With the November special municipality elections approaching, there are many questions the voters of Taipei City should be asking. One concerns the quality of leadership offered by Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌). When it comes to quality, whether quality assurance, quality control or quality management, those familiar with the topic have probably heard of Philip Crosby, author of Quality Is Free. In that book, Crosby gives his famous maxim: “Do it right the first time.”
If a person, a company, a mayor, or the mayor’s staff does something right the first time, the cost of re-doing it or making repairs is unnecessary. In other words, quality is free.
Has quality been free in Taipei? This is an important question for city residents to ask as they look back over the past decade, that includes President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) eight year tenure as mayor, followed by Hau’s four-year term.
One does not have look very far to dredge up a long list of failed projects in Taipei. Ironically, Ma raised this issue himself just recently when the Maokong Gondola was re-opened after two years of repairs. Giving his standard perfunctory speech, Ma praised Hau for the quality of the work. Say what?
Did Ma forget how he and Hau were stuck in the sweltering gondola when it broke down on its opening day? Did he not remember the washed-out foundations of the pillars supporting it? The Maokong Gondola was initiated when Ma was mayor and completed under Hau. It was not done right the first time and many people remain hesitant to ride it.
Then of course there was the MRT’s Wenhu Line, an extension of the Muzha or Brown, Line; again, it was a project begun under Ma and completed under Hau. Perhaps we should not say “completed,” but rather “rushed to near completion,” because the original Matra system unfortunately failed to communicate properly with the newly installed Bombardier system.
Good planning? Not quite. Rushed decisions? No doubt. Done right the first time? No way.
Those who regularly ride the Brown Line are well aware of its many breakdowns and delays. How costly has that been? Even now, Taipei residents are still not sure that the line has been fixed once and for all.
It would be unfair to expect Hau to shoulder all the blame for the Maokong Gondola or the Muzha Line extension. They were both begun on Ma’s watch, but that leaves Hau in a tough position. Should he place the blame for the lack of quality on his predecessor or take responsibility for it himself?
Both Ma and Hau belong to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). It is not easy to admit the lack of quality is one’s own fault, but it is also problematic to blame the president.
There are many other examples of poor quality, but let us look at one that is more recent and clearly of Hau’s own making — the Dunhua South Road bicycle path. Those that live in that area well remember how both sides of the road were torn up for months to construct a lane for cyclists. It seemed like a good idea — someone got a nice fat contract to carry it out and Taipei cyclists were given a reserved and protected lane for their use. But then, well … there were complaints. It appears proper consultation procedures were not followed and that planning was incomplete. Guess what has happened to the bike lanes since.
Is quality free? Have things been done right the first time in Taipei? This is the tough reality that residents must face in upcoming election. Does anyone know the total cost, including repairs, of all the other projects initiated over the past 12 years under Ma and Hau?
Do the people of Taipei want more of the same? Quality should be free.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
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