With the November special municipality elections approaching, there are many questions the voters of Taipei City should be asking. One concerns the quality of leadership offered by Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌). When it comes to quality, whether quality assurance, quality control or quality management, those familiar with the topic have probably heard of Philip Crosby, author of Quality Is Free. In that book, Crosby gives his famous maxim: “Do it right the first time.”
If a person, a company, a mayor, or the mayor’s staff does something right the first time, the cost of re-doing it or making repairs is unnecessary. In other words, quality is free.
Has quality been free in Taipei? This is an important question for city residents to ask as they look back over the past decade, that includes President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) eight year tenure as mayor, followed by Hau’s four-year term.
One does not have look very far to dredge up a long list of failed projects in Taipei. Ironically, Ma raised this issue himself just recently when the Maokong Gondola was re-opened after two years of repairs. Giving his standard perfunctory speech, Ma praised Hau for the quality of the work. Say what?
Did Ma forget how he and Hau were stuck in the sweltering gondola when it broke down on its opening day? Did he not remember the washed-out foundations of the pillars supporting it? The Maokong Gondola was initiated when Ma was mayor and completed under Hau. It was not done right the first time and many people remain hesitant to ride it.
Then of course there was the MRT’s Wenhu Line, an extension of the Muzha or Brown, Line; again, it was a project begun under Ma and completed under Hau. Perhaps we should not say “completed,” but rather “rushed to near completion,” because the original Matra system unfortunately failed to communicate properly with the newly installed Bombardier system.
Good planning? Not quite. Rushed decisions? No doubt. Done right the first time? No way.
Those who regularly ride the Brown Line are well aware of its many breakdowns and delays. How costly has that been? Even now, Taipei residents are still not sure that the line has been fixed once and for all.
It would be unfair to expect Hau to shoulder all the blame for the Maokong Gondola or the Muzha Line extension. They were both begun on Ma’s watch, but that leaves Hau in a tough position. Should he place the blame for the lack of quality on his predecessor or take responsibility for it himself?
Both Ma and Hau belong to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). It is not easy to admit the lack of quality is one’s own fault, but it is also problematic to blame the president.
There are many other examples of poor quality, but let us look at one that is more recent and clearly of Hau’s own making — the Dunhua South Road bicycle path. Those that live in that area well remember how both sides of the road were torn up for months to construct a lane for cyclists. It seemed like a good idea — someone got a nice fat contract to carry it out and Taipei cyclists were given a reserved and protected lane for their use. But then, well … there were complaints. It appears proper consultation procedures were not followed and that planning was incomplete. Guess what has happened to the bike lanes since.
Is quality free? Have things been done right the first time in Taipei? This is the tough reality that residents must face in upcoming election. Does anyone know the total cost, including repairs, of all the other projects initiated over the past 12 years under Ma and Hau?
Do the people of Taipei want more of the same? Quality should be free.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
On Wednesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) drew parallels between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under President William Lai (賴清德) now and the fascism of Germany under Adolf Hitler. The German Institute Taipei, Berlin’s de facto embassy in Taiwan, expressed on social media its “deep disappointment and concern” over the comments. “We must state unequivocally: Taiwan today is in no way comparable to the tyranny of National Socialism,” it said, referring to the Nazi Party. “We are disappointed and concerned to learn about the inappropriate comparison between the atrocities of the Nazi regime and the current political context