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.
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did