At campaign meetings for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairperson election, some people have said the KMT should do whatever it takes to convince Hon Hai Precision Industry Co chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) to run for president in 2020, as if he is the only backup and the KMT would lose without him.
According to a poll by the China Times Weekly, if a presidential election were held now, Gou would receive 35.7 percent of the vote against President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) 24.2 percent, winning by a 11.5 point margin.
The question is whether such polls are credible. Can people entrust a businessman with running the nation? Would it be an easy thing for a businessman?
According to the poll, 60 percent of respondents revealed their thoughts, far from enough to represent the whole population. The rest did not express a preference. The reason is simple: The nation is three years away from the next presidential election and polls such as this are akin to fortune telling.
Opinion polls are often manipulated and abused, so, in a play of words, “opinion polls” (民調, mindiao) are sometimes said to “tease” or “play with” (調民, diaomin) people.
Insiders sometimes say “polls are truthful lies” — while the results are correct, the process, the phrasing of questions and the composition of the sample are full of deception.
Take a look at US President Donald Trump. In last year’s US presidential election, he received 3 million fewer votes than former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, yet he received more electoral votes and beat her.
Would he have won had the election been in Taiwan? No. In the Taiwanese system, Trump would have lost. Should Taiwan imitate a loser?
Moreover, his five major policies — withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, building a wall along the US-Mexican border, repealing Obamacare, banning Muslim immigrants and introducing trade protection policies — drove down his approval rating to about 40 percent in 100 days in office.
Most Americans question if he will be a successful president. Should Taiwan imitate this loser? Most people would say “No.” Only fools would say “Yes.”
The reason businesspeople succeed is because when an order is given, the whole company works toward that goal. With the support of a majority of its board of directors, a company will be united under the overriding principle of profit, despite dissenting voices.
The most obvious difference between politics and business is that politics stresses strategies and schemes. The best way for the opposition to trip up the government is to prevent it from doing well, which creates a vicious cycle.
Also, every single cent in the national budget requires legislative approval. This is diametrically opposed to the flexibility of a business entity. If the system that is applied to states were implemented to businesses, there would be a long series of bankruptcies and devastation.
Politicians have to communicate with and persuade the public, and they have to tussle and make compromises with the legislature. Businesspeople work for profit and have no time for red tape. Politicians and businesspeople are different because they work in different environments.
A businessperson with massive business interests in an enemy nation running for president can only be called a vassal and a puppet.
Does anyone think that it is easy for a businessperson to win a presidential election or that a businessperson running the nation must be such a success?
It is time to stop taking Taiwanese for fools and underrating Gou’s intelligence.
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai and Perry Svensson
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