There were three major factors at play in the Jan. 14 presidential and legislative elections — these did real damage to the success story of Taiwanese democracy and demonstrated that we still have some way to go before the country can be considered a normal democratic nation.
These factors were negative propaganda and misinformation, the glaring disparity in resources available to the parties, and overseas interference. In talking of overseas interference, this refers specifically to that, either direct or indirect, of China and the US.
The disparity in resources refers to the vast wealth of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the access it had to the state apparatus and government resources. Perhaps the most shameful aspect, however, is the stubborn stain of vote-buying and the willingness of some to trade their electoral say for monetary gain.
For the negative propaganda and misinformation, blame the various media outlets prepared to put their own political beliefs and profit before professional integrity, more so perhaps than ever before.
One expects politicians to resort to negative campaigning — it is in their blood; they will not change. However, the press, supposedly an impartial observer, should not stoop to character assassination.
Certain elements within the media went beyond simply dancing to the KMT’s tune, by calling for the blood of People First Party (PFP) candidate James Soong (宋楚瑜) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). One editorial in the Chinese-language United Daily News went as far as to claim that Soong supported Tsai. Not only did such a statement betray the writer’s own political hysteria and lack of journalistic integrity, it might even have been illegal.
In the past the media have been accused of unfair and factually unsound reporting, political favoritism, inaccurate opinion polls and inflated vote counts. This time round, they were also quite happy to accept “infomercials” and other propaganda on behalf of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the KMT.
Such latitude derives surely from ideological affiliation and an anti-independence stance on the part of the press. That, and the abandonment of a commitment to being the “perpetual opposition” — one of the basic roles the press should fulfil as the fourth estate — as well as a long-standing relationship with KMT governments.
The media’s preoccupation with profit and their ideological stance made it easier for China to interfere in the presidential election.
During previous presidential elections in Taiwan, China has employed both verbal and military intimidation, relying on missiles fired over the Taiwan Strait on the orders of the Chinese president, and on the Chinese premier and other senior officials making personal appearances and giving inflammatory speeches.
Now all they need to do is make pronouncements through the Taiwan Affairs Office and someone in Taiwan will press the message home, aided and abetted by a media scornful of a Taiwan-centric perspective. No longer do senior Chinese figures actually have to make personal appearances, and the effect of the intimidation is that much greater as a result.
The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party finally got the upper hand in the battle for public opinion played out in the press over the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Should the media continue down this slippery slope, the country will never be able to develop into a normal democratic society.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
RSS