When media commentator Sisy Chen (陳文茜) expressed her view of the Taipei International Flora Expo in her weekly Apple Daily column, she brought up a few issues worthy of further discussion. The main thrust of her argument seems to be that excessive political interference in the expo has sullied an artistic event that could have brought a lot of positive attention to Taiwan, while at the same time hurting a lot of artists and engineers who have worked very hard to make the expo a success.
While Chen’s article may be reasonable and based on the evidence, I have a slightly different point of view, looking at the issue from the perspective of a member of the general public.
Regardless of whether it is used to highlight political achievements or to accuse political rivals of incompetence, the expo has been politicized to an extent that some may find excessive.
However, manipulation of the expo by politicians is one thing, whereas public concern over whether the expo is riddled with clums y irregularities that have wasted taxpayers’ hard earned money is another entirely.
Naturally, we all hope that the flower show will be a wonderful success that will give people around the world a great impression of Taiwan, but a successful event does not imply that there are not any shortcomings that need to be followed up on, nor does it mean that the general public should not question problematic details.
After all, every penny spent on the expo comes from the public’s hard-earned wages, so everyone has the right and duty to keep a close eye on how it is used and what the Taipei City Government is doing.
For example, why did it cost NT$88 million (US$2.85 million) to build five floral barges with old engines that have been in use for 20 years, when a Taiwanese boat builder whose luxury yachts are famous around the world estimated that he could supply similar floral boats for NT$2 million to NT$3 million each? Why did bamboo latticework huts used for rest stops, which the designer claims are “works of art,” cost NT$350,000, when they could have been made for between NT$120,000 and NT$150,000, according to one manufacturer? If the same thing can be bought at a lower price, why did the city government department responsible decline to do so? Was there some kind of special consideration?
The government is duty bound to respond to these and other questions and to explain to taxpayers how purchasing decisions were made, rather than having media pundits and businesspeople fend off the public’s queries.
Another odd thing is that Chen said this expo is the least expensive in history, while according to figures publicized by the Democratic Progressive Party, it is the most expensive ever. Who is right? I think everyone in Taiwan would like to know.
Let me repeat that what politicians and media pundits whose political leanings are well known think about the expo is quite a different matter from ordinary people’s expectation that the government should give a clear account of how their taxes have been spent to ensure there has been no waste.
Whether the expo is successful and whether there are any shortcomings in the way it is run are also two quite separate questions. It’s unreasonable to say that anyone who queries the purchase price of certain items is against the expo altogether, or trying to disrupt it.
When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says that attacking the expo is tantamount to undermining Taiwan, I, as a taxpayer, cannot agree. So many public construction projects over the years have wasted public funds. Who knows how many disadvantaged people would have been better off if that money had been used for their benefit instead.
If we, the public, do not keep a close eye on the government, it will give dishonest people the chance to line their own pockets. That would undermine Taiwan far more and for much longer than any negative comments about the flora expo.
Hsu Yu-fang is associate professor at National Dong Hwa University’s department of Sinophone literatures.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON AND JULIAN CLEGG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing