The thunderous shouts echoed through the Taipei night sky; a sea of flags, a sea of people, a sea of lights intertwined at Han Kuo-yu”s pre-election rally on Ketagalan Boulevard, forming the most unprecedented and moving scene in Taiwan”s democratic political history. When university presidents and chairmen of listed companies mingled with ordinary citizens, secretly delighted to have snatched a stool, you knew what “the people”s sentiment for change” truly meant – a realization that supporting Han Kuo-yu to change Taiwan was indeed a massive social movement, not just the fanatical pursuit of a celebrity by enthusiastic “Han fans.”
When the “anti-Han industrial chain” exhausted every effort to completely destroy Han Kuo-yu”s public image, why were there so many voters, across Taiwan and its outlying islands, expressing their support for Han Kuo-yu through practical actions? Rather than being for Han Kuo-yu or the KMT, it was an urgent sense of crisis that compelled them to stand up “for the well-being of themselves and the next generation.”
In the past, when discussing policies, most voters were either indifferent or only vaguely understood, and few voters truly compared candidates” policies in detail before deciding whom to support. But this presidential election, in addition to the candidates” personal charisma, the major national development policies and directional routes were crucial influencing factors, because these policies had actually affected the substantial interests of many people.
Four Key Policies Affecting the Public
Firstly, the severe impact and loss of public interest were, of course, the strained cross-strait relations hitting Taiwan”s grassroots economy. Goods couldn”t go out, people couldn”t come in, and ordinary people suffered heavy losses. The Tsai government only blamed the other side. However, the experience of the common people was that during the Ma administration, accepting the 1992 Consensus led to goods flowing out, people coming in, and prosperous business. The government neither sold out Taiwan nor harmed our sovereignty; it was a win-win for both sides of the Strait, and the nation enjoyed peace and prosperity. The Tsai government”s obsession with Taiwan independence and anti-China stance only created countless suffering people and achieved nothing. Should this inexplicable stubborn stance be changed? Without supporting Han Kuo-yu, how can there be change?
Secondly, there”s the so-called pension reform. Military personnel, civil servants, teachers, police, and firefighters had their retirement pensions drastically cut, while labor pensions were secretly ignored. People”s lifelong savings dwindled, forcing them to spend as little as possible, which resulted in not only mainland tourists not coming but also local customers disappearing, leading to an even more sluggish economy. Who caused this? Should this mutually destructive pension policy be changed? Without supporting Han Kuo-yu, will there be change?
Even more harmful is the desperate burning of coal and the utterly uneconomical energy policy. A nuclear-free homeland turned into a ghost realm of air pollution, with those having larger lung capacities suffering more. “Using nuclear power to support green energy” was approved by referendum, yet the Tsai government played dead and ignored it, insisting everyone celebrate being nuclear-free amidst air pollution. Is the risk of lung adenocarcinoma growing higher and higher for those living in Taiwan? Should this situation be changed? Without supporting Han Kuo-yu, how can it change?
Finally, with less money and dirtier air, already full of anger, even criticizing a few words or sharing some information became impermissible! Police knocking on doors left everyone feeling unsafe. Ms. Tsai became Big Brother, with a thousand-mile eye scrutinizing every word and action of the people. How can such a life be lived? What”s more terrifying is that cross-strait exchanges have exceeded 30 years, and so many Taiwanese have established connections, however tenuous, on the other side. Yet the Tsai government stubbornly enacted a vague “Anti-Infiltration Act,” aiming to completely cut off cross-strait people-to-people exchanges, leaving Taiwanese terrified and confined to the island, facing an economic chill. Should such a terror-inducing policy be changed? Without supporting Han Kuo-yu, can it change?
Therefore, the throngs of people at Ketagalan Boulevard should not be seen merely as enthusiastic Han fans rocking out before the election. Rather, in those excited eyes and high-pitched shouts, one must discern the deep helplessness and sorrow over the current situation, and the eager anticipation for Han Kuo-yu to lead the effort to set things right!
When a change in ruling party already entails a mandate from the people encompassing life and death stakes, such a once-in-a-century rally becomes a natural and inevitable scene, a matter of human reason and circumstance!