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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS