Campaigns are all about setting the agenda, framing the debate, getting media spotlight and keeping up momentum. Campaigns start with competing messages. The key to winning any race is to come up with an affirmative message that keeps you ahead of your opponent. It is the inability to understand this simple, straightforward point that causes more losses in elections than any other factor.
The recent political crossfire between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the issue of holding a referendum to "join"or "return" to the UN underscores the fact that the former has outperformed the latter in terms of creating campaign issues and controlling electoral rhythm.
KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has upheld the strategy of "It's the economy, stupid" as his main agenda ever since he unveiled his campaign. Ma has attempted to break the political myth that the issues of ethnicity and independence versus unification would be put aside in the presidential election. He believes that the economy should be the focal point, as well as the "Achilles heel" of the DPP government.
However, Ma's camp also recognizes the fact that it must take advantage of the growing sense of a Taiwanese identity to mitigate the DPP's manipulation of the "China card."
Therefore, in addition to pushing for the opening of the direct links, Ma has followed the DPP's steps by echoing the referendum agenda with an aim to assimilating the ruling party's platform.
In articulating the affirmative message of a campaign, comparisons between the parties' positions on the issue may be necessary.
If the comparisons are just thin disguises for negatives, voters will catch on quickly. If the comparisons of the positions are accurate and reflect the real opinions of the candidates, they may work. But a comparison ad will work best if the affirmative message strikes home.
Ma's decision to passively play the "referendum card" appears to be a mere political tactic to avoid being marginalized by the media. Hence, the KMT insisted on holding its own rallies on Sept. 15 and Oct. 14 simply for the sake of balancing media coverage.
The Taipei City Government's last-minute change of attitude on permitting the DPP's UN torch relay showed that Ma's camp was trapped in a dilemma: To what extent should the KMT keep the UN and referendum campaign going without overwhelming its core "economy" agenda?
The more the KMT boycotts every move made by the DPP, the more united green-camp supporters get. And most importantly, Ma's own campaign based largely on his personality would be sidelined by the DPP's more dramatic agenda.
For example, KMT legislators joined forces to criticize the DPP government's alleged misuse of the public budget for the UN referendum campaign.
The Cabinet rebutted that it was money well spent because it was part of the government's policy to join the UN.
Ironically, Ma and his KMT recognized the UN issue as one of the key issues in the presidential election and the opposition cannot be absent on the debate. The KMT therefore came up with the alternative scenario of "holding a referendum to return to the UN" under the name "Republic of China" or any practical title.
But so far, Ma's camp has failed to come up with a concrete solution to push for Taiwan's international participation -- let alone protest against China's attempts to isolate or humiliate Taiwan in the world arena.
Ma's refusal to accept the invitation to a debate on the UN issue by DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh further shows that the KMT candidate is not a strong defender of Taiwan's sovereignty and national interests.
The KMT has been dragged into the UN and referendum campaign by the DPP. Unless it demonstrates more sincerity and a stronger determination to talk about it, Ma's campaign of the "economy is everything" will fail.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
In November last year, a man struck a woman with a steel bar and killed her outside a hospital in China’s Fujian Province. Later, he justified his actions to the police by saying that he attacked her because she was small and alone, and he was venting his anger after a dispute with a colleague. To the casual observer, it could be seen as another case of an angry man gone mad for a moment, but on closer inspection, it reflects the sad side of a society long brutalized by violent political struggles triggered by crude Leninism and Maoism. Starting
The year 2020 will go down in history. Certainly, if for nothing else, it will be remembered as the year of the COVID-19 pandemic and the continuing impact it has had on the world. All nations have had to deal with it; none escaped. As a virus, COVID-19 has known no bounds. It has no agenda or ideology; it champions no cause. There is no way to bully it, gaslight it or bargain with it. Impervious to any hype, posturing, propaganda or commands, it ignores such and simply attacks. All nations, big or small, are on a level playing field
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement on Saturday that the US was to drop self-imposed restrictions on meetings between senior Taiwanese and US officials had immediate real-world effects. On Monday, US Ambassador to the Netherlands Pete Hoekstra met Representative to the Netherlands Chen Hsing-hsing (陳欣新) at the US embassy in The Hague, with both noting on social media the historic nature of this seemingly modest event. Modest perhaps, but their meeting would have been impossible before Pompeo’s announcement. Some have welcomed this move, thinking that it is long-overdue and a step in the right direction to normalizing relations between
The US last week took action to remove most of the diplomatic red tape around US-Taiwan relations. While there have been adjustments in State Department “Guidelines on Relations with Taiwan” and other guidance before, no administration has ever so thoroughly dispensed with them. It is a step in the right direction. Of course, when there is a policy of formally recognizing one government (the People’s Republic of China or PRC) and not another (the Republic of China or ROC), officials from the top of government down need a systematic way of operationalizing the distinction. They cannot just make it up as