The Taipei mayoral election is seen as a crucial battlefield in the five special municipality elections scheduled for the end of November. It will be a significant scalp for whichever party takes it, and much hinges on this battle, which will determine the success or failure of the Taipei International Flora Expo.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership has ordered all hands on deck to secure Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) re-election and has set up a task force to defeat his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rival, Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌). Even President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) joined the fray in the last few days. Hau should find the support of the party helpful, but in the end he has to save himself.
The KMT caucus and the Taipei City Government have been trying to dispel the cloud of suspicion brewing over the inflated prices of flowers and other items bought for the expo, but they have concentrated almost exclusively on diversionary tactics. The latest approach is to claim that the expo is about art and culture, which require purchases that cannot be made in the same humdrum way everyday office items are bought. That is disingenuous to say the least. Of course you cannot put a price on art, but that is no license for being frivolous.
Everyone knows the market sets the price of art, not the artists themselves. Who is the renowned artist or artists behind what the KMT would have us believe are the expo masterpieces? Who was the architect for the buildings and displays? And what of the individual purchases, at many times the market price? Did the money really find its way into the hands of the “artists,” or was it mislaid, pocketed by contractors or returned as kickbacks?
It is important that Taiwan host a successful international flora exposition. The question is how best to achieve this. The expo is supposed to highlight Taiwan’s indigenous flora, but the flower season is in the spring and summer. Hau, however, chose to open the expo in November to coincide with the elections. The majority of Taiwan’s native flora comes from the center and south of the island, not Taipei City, the political center of the country. The timing and location of the expo was chosen by the KMT to fit its own interests. It’s no wonder the DPP sees it as an easy target.
In a bid to help Hau, Ma accused the DPP of disloyalty to the nation, saying that spoiling the expo would hurt Taiwan, and not help the DPP. Yes, the public should unite behind an event that showcases the nation, but that doesn’t mean a blind eye must be turned to everything. There is right and there is wrong.
The budget estimate submitted by Hau’s team rose from NT$3 billion (US$94.5 million) initially to NT$7 billion, and some city councilors have now put the figure at NT$14 billion. The city government has taken responsibility for more than NT$9 billion. This use of public funds is unacceptable.
The Taipei City Government has tried to explain away the purchasing scandal by saying that the unit price of individual plants is irrelevant, as the tender was awarded to a contractor as a whole, and the contractor would delegate jobs to sub-contractors. However, even if estimates for each plant, individual projects, designs, souvenirs and ticketing were wildly far off the mark, it would still be difficult to believe that the total would come close to the overall cost reported. Even the lowest bid represents a huge waste of funds.
This is why the prosecutors had to be called in to investigate possible corruption. The real challenge to the success of the expo is the fact that the authorities involved thought no one would check their accounting.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers