As the Taipei mayoral race intensifies, the two main candidates remain unable to show what qualifies them as eligible candidates for taking office.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) and independent candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who is endorsed by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), have been canvassing with campaign goodies and their so-called policy proposals, but it is their gaffes and unconvincing campaign approaches that have caught the public’s attention.
A recent Lien campaign commercial featured young people being asked, “What would you do if you were as rich as Sean Lien?” It was meant to be seen as a self-depreciating parody of his image, as he is widely perceived as a wealthy princeling — a tactic also employed in another promotional video in which Lien crushed an orange with his bare hands.
While the orange-crushing might have been a witty response to netizens’ mockery that Lien resembles a “divine pig,” used as a tribute in religious ceremonies, which is always presented with an orange in its mouth, profiling young people as superficial and hedonistic highlights his shallow understanding of the younger generation.
The motive of the commercial was to depict Lien as someone with a dream and therefore capable of “planting a seed of hope,” with dozens of young people appearing in the video picturing what their lives would be like if they were as wealthy as Lien, and calling Lien “stupid” to give up his supposedly comfy life to run for office.
However, what was implicitly revealed was Lien’s inaccurate image of the younger generation — “Sean Lien is different from the common young people who would not have put their efforts into running for public office or participating in public affairs if they were that rich.” It is rather ironic when considering the student-led Sunflower movement in March, when a large number of young people risked their stable and comfortable lives to stand up against the government for a greater cause.
The campaign video was not Lien’s first act of controversy. Weeks ago his team released a video featuring him and a group of foreigners, who were apparently working in Taiwan, conversing and sharing their views about Taipei. The aim was supposedly to showcase Lien’s global experience and English speaking skill, but again it was what was not said, or who was not present, that revealed Lien’s lack of knowledge or concern for the “foreign community” in the city.
Migrant workers and caregivers have long been the invisible pillars of the nation’s society, and they too are members of the “foreign community.” Lien was not the first and will not be the last Taiwanese to have overlooked that. Yet as a mayoral candidate for the country’s capital, he should have shown a more impressive “global perspective.”
While Lien tried to exploit Taipei City residents’ deep-rooted views of what “wealth” indicates and what a “developed and global” city looks like, he lost a great chance to set a positive and progressive example, by instead perpetuating stereotypes.
Ko also disappointed in his apparent sexist remarks and his praise for an authoritarian ruler, during whose allegedly “clean” administration freedom of speech and a free press were nonexistent.
He also failed to convince voters of a vision, grown out of his ideas and beliefs, that could help the city in its stride toward being not only a better, but also a more respectful place. Patriarchal prejudice and a warped historical perspective of this nation are the last things that need to be further encouraged.
DPP legislators and civic groups that have long been considered pro-green lashed out at Ko’s comments that went awry, which might have been one of the few positive aspects of this whole mayoral campaign farce.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath