Something smells in Taipei — and it’s not the 25 million flowers and plants purchased to decorate the city for the upcoming flora expo. Rather, it is Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) scrambling to explain why the city paid 30 times market price for the greenery to a contractor with ties to his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration. In recent days, investigators have also uncovered what appears to be the overpricing of building materials. It is ironic that Hau initiated the multi-billion-dollar project to boost his re-election bid in November.
Meanwhile, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) is basking in public acclaim now that the man suspected of killing an alleged gangster in May has turned himself in. Hu had prayed publicly for the gunman’s capture and said that with each passing month he felt he had no choice but to resign. With the culprit now behind bars and awaiting trial, all is well with the world. To celebrate, the minister of the interior and the director-general of the National Police Agency visited Taichung last week to offer their congratulations.
Needless to say, Hu is also up for re-election. Otherwise, what possible reason would there be to rejoice that a young man still in his teens will likely spend most of his life in prison, especially given that he was merely the triggerman, hired by others to commit a murder for which they will probably never be tried. The youth is a scapegoat for the fact that Taichung remains the organized crime capital of Taiwan, despite Hu’s long tenure as mayor.
What is worse, the case came to public attention not because it involved one gangster killing another. That sadly is all too common. What attracted the national media was the four police officials who had been playing majhong with the victim yet made no effort to stop the crime or catch the shooter. Instead they hid under a table before fleeing the scene.
Nothing in Hu’s triumphalism suggests an answer to the most important question. What were senior policemen doing consorting with an alleged gangster?
Hau has benefited greatly from the KMT’s standard damage control strategy, the methods of which are all too familiar — blame low-ranking officials, but keep penalties mild to avoid infighting; distract attention from embarrassing details such as corruption with lurid ones — murder for example; display publicly both deep regret and passionate determination to reform; establish an official commission of inquiry under party control (Hau chairs Taipei’s anti-corruption taskforce) and then, wait. Nothing better serves a government in power than a public with a short memory.
What we are witnessing here is not KMT arrogance, as it has been called, so much as the kind of sloppy corruption that comes from an inbred sense of entitlement in a party that has ruled both cities for far too long. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) city councilors are to be commended for spotting budget irregularities associated with the flora expo. The media too has done an excellent job in presenting the information to the public, which for the moment at least seems to be duly incensed.
However, if Taichung is any indication, this will not last. More must be done, and for longer. Above all, the DPP candidate for Taipei mayor, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and his colleague Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全), who is running for Taichung mayor, must give voters a credible and viable alternative to Hau and Hu. They must also demand genuine political accountability.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
Taiwan’s leading position in the global semiconductor industry is not, as some claim, based on misconceptions, a result of “stealing.” It was built upon formal, transparent and costly technology transfer agreements between the Taiwanese government and US enterprises half a century ago. According to the oral history of Hu Ding-hua (胡定華), a pioneer in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, the origin of Taiwan’s integrated circuit (IC) technology dates back to the “IC pilot factory” in the 1970s. The implementation of this project fully complied with international commercial standards and legal procedures. First, the project completed formal contract signing and payment. In 1975,