Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is under fire again for making controversial comments, which is nothing new, but his behavior should still be scrutinized and addressed, as he is an elected public figure.
No matter what his reasons, his words still often set a bad example for society, especially children.
In the latest incident, Ko was questioning the Central Epidemic Command Center’s (CECC) purchase of a batch of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines that are to expire at the end of this month.
However, unhappy with Centers for Disease Control Deputy Director-General Chuang Jen-hsiang’s (莊人祥) response, Ko allegedly asked if Chuang’s IQ was below 70.
After this set off a storm in the media, the Taipei City Government tried to explain that he actually said: “Does he think my IQ is lower than 70?” and that his mask and background noise obscured his words.
This is Ko’s typical response: justifying his actions rather than addressing problems.
Ultimately, it does not matter which version is true. The former is obviously more offensive, but neither is okay. This is not a random number Ko blurted out, an IQ of below 70 is an indicator of intellectual disability. Either way, it is hurtful toward those who do score in that range, many of whom lead productive, happy lives and have their own opinions on the government.
Some might even be working for Ko at Taipei City Hall.
The comments are especially troubling as Ko, a former surgeon, often touts his IQ of 157.
However, as most highly intelligent people have learned — often the hard way — smarts do not always translate to success.
If IQ is everything, why is Ko constantly offending people?
In a society where academic prowess is still at times seen as a prime indicator of a person’s worth, comparing IQs — especially in an offhand, out-of-context remark — does not help to defy this faulty mindset.
Long gone are the days when students were assigned class numbers according to their pre-semester aptitude scores, and schools have been pushing against over-glorifying test results. Even so, a superiority complex associated with people of high intelligence remains an issue.
Ko’s behavior will not change. It has not affected his popularity much, as he was re-elected in 2018.
However, his latest outburst is still a good opportunity to teach people an important lesson. Many public figures are holding him accountable — explaining why IQ is not everything and why such remarks can be offensive.
Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) was among the first to sound off, saying that modern society values well-rounded human beings, not just those with high IQs.
Physician Tan Che-kim (陳志金) said that people are tired of Ko frequently mentioning his high IQ, adding that it is an indication of deep insecurity.
Hsieh Tsung-hsueh (謝宗學), another physician, shared a story about how he was almost sent to special education classes as a child, but he worked hard on his academic and public speaking skills to fulfill his goal of becoming a doctor.
As TV anchor Chang Ya-chin (張雅琴) put it: “I want to tell my audience, especially children, please do not follow Ko Wen-je’s example. When you disagree with someone, you should never question their IQ.”
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS