2008 has so far seen some rather exciting elections in Asia. First, there was the historical turnabout in Malaysian politics, where the usually dominant Barisan Nasional (BN) lost five state assemblies and more than a third of parliament to the opposition. Then, there was the recent Taiwan presidential election, where the charismatic Kuomintang (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou won by a historical margin of almost 17 percentage points.

In the Taiwan election, Ma was the frontrunner along the campaign path, but there were moments when his opponent, Frank Hsieh of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) seemed to be narrowing the gap.

The lacklustre performance of the economy under the watch of the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian had propelled both candidates to put economic concerns at the top of their campaign agenda. In particular, both candidates had recognised that Taiwan could not continue to isolate itself by ignoring the mammoth mainland Chinese economy. In fact, Ma had specific plans for forging a common market with mainland China, starting with the establishment of direct flights between the two politically estranged territories.

It was no surprise that such comfortable posturing vis-à-vis China drew exacting criticisms from the more nativistic DPP. The DPP accused Ma of selling out Taiwan by propounding a common market with China, which would in fact become a “One-China Market”. The DPP further suggested that this would open the floodgates for low-cost Chinese labour to swamp the Taiwan market and deprive Taiwanese of employment opportunities. At the same time, instead of selling agricultural products to China, Taiwan’s cutting-edge agrarian technology would be leaked across the straits. Such was the picture of doom painted by the DPP to convince voters to desert the Ma camp.

The DPP again capitalised on the fear factor when the riots in Tibet broke out. This time, Taiwanese were warned that Taiwan could become a “second Tibet”, where any assertion of political autonomy would be unceremoniously suppressed. To this, Ma argued that Taiwan was unlike Tibet, being a sovereign territory that elected its own president and legislature. To assure voters of his independence, Ma announced that he would not rule out the possibility of boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics as a form of protest, if he was elected president.

Similarly, the BN ran their campaign on the platform of fear. In fact, one could argue that the BN was formed on the platform of fear. The United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) thrived on Malay fear that they would be marginalised and left behind other ethnic groups in their own home land. The other ethnic groups were cowed into supporting the other ethnic parties in the BN alliance so that they would be represented in the ruling coalition. Just before the election, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi reiterated the oft used threat that if Chinese and Indians did not support the other ethnic parties in the BN, they risked having no representation in the new cabinet.

Of course, fear has its place in the history of elections. It was the Taiwanese fear of an encroaching China that gave Chen Shui-bian the Taiwan presidency, and American fear of Islamic terrorism that gave Bush his second term in office. But the results of the recent elections in Malaysia and Taiwan seem to suggest that fear and scare tactics are now out of synchrony with the moods of their respective electorates.

In the immediate aftermath of the Malaysian election, there was a fear that there would be a repeat of the May 13 ethnic riots of 1969, which, of course, did not materialise. One key reason was the presence of the Anwar Ibrahim led multicultural Parti Keadilian Rakyat in the opposition camp, which made it difficult for any case of ethnic polarisation to gain resonance among the populace. From a longer-term perspective, it is not clear how a politics of fear would address the economic concerns that have become only too apparent.

In the case of Penang, it seems that a language of hope rather than fear was what the electorate want politicians to speak through. The dilapidated streets had become an eyesore and visible evidence that the state was not keeping up with the development and maintenance of basic infrastructure. If after almost 40 years in government, the BN partner, Parti Gerakan Rakyat still could not deliver an appropriate level of development to the residents of Penang, it was no wonder that their promises of renewal fell flat with the electorate. Instead, the hope of renewal rang truer with the opposition Democratic Action Party.

In both elections, there is no doubt that larger issues such as the economy and the blight of corruption dominated the minds of the respective electorates. Where new solutions are needed to resolve old problems, the discourse of change was seen as the option of choice to confront the risks of venturing into uncharted territory.

In the case of Taiwan, it needs to break out of her economic and political isolation and engage in the ever-evolving system of global trade. To engage China as a direct trade partner yet retain the political status quo is only a first step and challenge in this direction.

Penang and the other Malaysian states under opposition governance, on the other hand, need to bring in investments and development without being too dependent on the federal government. They need to transcend the model of the nation-state and tap into organic regional economies that are transnational in nature, especially as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations move towards greater economic integration.

Electorates have their mood swings as well. This year, it seems that what appeals to their hearts is a discourse of hope and a desire to change things for the better, rather than a politics of fear. One wonders if this would also turn out to be the case in the impending US presidential elections.