Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate, appeared to lose his cool in the televised presidential debate on Dec. 29, lashing out at journalists from the Apple Daily, Central News Agency and SET-TV during the question-and-answer segment of the debate.
Han’s apparent meltdown, which included branding a journalist’s question “low-class” and saying another interviewer’s conscience had been “eaten by a dog,” has sparked intense debate.
Some said that Han’s behavior fell well short of what is expected of an aspiring president. Others claimed he had an ulterior motive: to lock in votes from his core supporters. Whatever his intention, Han’s high-risk strategy is a harbinger of his coming defeat.
Han is no fool. He must have predicted the questions that the media would ask and his answers were pre-scripted, not off-the-cuff remarks.
During the debate, Han faced questions about his private finances and cross-strait policy, to which he was unable to provide straight answers.
Rather than provide ambiguous responses, which would have been exhaustively dissected by the media, Han opted to go on the offensive, unleashing extravagant insults and attempted to paint himself as a victim of “vulgar” media attacks.
The strategy was not just about evading sensitive questions, it was designed to use the campaign’s only televised presidential debate to whip his supporters into a frenzy of hate against a “common enemy” and to generate sympathy from groups who already hold a grudge against the media.
Han believes the media he singled out for criticism are already “fighting for the enemy” and were out to get him over his cross-strait policy and personal morals. He therefore concluded that attacking these organizations would not harm his wider media image.
Working on the principle that there is no such thing as bad publicity, Han guaranteed that he would make headlines the next day. He is following the same logic that drives his frequent fake news posts, which are designed to bamboozle impressionable members of the electorate. It is a cunning ploy.
Nevertheless, as the Chinese saying goes: The more a gambler loses, the higher he raises the stakes. That Han decided to go for broke was a reflection of his flagging campaign outlook. That was why he decided to make a last-ditch effort in an attempt to improve his chances.
In other words, the more erratic Han’s behavior becomes, the clearer it is that he is losing the election.
However, despite it seeming unlikely that Han would win the election, so long as he does not lose too badly, the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party would find it difficult to ignore him afterward. He would be able to reap a political dividend. For this reason, the Han camp’s strategy appears to be to preserve his core vote. A “good loss” would be chalked up as a “win” by Han and his team.
Former premier William Lai (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party’s vice presidential candidate, once remarked that Han is a once-in-a-generation political genius. It is unclear whether Lai intended this as praise or if he was mocking him, but it is undeniable that Han’s offhand communication style has quickly attracted a loyal band of followers.
Han is a shrewd political operator who should not be underestimated.
What boggles the mind is that Han’s boorish style of electioneering — eagerly supported by certain pan-blue camp media outlets and talking heads — has gained substantial support. This is far more remarkable than his synthetic meltdown on live TV.
Hsu Yu-fang is a professor at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press