Let's talk about Taiwanese politics

During the holiday, I watched three policy presentations and one debate for the 2020 Taiwan election. I've been following Taiwanese politics for many years, mostly just for the excitement and as entertainment. However, from last year's mayoral elections to my current special attention, I've discovered many interesting things and had some thoughts to share.

First of all, I am quite easygoing and don't have any particular bias. Although I can't represent everyone, at least there is no conflict of interest, so I can observe and evaluate neutrally.

This article discusses some issues, but it doesn't mean that everything in Taiwan is problematic. The purpose is to raise and consider the reasons and solutions. I believe there are many more wonderful things about Taiwan, and I will talk about them again after I have the opportunity to experience them in the future.

Han Kuo-yu's inherent weaknesses

Since Han Kuo-yu's victory in Kaohsiung last year, which saw the KMT sweep the mayoral and county magistrate elections, Taiwan's political landscape has undergone significant changes. Having moved to Seattle and gained many Taiwanese friends, I've indirectly learned a great deal about their thoughts. It must be said that Han Kuo-yu's recent performance has been quite disappointing. From an ordinary, unassuming person during the Kaohsiung election campaign, he has now become a fiercely vocal fighter. He initially impressed me as a hardworking, pragmatic individual who set aside politics and was willing to serve the people; now he increasingly resembles a politician. Of course, the pressure of the election is also a factor; the relentless attacks from the DPP have taken a toll on him.

I had high hopes for him before because he was able to set aside "politics" and wholeheartedly do what was truly right. However, unfortunately, the current situation in Taiwan is not suitable for doing so. Coupled with his misstep of participating in the general election, his entire image collapsed. He overestimated the power of the presidency and underestimated the difficulty of elections. After being elected mayor of Kaohsiung, he became somewhat blinded by greed, but this cannot be blamed on him. If I had such an opportunity, I would also take a chance. The mistake lay in the strategic control of the KMT leadership.

Originally, Terry Gou was more suitable to run for office, but after Gou stepped forward, Han Kuo-yu, who had just been elected mayor, still chose to compete, which is very puzzling. There must have been some encouragement from high-ranking KMT officials, including Wu Den-yih, which also gave Han Kuo-yu many wrong suggestions.

The Kuomintang (KMT) had only recently won Kaohsiung and its position was not secure. Instead of adopting a cautious and steady approach, it chose an aggressive strategy. Looking back, if Wu Den-yih had advised Han Kuo-yu against running in the general election and instead encouraged him to stay in Kaohsiung and support the KMT primary winner, most of Han's supporters would have listened and supported him, and Guo's supporters wouldn't have split and left. The base of support would be much larger, and the KMT's image would be much better.

I recently watched Han Kuo-yu's appearance on the Bo-en Night Show and found that his thinking is very far removed from that of young people, and his reactions aren't particularly quick-witted. His image isn't approachable to young people, and coupled with his incompatibility with youth culture, as well as the constant attacks and smear campaigns from the DPP, it's almost impossible for him to win the votes of neutral or even pro-KMT young people.

Han Kuo-yu is a pragmatist, and I believe that if given the authority, he can fulfill his mission well. Pragmatists are a scarce resource, and any team longs for them, but this is not the case in highly politicized places, not just in Taiwan. Think about how many people in highly political companies would reject pragmatists, how constrained they are, and how many nice guys would leave helplessly.

After this defeat, he still has the chance to prove himself in Kaohsiung, but he will also be reduced to an ordinary person and have to start all over again. A down-to-earth ordinary person suits him better.

The public is highly politicized

A significant portion of the Taiwanese population is highly politicized, which is baffling. Instead of thinking about basic necessities or realizing their ideals, they spend all their time participating in politics. In particular, a large segment of them has a fixed ideology, as if they've lost their souls, making communication with them extremely frightening. For example, when Han Kuo-yu performs poorly, some people will mindlessly find the slightest excuse to justify it and cheer him on. Conversely, members of the pro-independence camp will interpret any action by mainland China as targeting Taiwan and undermining democracy. Examples like this are countless, and there are many such people throughout Taiwan. While this might be understandable among middle-aged and elderly people, the fact that so many young people are like this is a serious problem.

This indiscriminate taking of sides without investigation is likely a consequence of a long-standing, highly tense political environment. Resource scarcity, economic decline, and mutual attacks and smear campaigns force people to proactively solidify their defenses and offenses, leaving little room for neutrality. Furthermore, the international pressure Taiwan faces is also a contributing factor. Unsure of their future, they need a pillar of support, whether it's "freedom and democracy" or "peaceful coexistence."

However, no matter which path they chose, they could gain some "benefits," but unfortunately, their political system left them stuck in the middle, unable to move forward. The most confusing and terrifying state is when one doesn't know what they want. Will history define this era as a "confused" generation?

Polarization – the bureaucratic blue camp, the rogue green camp

I've noticed that most supporters of the KMT (Kuomintang) are traditional older generations or wealthy businesspeople. The reasons aren't hard to understand: the older generation has emotional ties to mainland China, and the previous government's policies easily lead to fixed mindsets. Those who are business-minded or wealthy, on the other hand, know how to maximize profits; politics or "democracy" (not that the KMT is undemocratic) isn't their top priority. Most supporters of the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) are Taiwanese natives and non-capitalists, especially from the south. Perhaps this is because the south hasn't been well-developed in the past? I don't know, but overall, they seem very different from the KMT supporters.

To truly grasp the stark differences between the KMT and DPP, simply watch their media programs. The same event will be reported and presented in completely different ways by both sides, revealing the ugliness of their media practices. In comparison, the KMT's commentary is relatively "normal" and rational, but it can be one-sided and prone to applying formulas. The DPP's media, on the other hand, is more "rogue," frequently distorting and fabricating stories, creating imagined narratives. Perhaps their audience prefers this style?

I've always felt that an incomplete report or commentary is no different from deception. Media without neutrality is meaningless, but achieving neutrality requires funding and legal support. Therefore, the media should be supported by the noble, anonymous long tail of the public, not capitalists. Furthermore, the media should be an international organization, not a tool of governments.

Both the DPP and KMT have their problems. The DPP is prone to backstabbing, while the KMT is known for infighting. To put it simply, one is like a thug, the other like a bureaucrat; young people don't appreciate that. This is why Ko Wen-je, the "white force," rose to prominence, and why Han Kuo-yu, who brought hope, rose to power last year. However, even the strongest public opinion cannot escape the clutches of political entities. The DPP and KMT, as the holders of power and vested interests, have too many "tools" at their disposal. Elections—used to select the most suitable person—are truly impossible; they are merely the result of compromises among a few powerful figures, ultimately harming the ordinary people. How to achieve genuine elections and find the right person has been discussed in previous articles; you can search for them.

Without dialectics and a broad perspective, there is no future.

The consequence of excessive politicization or populism is extremism, constantly seeking news from sources to support one's own ideas, reinforcing one's judgments to the point that it becomes subconscious: A is wrong, B is right. This kind of thinking becomes increasingly narrow, ultimately leading only to those with similar mindsets, and making one easily swayed.

Everything has two sides. If you can only look at things from one perspective and introduce preconceived judgments, it's difficult to make accurate decisions. In recent years, many young people in mainland China and Taiwan/Hong Kong have developed a rift with each other, largely due to this factor. Taiwan and Hong Kong perceive mainland China as old, dilapidated, and lacking in democracy and freedom, while mainland China feels its neighbors only know about democracy and freedom but lack a global perspective and understanding. Coupled with media hype, this has led to divergent views.

Resource shortage, unsuitable for elections

Every time this topic is discussed, I bring up the example of a company. Startups without a strong leader are essentially doomed. Imagine a startup where employees vote to decide who the CEO is, and a decision-making committee deliberates on the company's future direction—what would that look like? If the company isn't united in following a strong leader, it's highly likely to fail, and of course, more startups fail. When a company reaches a certain size, leaders struggle to manage employees effectively, and employees find it difficult to communicate smoothly with leaders. At this point, hierarchy and systems are needed. Well-established systems, hierarchy, and culture lead to long-term stability; poorly established systems can ruin even the largest company. At this stage, a strong leader is no longer sufficient; what's needed is a leader who can consider all aspects.

Looking at countries around the world, the United States, with its abundant resources, has done the best job in implementing "democracy." Firstly, its citizens have high moral standards, so they won't go against their conscience to slander or spread rumors, and they clearly know what they want. Secondly, with abundant resources, if one path is blocked, there are other paths, and they can always find a way to get what they want. Politics is not the only option, so the political tension is loose, making it easier to implement "democracy."

Asian countries have high population densities and a culture based on competition, which creates a tense political environment that leads to many problems. A simple example is this: if you have 10,000 yuan, you won't care about spending an extra yuan on breakfast. But if you only have 100 yuan, you might try to save that one yuan. In extreme cases, you might even sell your integrity and character to get that one yuan free. Opinions from opposing sides will also clash fiercely, with each side trying to eliminate the other, all because that one yuan is important to both sides.

Let's stop here for now. I feel like I've written quite a bit already.