Nearly two months have passed since the presidential and legislative elections.
The president-elect’s inauguration is not until May, so the public is focused on the 11th Legislative Yuan that began last month.
Given that neither of the major political parties hold an absolute majority, people watched the elections of the legislative speaker and committee conveners with great interest, observing how the three parties compete and collaborate with one another.
While campaigning, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) said it would take down the blue and green camps. Many voters, tired of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), voted for the TPP.
However, judging from the elections of the legislative speaker and committee conveners, it is unclear how the TPP would oust the KMT.
The entire process only showed the TPP shifting stances to draw more attention. Things have just begun, but it is hard to say what changes the TPP would bring. Moreover, it is undeniable that the slogan — “oust the KMT” — remains just a slogan.
When TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) ran for Taipei mayor the first time, he and his team were good at using social media platforms to attract public attention and turn their Internet traffic into votes.
However, as a politician, winning votes should not be the ultimate goal, just like a corporation does not merely aim to boost traffic, but to turn it into profits.
For a politician, after turning traffic into votes, they should understand that votes are only an instrument for them to realize what they want to do afterward.
In the age of social media and digital devices, politicians have more opportunities to project their image.
Viewers’ attention has shifted away from more traditional media like newspapers and television to social media platforms. Younger and entrepreneurial politicians have taken advantage of this trend, employing new modes of communication, and behaving and talking like Internet influencers to attract more supporters.
However, the performance of “influencer-politicians” are not entirely different from political performances in the age of traditional media.
Politicians now — as in the past — still want to be eye-catching, and mainstream media platforms are still battlegrounds to compete with rivals.
In the early days of the social media, given their lack of experience in politics, these “influencer-politicians” seem to project a “fresh” image, attracting Internet traffic. However, 20 years later, their antics online are just the same as politicians competing for headlines in traditional media.
The ways to shape a politician’s character and story are the same: Everything is carefully calculated and measured.
It is not my intention to stigmatize Internet influencers by drawing a parallel between influencers and politicians.
What I am saying is that the two groups share similar temperaments, capabilities and methods for attracting Internet traffic. However, influencers do not aim for traffic only. Some want to turn traffic into profit, while others want to impart knowledge or raise awareness.
As for influencer-politicians, what is their goal? Do they care about social problems at all, or are they merely aiming for more votes?
Rational and pragmatic voters must monitor the conduct of those politicians to find out.
Chang Yueh-han is a doctoral student at Shih Hsin University’s Department of Journalism.
Translated by Emma Liu
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS