Since Taipei ended the YouBike 1.0 public bicycle sharing service on Dec. 3 last year, there are now only rental stations for the new 2.0 system in the city.
If residents of New Taipei City mistakenly ride the older system’s bikes to Taipei, they have no stations to return the bikes to. Initially, asking a system operator to return a bike incurred a fee of NT$350 (US$11.49).
However, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) and the newly elected city council abolished the fee after taking office on Dec. 25. Now, charges are only applied to the rental duration and time to return the bike to New Taipei City.
YouBike Co posted a record-high annual revenue of NT$360 million last year. It can easily absorb the cost of scrapping the transfer fee.
However, the fees that were collected during the month after the new system came into effect should also be refunded.
According to Taipei Department of Transportation data, at least 10 calls have been received every day asking for assistance to transfer bicycles of the old system, with most of the callers being residents of New Taipei City.
This number is certainly a big underestimate. Many more people must have quietly ridden their bikes back to New Taipei City to avoid paying the fee, causing them to waste their time and delay their itineraries.
A conservative estimate of 10 people per day brings the total amount overcharged during that month to in excess of NT$100,000.
The operator should take the initiative to return all the money to those affected, and the Taipei City Government should not use the relatively small amount owed to each person as an excuse for not doing the right thing.
The connection between Taipei and New Taipei City has evidently been less than seamless.
Now that former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who loves to talk about standard operating procedures, has left office, his “do what you have to do” policy of charging a transfer fee has been reversed.
With a new mayor in Taipei, New Taipei City now has new opportunities for cooperation with its neighbor, and scrapping the YouBike transfer fee would be a good step.
Chen Chang-jih
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS