At the presidential candidates’ debate televised on Wednesday, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) fell short of his usual eloquence, seemingly due to the controversy surrounding his recently revealed ownership of farmland in Hsinchu City. However, Ko still offered a few remarks in an effort to calm things down and preserve his priest-like image in the eyes of his faithful followers.
On the topic of housing justice, Ko criticized President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government for failing to reach its target of building 200,000 social housing units in eight years. Ko suggested that DPP presidential candidate William Lai (賴清德), who is vice president in Tsai’s administration, would not fulfill his campaign promise to build 1 million social housing units.
In contrast, Ko declared that if elected president, he, as the former mayor of Taipei, would extend Taipei’s “successful” experience in the realm of housing justice to the whole of Taiwan. Despite Ko’s confident assertion, anyone who has had an eye on Taipei’s governance would find Ko’s claim of “success” ludicrous.
Tsai’s target of building 200,000 social housing units in eight years ran into the problem that state-owned land is not all under the controlling power of the Ministry of Finance’s National Property Administration. Each county, city and municipality government retains a certain amount of such land and has the power to determine how land in redevelopment zones could be developed.
Consequently, the Tsai administration’s plan could not be accomplished by the central government alone, but only through the joint efforts of the central and local governments. Each local government’s attitude and willingness to cooperate has been a key factor in influencing the success or failure of the plan.
Looking back at the track record of Ko’s eight-year tenure as mayor of Taipei from 2014 to 2022, the results are disappointing, to say the least. On one occasion, Ko left then-commissioner of Taipei’s Department of Urban Development Lin Chou-min (林洲民) dumbstruck by blurting out that “social housing does not need to be so well-built.”
In terms of unit numbers, in eight years his administration only started or finished construction of about 20,000 units — far short of its 50,000 target. Furthermore, the quality of social housing construction was questionable, causing many inconveniences for tenants.
To make matters worse, the monthly rent for some social housing units was reported to be NT$40,000, causing social housing to lose its proper purpose of caring for the disadvantaged. All in all, Taipei’s social housing policies have been far from “successful,” and certainly not a template that Ko could apply to the whole of Taiwan.
If Ko understood the importance of housing justice, he would not need to wait for the presidential debate to present his policy plan. He should have done something about it when he was mayor of Taipei.
The problem is that during his eight-year mayorship, many Taipei residents voted with their feet by moving to New Taipei City or Taoyuan. This caused Taipei’s population to fall from nearly 2.65 million in 2019 to less than 2.5 million in Ko’s last year in office. Given this, how could his housing policies be called a success?
Ko is now embroiled in controversy over his speculative purchase of farmland in Hsinchu. As the saying goes, “Shave your own beard before you shave anyone else’s.”
Ko talks big, but his words cannot be taken seriously. On the contrary, they are just a big joke.
Roger Wu lives in New Taipei City and works in the service sector.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
Tomorrow is the 78th anniversary of the 228 Incident. On Monday, at a meeting with the Overseas 2-28 Survivors Homecoming Group at the Presidential Office, President William Lai (賴清德) spoke of the importance of protecting the nation’s freedom and sovereignty. The 228 Incident is in the past, but the generational trauma exists in the present. The imperative to protect the nation’s sovereignty and liberty from Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aggression will remain for the foreseeable future. The chaos and budget cuts in the legislature threaten the endeavor. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have worked together to