The English term “sportsmanship” refers to an athlete’s conduct when participating in sport.
This deeply rooted concept has become a highly respected and universally accepted value. It guides people to play sports fair and square, by the rules and without any dirty tricks. It compels athletes not to give up halfway through a game, but to continue competing until the end, regardless of winning or losing. It also emphasizes respect for referees, judges, volunteers and fans, and encourages the use of polite language before and after the game. In short, sportsmanship is noble behavior in sport.
In a marathon, even though the last runner might fall far behind the rest of the pack, they keep on running. Although that might seem a little pitiful, the runner insists on completing the race and does not give up before it is over.
When the runner finally reaches the finish line, they are met with the audience’s applause; a show of admiration for the athlete’s perseverance. By enduring hardships and continuing to fight until the last step, the runner displays the spirit of sportsmanship.
The concept of sportsmanship can be applied to elections in a democratic society. The only exception might be the spirit of not giving up halfway, which is not necessarily a virtuous trait.
For example, take a look at the US presidential primaries. To begin with, there are almost always a dozen candidates from both of the major parties, but those who fare poorly in opinion polls withdraw their candidacies one after the other. In the end, there are just a few hopefuls left competing with each other in a fierce battle. Eventually, those with lower support ratings also withdraw and express their congratulations to the winner to show their grace and good manners.
If a presidential candidate insists on running to the end, despite their support ratings being so low that there is little hope of being elected, the candidate could be seen as a troublemaker, who does not understand when the game is over, and can be condemned for their efforts.
Exactly what is the motivation of such candidates?
In a Taiwanese context, if a positive view is taken, perhaps they want to seize the opportunity to promote their political ideals whether they win or lose. However, from a more negative perspective, maybe they want to obtain the government’s vote subsidies following the end of the presidential election, or perhaps they want to achieve both goals.
Traditionally, voter turnout in presidential elections in Taiwan is about 70 percent, which equates to about 13 million voters. A presidential candidate would suffer a major defeat if they were to win 20 percent of the votes, which is still about 2.6 million votes. Since a candidate who receives more than 5 percent of all valid votes is entitled to a vote subsidy of NT$30 for every vote they get, this candidate could expect to make NT$78 million (US$2.37 million), all paid by the taxpayer.
How many other countries also offer such subsidies? Perhaps the intent might be to encourage talented people lacking funds to run for the presidency by borrowing money first. The reality is that poor people are usually not able to borrow money, because they are poor.
On the other hand, tricky politicians with unjust motives often abuse this law to cheat taxpayers out of even more money. It seems that the time has come for us to review the benefits and drawbacks of the vote subsidy policy.
Peng Ming-min is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS