In less than three months and for the first time, Taipei City is to elect a new mayor with no administrative experience in running a government. Such a unique phenomenon explains why there has been less passion and sparks between opposing campaigns in the capital. It also displays an essential need for voters to request that the candidates present clearer policy platforms and visions.
Taipei is well-known for having more pan-blue Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) supporters than pan-green Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) backers. However, KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) has been trailing independent candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has the DPP’s backing.
According to the latest polls, Ko is leading Lien by double digits in electoral support. Most importantly, Ko is also outperforming Lien in terms of favorability. Not only have more people revealed their preference for Ko, but more people believe Ko will win the election. This constitutes an unprecedented challenge to the KMT. If Ko wins, he will unfold a new era of electoral politics in Taipei.
Despite it being a municipal election, the low approval rating of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration’s incompetent governance have affected Lien’s campaign.
Facing Ko’s play to establish a bipartisan “major league opposition camp,” Lien should have distinguished himself from Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) by presenting a different leadership style and better blueprints to voters. Lien should have introduced a new and progressive vision for Taipei after 16 consecutive years of KMT governance. He could have sent a message to younger voters saying he can inject new thinking into the KMT’s aging political culture. However, he did not, and Ko has won more support from younger voters.
The fact that Hau’s performance has long been ranked as the worst among the nation’s mayors and governors by Global Views Monthly magazine shows that Hau’s successor should look to turn around the outgoing mayor’s poor governing and offer feasible alternatives to convince voters. That Lien did not do so gives voters the impression that he endorses the “status quo” established by Hau and Ma, who served as Taipei mayor previously. It looks as if there will be a continuation of policy rather than change if Lien is elected.
For example, Lien overemphasizes the need to make Taipei a better place for international investment. He also pledged to improve the city’s global competitiveness.
However, what most voters care about is making Taipei a more livable place. Offering an affordable public housing system is one of the essential campaign issues that Lien and Ko have been debating.
Lien proposed moving the Taipei First Municipal Funeral Parlor to the Sanzhuku Sanitary Landfill Site in Nangang District (南港) and building a public housing complex at the parlor’s current site.
The idea has met with criticism from city councilors across party lines. Some said the landfill site, which was transformed into an ecological park that opened last year, has only one access road, stressing that transportation would be a major problem if the mortuary was moved there. Even KMT councilors were against the plan. It shows a lack of assessment and coordination between Lien’s camp and the KMT as a whole.
Lien also proposed to increase YouBike stations and widen cycle lanes. However, the problem for Taipei cyclists is not the numbers of stations, but a safe and integrated bike route network.
Ko’s camp is also facing scrutiny from voters over its policies. For example, Ko intends to redefine Taipei’s bus and bike routes, but has failed to address potential inconvenience it might bring other commuters.
Due to Lien’s and Ko’s lack of governing experience, it is important for voters to ask the candidates to outline feasible policies, instead of painting rosy but impractical pictures of the future.
Leadership is a dynamic tension between where a leader thinks the city must go and where voters want it to go. Bold initiatives that leave residents behind are not acts of leadership, but of self-indulgent arrogance. A reform-minded agenda that lacks determination and action to realize it is nothing but election-time rhetoric.
Also, the two candidates should refrain from mudslinging, which could reinforce voter perceptions of the candidates’ irresponsibility.
Liu Shih-chung is president of the Taiwan Brain Trust.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS