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
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS