The results of the recent nine-in-one elections came as something of a shock to everyone in Taiwan.
Much of the ensuing debate has centered upon the new Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) phenomenon, following Ko’s victory and the subsequent whirlwind he has created. After all, what we have here is a person with no political experience, no people behind him, no resources to speak of and no political party supporting him behind the scenes, in a very brief period of time whisking away the powerful Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Lien (連) family dynastic political juggernaut and turning Taiwanese politics on its head.
And it was not only in Taipei that this phenomenon was felt: It also spilled out into other cities and counties around the country. True, the issue has already been much discussed, and many have put in their two cents’ worth. Still, there are a few points that bear further emphasizing.
First, the concepts of open government and transparency of information, and how the two are to be practiced, are worth remarking on. This is because government wields power in the public sphere, which it dominates and has a monopoly over, and the inefficiency of monopoly and minimum contribution to social well-being are well-documented in economic theory. Even more so, asymmetry of information is detrimental not just to consumers, but also to the public in the political sphere.
A more open government and transparency of information should allow for joint participation in the political process by the public, so that everyone can do their bit as part of the group for the greatest benefit of society as a whole. After all, the residents of a city should understand that it is the collective possession of everyone who lives in it, and that they should all play an active role in how it is run. People have become accustomed to the idea of “big government,” and became dependent. The “One City, One Family” motto offers the possibility of changing this.
Of course, habits were not formed overnight, and once they have taken root, changing them will be no easy thing. In the way that Ko formulated and ran his campaign, and in the way he made important information public, we can see a real “can-do” approach. That is certainly not to say that overturning the current situation would be simple, but where there is a will, there is a way.
Second, an open and transparent government means truth and honesty, while the trajectory of our society is, unfortunately, very much in the other direction. Besides the “blue-green” divisions, we also face serious ethnic, class, gender and inter-generational tensions, and insincerity, mendacity, selfishness, self-interest and greed are all pervasive and present. It has got to the point where you have to look over your shoulder at every pass. Things need to get better, not worse, but the majority of people have already lost faith.
Ko won the favor of the electorate by basing his campaign on goodwill and in changing the culture and values of society, and by not making empty promises. He held to these principles throughout, and worked hard, winning himself recognition among voters in the process.
Third, Ko is well aware that few people are perfect, and people will always get things wrong. He also knows that you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs: It is by making mistakes that you know what needs to be improved. He is quite happy, then, to make suggestions and to proffer opinions, and to invite others to be critical and indicate their preferred path. After all, public service is all about people, and you cannot please everyone all of the time.
This is where communication and finding agreement come in, and why harmony is so important. The role of government is to referee, to create a harmonious environment in which communication is possible. It cannot be referee and a player at the same time. It also has to ensure that all parties to the discussion are sincere.
As far as the conventional wisdom that says the mayor ought to be cautious in what he says and not go shooting off his mouth is concerned, does it really matter if everyone is invited to discuss a policy before it is fully formulated? Should not everyone take an active interest in public matters? Surely, the more people that participate in the process, the better. Why does this have to be a matter of concern?
There is no reason, then, for Ko to be anybody other than himself now that he is mayor. He does not need to suppress his nature. Why should he have to mold himself to the style of traditional bureaucrats? However, while statistics can be used in decisions involving pathologies in individuals, they should not be used for those concerning public affairs. In such cases, prudence is certainly advisable.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that in last month’s elections, four doctors were elected as city or county heads. The US Republican Party also has a doctor as a rising star, and he is a strong candidate for the White House. Is this generation witnessing a sea change in politics?
Wu Hui-lin is a researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS