Just 58 days after starting his job, 35-year-old Taipei City Government spokesman Lo Wang-zhe (羅旺哲) on Monday last week offered his resignation to Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) because of “health issues.”
Lo is the first member of Chiang’s administration to jump ship, and the main reason why he did so is that certain senior officials in the city government want to control its public relations.
On Jan. 16, Chiang inspected the Taipei Dome, which is nearing completion. After that, although Lo still held the title of spokesman, his official powers were in the hands of a “policymaking clique” made up of a handful of municipal policy advisers, and Lo found himself sidelined.
Meanwhile, infighting has been brewing within the city government, even if it seems like a storm in a teacup.
A certain coterie sees Lo as an outsider because he is not closely connected to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Not belonging to the same faction made it difficult for Lo to deal internally with the city government and externally with the media.
Meanwhile, Chiang has downplayed the issue of Lo offering his resignation after being sidelined.
However, Chiang’s spokesperson jumping ship casts doubt on the mayor’s leadership ability and weakens his administration’s momentum. Chiang needs to figure out why there is infighting in his team and intervene with no delay, because allowing such infighting to continue would prove that he is not competent to serve as mayor.
There are several reasons for saying so.
First, downplaying Lo’s resignation does not solve the problem.
A delegation from the Shanghai City Government visited Taipei from Feb. 18 to Monday last week, but its itinerary was not made public and was even suddenly altered on the first day, leaving reporters out in the cold and drawing heavy criticism from Taipei city councilors.
Lo and his close colleagues were not told about the new schedule, but Chiang’s administration still saddled him with the task of explaining the change to the media.
This caused Lo to feel under a lot of pressure. After that, Lo found himself sidelined. He did complain to Chiang about it, but the mayor downplayed the issue.
In effect, Chiang turned a blind eye to the infighting, whereas a good political leader should be able to create a secure working environment while communicating and resolving conflicts.
Second, the tiny size of Chiang’s decisionmaking circle and the cliquishness of the city government’s faction are not good for municipal governance.
When Lo resigned, he hinted at his true reason for leaving by saying that he hopes that his “resignation can allow the city government team to operate better.”
Evidently he had been restricted by some senior city government officials who are close to the KMT chairman.
Lo had his hands tied at every turn, from the content of his news statements to his replies to reporters’ questions, so finally all he could do was bid farewell to Chiang’s little group of decisionmakers.
Taipei residents, including those who voted for Chiang, might ask why all the power to decide policies in the city is in the hands of people connected to Chu. What does that say about Chiang’s ability to govern?
Third, if Chiang wants to put his team in order, the first thing he needs to do is to break down factional divides.
This is Chiang’s first go at being the head of a local government. So far, his way of dealing with conflicts is to downplay them. On the surface, this looks like the decent thing to do, but it is his way of putting things off. It does not really solve problems or fix the real issues that beset his team.
As a result, his team is not governing the city well. With the Taipei City Council starting its new session next month, councilors of all parties are busy sharpening their knives.
Chiang must learn from this bitter experience. He needs to reorganize his team, break down factional divides, intervene directly and communicate where necessary to challenge the culture of sidelining and infighting.
If he goes on downplaying these issues, it would only prove that he is unfit to serve as mayor.
Knight Chang is a political worker and doctor of education.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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