When presenting his energy platform on Wednesday last week, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) mentioned that during his time as Taipei mayor, he rejected a NT$1 billion food (US$31 million) waste treatment plant project, saying that he never had food waste when eating, and he wanted to train Taipei residents to not leave food waste.
This matter provides three insights into Ko.
First, he was meant to propose an energy policy, but did not do his homework on biomass energy and complacently exposed his ignorance on the issue. Taichung Waipu Green Energy Ecological Park — the first biomass power plant in Taiwan that has been operating since July 2019 — can process more than 50,000 tonnes of food waste each year and generate approximately 6 million to 8.8 million kilowatt hours of electricity.
Second, based on his own limited knowledge (he could not tell the difference between leftovers and kitchen waste), he vetoed a decision making process that should have been approached from a professional perspective (such as investment benefit analysis, alternatives, etc.). This also reflects Ko’s tendency to simplify complex things.
Third, it reveals Ko’s patronizing mindset of “I know better than others.” Ko’s narcissistic character is reminiscent of another political figure, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). After Taiwan’s presidential election in January 2016, China’s China Review News Agency commented that Ma was “narcissistic, selfish, suspicious and unkind. Ma should bear the most responsibility for losing the election.”
A poll conducted by a pro-blue TV station on May 13, 2016, just before Ma stepped down, showed that the approval rate of Ma’s eight-year administration was only 23 percent, which was actually the highest during Ma’s second term. At its lowest, his approval rating dropped to as low as 11 percent. Another TV station’s poll had it as low as 9.2 percent, which led to the ridiculing of Ma as “Mr Nine Percent.”
This narcissistic defeated general still feels good about himself today and frequently tries to “instruct” the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and even the people in Taiwan.
Ko is no better than Ma. As early as the first anniversary of his inauguration as Taipei mayor, Ko’s KMT rival, Sean Lien (連勝文), a KMT vice chairman, said that Ko was “extraordinarily narcissistic.” Ko responded at the time that “narcissism is not easy to change, but it is not very serious,” followed by, in trademark Ko style: “This is not narcissism, it is self-confidence. It is true that Ko can be overconfident sometimes.”
Many of Ko’s supporters “expect a rule-breaker,” and Ko is that person. Indeed, Ko will bring about change, but what is more important is what it will be changed into. The change (breaking the rules) might not necessarily be an improvement — it might also be a change for the worse. The narcissistic Ko has given the answer after eight years as Taipei mayor. Do we really need to bet our future on the narcissistic Ko again — this time, the future of the entire country?
Wu Hai-ruei is a manager of a listed company.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS