The campaign video that the People First Party (PFP) released on the day Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) announced his presidential bid was focused on changing “mudslinging” into fodder for growth.
What the PFP and Soong should be aware of is that — in a departure from the 2012 election in which he was nothing close to a game changer and the Internet generation did not really care about what politicians did — this time around the party is facing a highly suspicious and historically conscious group of younger voters.
At a time when Soong aims to — and is likely to — defeat the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in a national-level election, what might be flung at Soong is not “mud,” but evidence of his own past actions.
The video is — literally, in terms of the images used — about mudslinging. Soong, dressed in white, stands against a dark background with his face and shirt caked in mud that has been smeared on by hand. It is said that the mud, meant to symbolize humiliation, pressure and frustration, can also be a source of nutrition for growth.
The video, together with another campaign ad picture that shows Soong covered with mud and holding a sapling, caused a sensation among young people. Memes of the latter image went viral. In a way, parodies notwithstanding, the campaign tactic seemed to have served its end.
However, a news article about the making of the video, following the hype caused by the ad, has accidentally turned the tables on Soong. Meant to show that the idea for the ads came from the younger people on the team, the article reported that the PFP chairman joked with the young staff throwing mud at him, saying: “If it were the Martial Law era, I would have you guys executed, but don’t worry, I would grant you amnesty.”
The joke was allegedly received with laughs at the time.
However, many people — not party to the team’s playful atmosphere — did not find the joke funny at all, especially coming from a politician who did indeed play a role in the authoritarian regime.
In 2003, an article was published detailing his acts of repression against the freedoms of the press, speech and language in his capacity as Government Information Office director-general between 1979 and 1984. At that time, languages other than Mandarin — what the regime called “dialects” such as Hokklo and Hakka — were discouraged and were planned eventually to be downsized to nil in the media.
For example, concerning the freedom to publish, it is said that scores of magazines were banned during his time as the head of the government information office including Formosa Magazine, the members of which had organized a march on Dec. 10, 1979, that lit the fuse of the democratic movement.
The article, along with other related historical material regarding Soong has returned to haunt him. In addition to post-Sunflower movement (and possibly post-anti-curriculum movement) younger people more willing and eager than ever to learn about the nation’s intentionally buried history, along with the fact that the PFP and its leader are more likely than ever to crowd out the KMT’s support in the coming elections, it is not surprising that the questioning is more vociferous.
“The PFP is the KMT without its party assets” is what is now being trumpeted online.
Without winning the support of younger voters, it is questionable how many seats the party would actually win in the legislature as a result of Soong’s bid, as a recent poll indicates that pan-blue supporters might vote for the KMT to compensate for their support for Soong in the presidential vote.
However, whether making gains — if it does — what is sure is that Soong’s bid has forced party members to confront their pasts.
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
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
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and