The three major candidates running for Taipei mayor in the Nov. 26 local elections — Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), former minister of health and welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) of the Democratic Progressive Party and independent former Taipei deputy mayor Vivian Huang (黃珊珊) — faced off in a SET-TV and TVBS debate on Saturday last week.
Throughout the debate, there were a few stammers and slips of the tongue from all three, presumably due to nerves. When the TVBS representative asked the candidates if they would “promise not to run for a second term” if they failed to carry out their own social housing policy, they all shunned the question.
In the order of each candidates’ turn in the debate, I would like to review their performances.
Chiang started off by talking about properties in Taipei being the oldest in the nation, with an average age of more than 30 years, followed by the issue of sub-replacement fertility and lastly acknowledging the services provided by people from all walks of life, especially delivery drivers, during the COVID-19 pandemic. He ended his speech by directing seven questions at Chen.
Chiang’s performance was fairly decent, and some might even argue that it exceeded expectations. Compared with Chen and Huang, Chiang was able to deliver his speech without glancing at his notes most of the time, while his gestures reflected confidence and preparedness.
His only flaw was his evasion of Chen’s remark regarding “strategic voting,” a proposal put forward by Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康). Jaw had proposed that anti-DPP supporters should all vote for Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Legislator Ann Kao (高虹安), who is running for Hsinchu mayor, in exchange for allowing Chiang to be elected as Taipei mayor. As it was a veritable hot potato, Chiang had little choice but to try to sidestep the question.
Chen adopted President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) “safeguard Taiwan, resist China” strategy in a wider sense.
He started his speech by questioning Chiang’s ancestry and national identity, and then made the creative move of inviting Chiang and Huang to watch the movie Untold Herstory (流麻溝十五號) now showing in theaters. Appealing to people’s hearts, he emphasized that it pained him to think of the lives lost to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Basically, Chen’s strategy has worked in consolidating the DPP’s “iron votes,” but he erred when coming under attack from Chiang and Huang, as he did not offer detailed explanations in response to their criticisms and remarks.
Huang told the viewers that she aspires to be the first female Taipei mayor. She positioned herself as a third option, presenting people with the choice of not getting caught between the DPP and the KMT, and their antagonism.
From the perspective of local borough wardens and appreciative residents, she said that she is the only candidate who is “ready to go” — the one who is most familiar with municipal affairs due to her experience as the deputy mayor.
She also drew supporters’ attention to the fact that she has neither a prestigious background nor the support of a political party.
Huang’s strategy could be said to have incorporated a defense and an attack. The only flaw was that she could not evade criticism about failing to solve the traffic problems in Nangang (南港) and Neihu (內湖) districts when she worked as a Taipei city councilor for those districts.
Hu Wen-chi is former vice chairman of the KMT’s Culture and Communications Committee.
Translated by Rita Wang
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS