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
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS