they can do about it. Even without the piggy bank drive, these voters would have migrated to the DPP.
Of course, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) campaign office has complained about the DPP’s fund raising tactic, accusing the DPP of exploiting children for political ends.
Ma should instead reflect on why, after three years in office, he is unable to inspire the electorate in a comparable way. He has tried to use his success in bringing down the price of rice wine to demonstrate his empathy for the average person, but this means little given that the prices of milk and coffee are on the rise.
He has tried to revisit the success of his “long stay” initiative in the 2008 campaign, but such attempts smack more of political gimmickry than a genuine attempt to get closer to ordinary people.
The piggy bank drive would have left little impression on pan-blue supporters because the KMT has never really been about representing the vulnerable or the oppressed, and no one is going to believe that it needs any financial help.
Each political party has its own voter base, and each has cultivated its own social image over the years. The KMT ought to get over its jealousy of the DPP’s success with the piggy banks. It would do better to reflect on why it has so little to show for three years in power and absolutely nothing new to offer or inspire the electorate.
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