Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) campaign office said last Saturday that it had filed yet another lawsuit against political commentator Clara Chou (周玉蔻).
The day before, the office demanded that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) stop her supporters from attacking Hung’s Facebook page by posting composite pornographic pictures featuring the KMT presidential candidate.
Hung’s campaign office has already taken legal action against some political commentators while criticizing others in public. Why is she so litigation-happy? Is it her problem or that of all the defendants? Can she win the presidential election by filing one lawsuit after the other?
As a matter of fact, Chou had already, on television, clarified her claim about Hung planning to withdraw from the presidential election in exchange for “benefits.”
She said: “What I mean is… now that the alleged exchange for benefits has taken place, perhaps it is spread by the green camp, you know? Because it is so afraid that Hung may be replaced.”
However, Hung’s campaign office still filed a second lawsuit against her, claiming Chou had fabricated untrue stories. Hung is clearly overly combative.
As for the case of netizens fabricating and spreading pornographic pictures featuring Hung on the Internet, it should have been enough just to report the crime to the police. Instead, Hung’s campaign office demanded that Tsai restrain her supporters, as if hinting that those vicious netizens are doing Tsai’s dirty work for her. This in itself is resorting to mud-slinging. Does the campaign office have any evidence that Hung’s online attackers were Tsai’s supporters? Is Tsai Hung’s only rival in this race?
Since Hung is in an unfavorable situation, she may hurt herself if she tries to attack a candidate in a favorable situation with negative campaigning. Hung’s support ratings have constantly been lagging behind, showing that those who do not support her are not only in the majority, but are consistently so. Will the majority of voters really change their mind to support her if her campaign office keeps filing lawsuits? It may even have the opposite effect, as the lawsuits merely bring the rumors to the attention of people who might otherwise know nothing about them. In addition, her rival’s supporters may well be turned off even further by her groundless mud-slinging.
When Hung registered for the KMT’s primary, she said Tsai was a kongxincai (空心菜), the name of a hollow-stemmed vegetable, a name that has taken root because “Tsai” is homophonous with the Chinese word for “vegetable.” Hung, then, was engaging in mud-slinging and negative campaigning right from the start.
A few months have passed since then. Hung, who is nicknamed the “little red pepper,” has displayed no other good flavor than her own “feistiness.”
As a presidential candidate, especially a candidate who is formally nominated, Hung should propose her own campaign policies appropriately. She should also study her rivals’ policies well, so as to expose and attack their flaws. In particular, since her support ratings have largely been lagging behind, she should refrain from criticizing others or trying to satirize them, or even distort facts or slander them with her inherent “feistiness.”
If the “little red pepper” really wants to win the presidential election and lead the country, she should display greater tolerance and tact.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a former research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers