As the seven-in-one elections draw near, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is staggering into the remaining years of his second and final term in office.
For the past six years, he has been working feverishly on both his image and legacy. However, despite his public relations efforts, he now faces an unexpected and unwanted result.
Unknowingly, unintentionally and certainly unwillingly he has been helping level the playing field between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Such a statement may seem overtly contentious, for the KMT unquestionably remains the richest party, commanding resources and war chests far greater than all opposition parties in Taiwan combined.
It could be decades, if not a century, before this wealth gap is bridged.
So, how then is the playing field becoming more level?
The reasons lie elsewhere and are diverse; but, in brief, they are found in how Ma has destroyed any remaining mythical image of capability or statesmanship that the KMT acquired from its one-party state days. That and the enigmatic “duck effect.” Yes, despite Ma’s wishes, the times they are a-changing.
Starting with the duck effect: What is it and how does it apply? Briefly, most people admire the peaceful image that ducks create as they sail smoothly on the surface of a lake. Their motion seems so calm, cool and effortless, at least on the surface — and there is the key: If one looks beneath the surface, the ducks’ webbed feet are paddling furiously to keep balance and maintain speed and direction.
An image of calm is what nations and politicians seek to project; that whatever the outside circumstances and turmoil, all is under control and progressing on course. Politicians spend millions on spin doctors to create an image of harmony and grace under pressure.
These agents and others are the hired ducks that must paddle furiously to keep a progressive stable image.
Such an image was originally easy for the KMT to maintain as it ran its one-party state in Taiwan from 1945 to 1987, since in essence, it controlled everything — the military, government and education — as well as the media.
Media glossed over the KMT’s deficits and embellished its achievements. If there were any dissenting voices, those people soon found themselves on Green Island or worse.
This was the situation that Ma was raised in and returned to in 1981 after studying in the US. He then entered the government at a rank higher than most and witnessed how the media ducks in the service of the KMT state supported its actions with platitudes, slogans and select examples of success.
This changed, of course, when multiple parties and diverse media were allowed to form in the late 1980s.
These now began to legally question and challenge the KMT’s interpretation of history.
Nonetheless, the 40-plus years of indoctrination on how growth and the Taiwan Miracle were solely the gift of the KMT to what they referred to as the taibazi (Taiwanese redneck, 台巴子) was hard to overcome. This, and many Taiwanese intelligentsia being “eliminated” after the 228 Incident, cast a mythical aura over the KMT’s capabilities.
Fast forward to Ma’s election to president in 2008. He was KMT, but part of the “new Taiwanese”: He would draw on KMT talent, create another economic miracle (that included China), root out corruption and set the nation on a forward course.
Ma’s spin doctors worked to preserve this image of capability, despite his eight lackluster years as Taipei mayor. They were up to the task of promoting his presidency with the infamous “6-3-3” campaign promise (an annual economic growth rate of 6 percent, annual per capita income of US$30,000 and an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent per year), followed by the coming Golden Decade and a constant barrage on how Taiwan’s relations with China, the US and the world were becoming the best they had ever been.
Voters in a democracy, especially at a national level, are not publicity machines; they vote on expectation, as well as their perceptions of what they see is best for them and the nation.
True, they can be wrong in their perceptions, deceived by candidates and misled by vacuous promises, but they will not in the long run be paddling ducks for any person or party just to preserve image. They expect results.
It is in this situation that Ma’s team, relying on the KMT’s past mythical image, made their promises and boasts and came up short.
Talent? From former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) on down, they allegedly had all the economic savvy needed to carry Taiwan into the future.
Capability? Had Ma not had eight good years as mayor, at least to the untrained eye?
Eventually, the “bumbler” tag won out.
International relations? Were not things absolutely peaceful? Or was China biding its time as the fly entered its web?
Unfortunately Beijing’s true colors came out when China’s Taiwan Affairs Office let slip remarks suggesting that the 1.3 billion Chinese will decide the fate of Taiwan.
Corruption? Instead of eliminating it, the laundry list of KMT corruption under Ma continues to grow from former Nantou County commissioner Lee Chao-ching (李朝卿); the Changhua County commissioner’s younger brother, Cho Po-chung (卓伯仲); and Ma’s confidante and former Taipei City councilor Lai Su-ju (賴素如) to former Taoyuan County deputy commissioner Yeh Shih-wen (葉世文) to name a few. In short, Ma was the best image the KMT had to continue the myth and he came up short leveling the playing field.
This is what the KMT faces in the upcoming elections. Its war chests will still be useful.
It can certainly outspend opponents in promotion and perhaps even “buy votes” in key areas, but otherwise, the duck effect is coming to the fore.
What and how much will voters sacrifice to preserve Ma’s image? In the pan-green south, there is little chance that voters will be paddling ducks for Ma’s party image.
In Greater Taichung, after having three terms of Mayor Jason Hu’s (胡志強) leadership, will voters still be content to say that all is well and on course? Or will they want a new direction?
In New Taipei City, if the growing land scandals in Taoyuan County spill over and involve Mayor Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) family, will the voters still want to be ducks in his support?
In Taipei, where a loyal blue population seems willing to be a paddling duck for anyone who is KMT, will the voters be that willing to cover for former EasyCard Corp chariman Sean Lien (連勝文)? Born to KMT wealth and holding positions achieved more through family connections than personal effort, will Lien be another KMT image to support?
No, all is not calm and on course for the KMT. The myth is gone and the playing field is more level. Yet Ma, like a one-trick pony, is still casting all his hopes on China. He is mobilizing the KMT to push through the cross-strait service trade agreement and a major battle is shaping up in the Legislative Yuan.
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) refused to be a paddling duck for Ma, so Ma tried to remove him and failed. Ma could still get this trade agreement passed. He has the votes, but KMT legislators must be wary of the constituents in their representative areas.
A Ma victory with the trade pact would be at best a KMT Pyrrhic victory. Waiting in the wings is a different issue. The courts remain a problem in Taiwan, with dinosaur judges, double standards and two-tier justice. Ma’s presidency has never washed and we are in a new Taiwan.
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing