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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS