The Taipei City Government will undoubtedly trumpet the fact that the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) 2013 Global Liveability Ranking ranked the city as 61st in the world and as one of the 10 cities to have the most improved scores over the past five years. It is worth noting that the annual survey looks at 140 cities around the world, most of which are nation capitals, to determine which provide the best or the worst living conditions. It is not a scientific measurement by any sense of the word.
The survey is biased on favoring a middle-class view of the world. Who else would be worried about the availability and quality of private education and healthcare, and the quality of international links?
The survey was originally intended as a way of determining what benefits companies should provide to their expatriate workers. It still includes indicators for climate and “discomfort of climate to travelers,” which are areas that no city anywhere has yet achieved control over. Yet the EIU ranking is now used as a boasting right by the top 10 cities, when the truth is that there are just a few degrees of difference between cities on the top half of the list.
The EIU says rankings between 80 and 100 means there are few, if any, challenges to living standards. It would appear that the top performers are medium-sized cities in wealthy countries that have a low population density — Tokyo, at 94.7, is the obvious exception. Australia has four cities in the top 10, while Canada has three.
Taipei earned a score of 83.9 by adding up its ratings from 30 questions that are broadly grouped into five categories: stability, which accounts for 25 percent of the ranking; healthcare (20 percent); culture and environment (25 percent); education (10 percent) and infrastructure (25 percent).
The skewering of the scale can be seen in Taipei being nearly 10 points ahead of Beijing, with a score of 74.9, and not that far off New York City, with 86.6, and London, with 87.2. The EIU says a rating of between 70 and 80 means that day-to-day living is fine, but the editor of the report, Jon Copestake, said two years ago that a score below 80 would prompt a recommendation of “some sort of hardship allowance for visiting workers.” It takes a war or widespread civil unrest to earn a spot at the bottom of the list, like Damascus, which placed last this year.
Taipei has held the No. 61 spot for three years and the city government is surely wondering what it can do to advance the ranking. Considering the vast improvements made in the past two decades to the city’s infrastructure — the Mass Rapid Transit system, the introduction of bus lanes, more parks, bike lanes and recreational facilities — coupled with environmental advances such as reduced air pollution and better waste disposal, it would appear that it has made a very good start in these areas.
However, some things are largely out of the city’s control because they are nationally based, such as education, healthcare and censorship. As for the stability category, Taipei has a relatively low crime rate, an area where city policies could have an impact, but it cannot do much about the “threat of military conflict” or “threat of civil unrest/conflict,” because both of those are dependent upon our humongous neighbor across the Taiwan Strait.
However, while Taipei is home to many white-
collar expatriates, city officials should remember that the EIU’s liveability ranking does not include some basic factors that matter to most residents, such as pollution, noise, interaction with bureaucracy and availability of public housing. These are all areas that need a lot of work, especially housing. The issue of sustainability is also becoming more important.
Officials in Taiwan are often obsessed with gaining international credibility. Given the nation’s diplomatic isolation, this is understandable. Yet if officials want to make the city better and more livable to the people that matter most, they should start with those five issues.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations