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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS