With Saturday’s elections imminent, it is worth reflecting on the various parties’ campaigns, by not simply focusing on how they were conducted, but also on the responsibility of other groups in the process.
The campaigns have so far been characterized by mudslinging and allegations of hitting below the belt. Parties of course need to shoulder some of the blame for this, but the roles of the media as the fourth estate, political commentators that steer public debate, and the electorate itself, which has a responsibility to stay reliably informed, also need to be looked at.
The norm for presidential campaigns is that the incumbent and the party in power consolidate their strengths and emphasize their achievements, while the challenger and the underdog emphasize the government’s shortcomings. This has not happened.
Mudslinging has taken focus away from any substantive debate. The media has allowed itself to distort the campaign by indulging in clickbait headlines, while many voters have let themselves drown in the noise.
The media’s eye for the sensational has led to an overriding emphasis on the salacious and the controversial. It has steered the focus of the debate away from the important issues.
The parties and the candidates are predominantly the source of the stories the media chooses to chase. Campaign teams know the media will pick up any assertions they make about their political rivals, but they also understand that any stories, authentic or not, put out by their opponents could damage their own campaigns.
This has caught President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate, between a rock and a hard place, even if they only jumped into the mudslinging fray reluctantly.
Does the president refrain from making accusations about fake news and pro-Han interference from Beijing, or is it incumbent upon her to clarify whether it is true, as it would constitute interference from a foreign — and hostile — government?
For Han, if meddling on his behalf was not actually solicited, or even welcome, is it fair to tar him with that brush?
At the same time, the pro-Han camp’s efforts to rebuff these allegations have been clumsy, criticizing Tsai’s campaign rather than acknowledging that it would not be appropriate for Beijing to interfere in Taiwan’s elections.
Then there is the electorate’s responsibility in the process: Voters need to be discerning about what they hear and read in the media. This includes the sources they select, but even with reliable sources, they must know how to interpret information from opinion pieces and editorials, which will always be biased.
Many voters fall into the trap of informing themselves within echo chambers — which have only become more cavernous in the age of social media.
This does nothing to bridge the divide between supporters of opposing camps, and this increased lack of mutual agreement and trust between the two sides will be something the president and the legislative majority party — if there is one — will have to face after the elections.
Responsibility regarding the quality of the political debate in the nation, in the presidential and legislative campaigns and going forward after the election results are announced, lies with the politicians and political parties, the media in its coverage, the commentators and the public in how these facts are sourced, consumed and interpreted.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry