Those who have gotten used to the passionate performances in Taiwan's elections would feel rather bored by elections in Europe. For example, there are three everlasting rules for German elections -- no change, no risk-taking, and no demands; thus, the campaign strategies formulated are rather bland.
The mudslinging and name-smearing tactics used in this year's presidential election in Taiwan, however, were unbearable. On a positive side, we identified many personal flaws of the candidates, narrowing the gap between them and the people and giving them a more humanized image. This is certainly preferable to the past deification of political figures. However, people ought to hold respect for the law -- particularly during elections. If politicians knowingly break the law to win elections and get away with it, we will lose any hope for shaping a general respect for the law.
All the negative campaign ads and allegations have invited potential criminal liability. The suits filed between the candidates, if successful, would involve liabilities for public insults (公然侮辱罪) and crime and defamation (誨謗罪), as well as liabilities under Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law (總統副總統罷選法).
Campaign rhetoric such as Lien's accusation that another candidate was "heartless and cruel (狼心狗肺)" were obviously "public insults." On the other hand, there are also those allegations waged by Lin Jui-tu (林瑞圖) and Chiu Yi (邱毅) about Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) involvement in the lottery scandal, accusations made by Taipei City Council or Lee Ching-yuan (李慶元) about Chen's extra-marital affair and Lien's patronage of massage parlors, as well as many anonymous advertisements.
The targets defended themselves by filing court complaints to try and show they were innocent and so retain public support. But since all these negative ads and allegations can bring legal liability, why did all the candidates play with fire? The reason is simple: The expected return was far higher than the cost incurred.
1. The liabilities incurred are relatively light. Although jail terms of one to five years can be handed down for these crimes, more typically convicted offenders receive only a fine or probation. Besides, the candidates are never the ones to get punished, but the "bouncers" they retain to do their dirty work.
2. These lawsuits go nowhere. They are so numerous that we have lost count, and after the election is over, no one cares -- not the prosecutors, judges, or even the parties involved. Losers simply leave the political arena. Winners gain immunity, and they may voluntarily withdraw the suits they filed, to demonstrate generosity.
3. Negative allegations bring free publicity. Since the news media have acquired quite an appetite for tabloid news, it will run virtually any allegations, as long as someone is bold enough to point fingers. Furthermore, the media's failure to verify certainly helps.
The media always criticizes candidates for lacking substance; however, only tabloid news makes headlines. The media does not even bother to report the candidates' campaign platforms. Therefore, the negative ads and allegations may be characterized as an evolutionary adaptation by the candidates' efforts to comply with media demands. Of course, the media reflect public demand -- although people always criticize elections, they still love to watch campaign news.
If the media were to refuse to cover or run any unverified defamatory attacks or anonymous ads, and if the voters did not vote for candidates who engage in mudslinging, the negative campaign ads and allegations would disappear. Although elections would become dull, they would be truly democratic.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS