The first month of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) tenure is not even over and city residents are already finding themselves on the bow end of a fast learning curve in politics and elections, as well as the resultant factors of decisionmaking, accountability and transparency.
That Ko is a surgeon with eleven years of emergency-room experience and practiced skills in organ transplants might influence his style. As such, unlike a traditional politician, he is used to the pressure and accountability of having to make split-second life-or-death decisions.
Thus it was no surprise that in his first weeks in office he announced the removal of bus lanes in front of Taipei Main Station and gave residents in Taipei’s Gongguan (公館) business area the right to choose whether to have certain lanes scooter free or not. Whether those citizens will come to regret their decision to allow scooter traffic there or not is in itself a lesson in accountability and responsibility for choices. They made the choice and have to live with it.
However, more important in his first month in office is Ko’s immediate questioning of how past city contracts seem to have been granted with little concern for accountability. “Ridiculous” is the term he used for the Taipei Dome contract which will see the city helpless to defend itself if Farglory Land Development Co does not deliver the goods on time or even reneges on parts of the contract.
Other projects, such as the Taipei New Horizon building in the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park, and the MeHAS City development project have fallen under a similar type of scrutiny, and this, if nothing else, has made the public realize how transparency has been lacking in the past.
Too much has been done without the public’s knowledge. Is this because former mayors and city councilors have been asleep at the wheel on numerous contracts? Has collusion been involved in the granting of plum contracts, or, even worse, have under-the-table payoffs been made?
Former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), who no doubt plans to run for president next year, is naturally upset at this scrutiny for it certainly reflects badly on his management abilities. It implies baggage that he would not want to carry forward to a presidential campaign.
Hau has challenged Ko’s examination saying that Ko has not considered all of the facts and has claimed that his administration can stand up to scrutiny, but is this true? The outcome will be known before next year.
There are already other practical examples on a smaller scale of what this is bringing to light. Those that live near Tun Hua Boulevard in Taipei might remember how under Hau Lung-bin’s mayorship the road was torn up to create a special bike lane. No sooner was the bike lane built than it was determined to be impractical and the road was returned to its original state.
The end result of all this was that traffic was disrupted and two large contracts were handed out both to build the bike lane and then restore the road to its original state. Who paid for that? Taxpayers did. Was it good transparent planning? That is what the public must ask.
Hau’s eight years of leadership are not the only ones under scrutiny. Ko’s actions have made citizens question why there was so little action in the previous eight years when now-President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was Taipei mayor. Lack of transparency and accountability, as well as dubious accomplishments over the past sixteen years were evident. However, where were the watchdogs? Where were the members of the city council? What took citizens so long to wake up?
One cannot deny that it was certainly a fortuitous choice or even a piece of luck that Ko chose to run as an independent candidate — thus removing himself from traditional party disputes and loyalties. One can only wonder and imagine what would have transpired with business as usual if former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) had been sworn in. There would probably have been no real questioning of Hau’s “dealings” just as there was no questioning of Ma’s dealings when Hau took over.
Does a new broom sweep clean? Perhaps, but this does not mean that all independent candidates should be elected by virtue of their simply being independent. True, in this case a fresh face, a new perspective and new ideals have proven here to be a way to break the deadlock of past stagnation.
One can certainly venture that the Taipei residents chose wisely and that Ko’s reception and penchant for action is being recognized. This does not give Ko a free pass in the upcoming years and it does not mean that he will not make mistakes, but his actions in his first month have been a welcome breath of fresh air.
This brings Taipei residents back to their learning curve. For here there are many other questions that they as well as city workers must ask themselves. Why have city workers indulged in apparent negligence over the past 16 years? Have they have been cowed into simply rubber-stamping and not questioning the many previous contracts that have been made?
While this soul-searching and recognition of a learning curve must continue, these are very positive and true signs of a developing democracy. Hopefully citizens continue this process and recognize the need to vote for more than just image or hackneyed party dogma.
It took a long while for Ma’s poor performance and 9 percent ratings as president to be brought to light as well as his pseudonyms “bumbler” and “Ma the incompetent.” This part of the voters’ learning curve was slow, but it did come.
As a result one senses from this that those planning on running for presidency next year had better be prepared for the scrutiny of this new type of citizenry.
Jerome Keating is a commentator based in Taipei.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with