Having used legal loopholes to buy several converted military housing units, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice presidential candidate Jennifer Wang (王如玄) has been using smoke and mirrors to try and shift the focus away from the issue.
In an effort to get out of trouble, she has thrown up a smokescreen by saying that she hopes the focus of election campaigning can return to important national policies and candidates’ opinions about disadvantaged groups, including workers, women and children.
Does Wang take voters for fools? If only candidates’ policies and political views are taken into account, without considering things like their quality of judgement, ability to get things done, resilience, moral character and long-term trustworthiness, how would it be different from an essay-writing competition or a boasting contest?
How can we expose the evil intent behind President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) fine-sounding declaration that “Taiwan’s future will be decided by its 23 million people,” by which he really means that “what Taiwan’s 23 million people decide will be decided by Ma Ying-jeou,” if we do not also consider his “democratic credentials” of having, over the years, opposed direct elections for all legislators, opposed direct presidential elections and opposed the holding of referendums?
If we cannot detect his subconscious desire to prevent independence and move gradually toward unification with China, how can we realize that his “three noes” policy of “no unification, no independence and no use of force” is false, while his true policy is one of “two noes” only — “no independence and no use of force?”
If we do not keep Ma’s hypocritical character in mind, how can we realize that his fine-sounding political proposals, such as the “i-Taiwan 12 Projects,” his “6-3-3” pledge — to achieve annual economic growth of 6 percent, an annual per capita income of US$30,000 and an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent — and his promise of a “golden decade” are all just lies told with all the sincerity of a swindler?
Of course, politicians hope that voters will hear their words and trust them to act accordingly, but voters do not intend to be fooled so easily.
Besides hearing politicians’ words and observing their actions, we should also listen out for what they do not say, such as the fact that Ma did not dare, when meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), to follow the phrase “one China” with the words “with each side having its own interpretation.”
We also need to watch out for what they do not do, such as the fact that Ma does not dare to eliminate his KMT ill-gotten party assets or to display the flag of the Republic of China in the presence of officials of the People’s Republic of China.
Candidates in an election do not have the right to refuse to be examined in the light of day. Are their words borne out by their actions, or do they promise one thing and do another? Do they talk and act very differently in people’s presence and behind their backs? Do they change their whole way of doing things when they take up a new post? With the corrupt ones, the rude ones and those who knowingly bend and break the law, there is no need to denigrate them, because they are tarnished already.
To prevent voters from being fooled by dishonest politicians’ fancy presentation and voting for them out of ignorance, it is not negative campaigning to tear off their masks and expose their past misdemeanors. Rather, it is positive campaigning, because it exposes a gang of fraudsters for who they really are.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS