Those who have gotten used to the passionate performances in Taiwan's elections would feel rather bored by elections in Europe. For example, there are three everlasting rules for German elections -- no change, no risk-taking, and no demands; thus, the campaign strategies formulated are rather bland.
The mudslinging and name-smearing tactics used in this year's presidential election in Taiwan, however, were unbearable. On a positive side, we identified many personal flaws of the candidates, narrowing the gap between them and the people and giving them a more humanized image. This is certainly preferable to the past deification of political figures. However, people ought to hold respect for the law -- particularly during elections. If politicians knowingly break the law to win elections and get away with it, we will lose any hope for shaping a general respect for the law.
All the negative campaign ads and allegations have invited potential criminal liability. The suits filed between the candidates, if successful, would involve liabilities for public insults (公然侮辱罪) and crime and defamation (誨謗罪), as well as liabilities under Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law (總統副總統罷選法).
Campaign rhetoric such as Lien's accusation that another candidate was "heartless and cruel (狼心狗肺)" were obviously "public insults." On the other hand, there are also those allegations waged by Lin Jui-tu (林瑞圖) and Chiu Yi (邱毅) about Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) involvement in the lottery scandal, accusations made by Taipei City Council or Lee Ching-yuan (李慶元) about Chen's extra-marital affair and Lien's patronage of massage parlors, as well as many anonymous advertisements.
The targets defended themselves by filing court complaints to try and show they were innocent and so retain public support. But since all these negative ads and allegations can bring legal liability, why did all the candidates play with fire? The reason is simple: The expected return was far higher than the cost incurred.
1. The liabilities incurred are relatively light. Although jail terms of one to five years can be handed down for these crimes, more typically convicted offenders receive only a fine or probation. Besides, the candidates are never the ones to get punished, but the "bouncers" they retain to do their dirty work.
2. These lawsuits go nowhere. They are so numerous that we have lost count, and after the election is over, no one cares -- not the prosecutors, judges, or even the parties involved. Losers simply leave the political arena. Winners gain immunity, and they may voluntarily withdraw the suits they filed, to demonstrate generosity.
3. Negative allegations bring free publicity. Since the news media have acquired quite an appetite for tabloid news, it will run virtually any allegations, as long as someone is bold enough to point fingers. Furthermore, the media's failure to verify certainly helps.
The media always criticizes candidates for lacking substance; however, only tabloid news makes headlines. The media does not even bother to report the candidates' campaign platforms. Therefore, the negative ads and allegations may be characterized as an evolutionary adaptation by the candidates' efforts to comply with media demands. Of course, the media reflect public demand -- although people always criticize elections, they still love to watch campaign news.
If the media were to refuse to cover or run any unverified defamatory attacks or anonymous ads, and if the voters did not vote for candidates who engage in mudslinging, the negative campaign ads and allegations would disappear. Although elections would become dull, they would be truly democratic.
Recently, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) hastily pushed amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) through the Legislative Yuan, sparking widespread public concern. The legislative process was marked by opaque decisionmaking and expedited proceedings, raising alarms about its potential impact on the economy, national defense, and international standing. Those amendments prioritize short-term political gains at the expense of long-term national security and development. The amendments mandate that the central government transfer about NT$375.3 billion (US$11.47 billion) annually to local governments. While ostensibly aimed at enhancing local development, the lack
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an