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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS