Taoyuan Mayor Simon Chang (張善政) traveled to campaign for Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國梁). Chang said that to safeguard the shared community among Taipei, New Taipei City, Keelung and Taoyuan, Keelung residents should not support the recall vote against Hsieh. He said that the mayors of these cities are like family, with a profound and tight-knit relationship, and that he hopes they are able to maintain the current state of cooperation.
Keelung residents are unlikely to share Chang’s sentiment. The core value of democracy is that power lies with the people, but Chang has misinterpreted that. Keelung residents motioned for a recall vote because Hsieh’s administrative performance following his election was a great disappointment. The people lost trust in him, but how will the identity of the mayor affect the shared community across Taipei, New Taipei City, Keelung and Taoyuan?
Would this shared community be taken away or not be provided anymore if the mayor changes?
Is Chang’s statement meant to threaten the residents of Keelung?
There seems to be an implication that Keelung residents should tread lightly. If they pick a mayor from a different political party, Chang might not be willing to cooperate with them and Keelung’s future development might be affected.
The mayor of one of Taiwan’s six special municipalities is supposed to be a dignified position, but his words seem to be threat and intimidation disguised as a political declaration. Perhaps his own political aspirations have been thwarted, but he certainly should not expect that Keelung residents would agree with him and oppose the recall vote.
The definition of a shared community is one that prioritizes the welfare of the people, allows districts across county and city lines to mutually integrate, and provides people with the convenience of shared governance. How could the tone change so quickly just because the mayor of one city changes?
This attitude belittles the statements of the other mayors and is furthermore a great disrespect to the residents of Keelung.
Chen Chi-nung is a political commentator.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS