Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) has proposed reinstating 30 minutes of free YouBike rental. Shortly after, independent Taipei mayoral candidate Vivian Huang (黃珊珊) called the proposal a “blockhead” idea.
Is Huang’s criticism fair? It is true that Chiang is relatively inexperienced in politics, but the more important question is how competent a person is he.
In the Taipei mayoral TV debate, Chiang repeatedly bragged about being a “Silicon Valley lawyer.”
However, US professor Tario Ong (翁達瑞) has said that Chiang had been suspended from practicing law in the US three times.
United Microelectronics Corp (UMC) founder Robert Tsao (曹興誠) also roasted Chiang, saying that his work at a law firm of which UMC was a client only involved setting up files and delivering documents.
Crestfallen and disgraced, Chiang resigned as legislator to change the discussion and to show his commitment to becoming mayor.
His leadership abilities have been the subject of small talk.
In an interpellation session in the legislature, Chiang was left speechless by remarks by Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), and in a radio interview with television producer Wang Wei-chung (王偉忠) he was left tongue-tied, even though Wang kept feeding him openings to respond.
Huang’s criticism is fair if other proposals Chiang has made are also considered, such as a bus-seat reservation scheme, a “rides for squats” plan and air-conditioner rentals for classrooms.
On those issues, she was right. They were blockhead ideas.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) gives off the impression that he has his sights set on the Presidential Office, with little patience for distractions such as governing Taipei.
However, Chiang has a long way to go to prove that he is anything other than a pampered rich kid. As a Taipei resident, I have experienced eight years of stagnation under Ko, and I sincerely hope Chiang will not be the city’s next mayor.
Sophia Lee is a member of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath