As the nine-in-one local elections approach, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has resorted to its old last-minute electoral tactics by playing the “scare, economic and sympathy” cards.
Spending millions of NT dollars on TV and newspaper ads, together with public endorsements from several business tycoons, the KMT warned voters that if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) wins more seats, Taiwan’s economy would turn into a disaster, society would become unstable and the DPP would regain governing power in 2016 and push for independence, and therefore cross-strait relations would regress.
In addition, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration took advantage of the recent conclusion of free-trade agreement negotiations between China and South Korea to intimidate Taiwanese voters with the idea that the nation is falling behind its neighbors because of the DPP’s irrational boycott of cross-strait service, trade and commodity agreements. KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連戰) has also played up the incipient China-South Korea deal to hopefully stir up so-called “economic voters” to vote for him.
Given that Lien has been trailing independent candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), some of the KMT old guard, including Lien’s father, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), and former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), have stoked ethnic tensions by accusing Ko of being a descendant of Japanese imperial officials, as Ko’s father and grandfather were born during the Japanese colonial period and educated under the colonial school system.
To attract hardcore KMT supporters, Lien Chan and Hau warned that if the KMT loses Taipei, the Republic of China would collapse.
During the “Super Saturday” rally last weekend, Sean Lien and his wife, Patty Tsai (蔡依珊), shed tears and complained about being treated unfairly in the campaign.
To counteract the KMT’s last-minute incorporation of negative campaigning, the DPP continues to center its campaign on the notion of good governance, particularly in central Taiwan.
The DPP has shown that businesspeople’s latest endorsement of the KMT is evidence of their siding with big business, while overlooking the welfare of ordinary and economically disadvantaged voters.
To ensure his steady lead in Taipei, Ko orchestrated a series of successful parades last weekend by downplaying partisanship and political symbols. The turnout was overwhelming.
The extent to which the KMT and Sean Lien camp’s tactics will work remains to be seen. It is natural for both camps to narrow down their message to a single issue at the last minute.
However, for voters, perhaps the best way to make their choice is to think back again to why their ballots matter so much. It is a crucial moment for Taiwanese voters to decide if the country’s future is to be determined by threats, inducement and tears, rather than feasible policy, good governance and bipartisanship.
In the 2008 elections, 58 percent of voters gifted Ma and his KMT with an absolute majority in the executive and legislative branches. Ma won re-election in 2012 with another majority ballot. He pledged to take absolute responsibility for the KMT’s absolute governance.
Had he done a good job, KMT candidates, including Sean Lien, would not have suffered from such a disadvantage in their campaigns. If KMT candidates recognized this fact, they would not have to resort to such outdated campaign schemes to appeal to voters.
Unlike past elections where cross-strait relations, ethnic division and the unification-independence debate often dictated the campaign agenda, Taiwanese politics has entered a new stage where voters judge national leaders by performance and capability to lead, not by the resources or money they poured into campaign propaganda.
Research increasingly shows that Taiwanese voters have become politically independent and issue-driven. The “scare card” or “stability card” no longer plays a pivotal role in campaigns.
Most voters care about whether their life can be improved, whether they can find decent jobs or raise their salary, whether social justice can be implemented or whether the rich-poor gap can be diminished.
On the eve of voting day, perhaps it is time for voters to calm down and think about how their vote can transform Taiwanese politics into a better one.
Liu Shih-chung is president and chief executive of the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new