Free speech》Oral eloquence requires more than just speaking! Being able to respond positively is real skill

In his book "Liu Zixin", Liu Zhou of the Southern and Northern Dynasties and the Northern Qi Dynasty has an article dedicated to the appointment of talents, which is worth pondering: talents and positions must be commensurate. Using a small talent in a big way may lead to disaster, while using a big talent in a small way is a waste of talent. This principle is particularly worthy of discussion when it comes to the Taipei mayoral election.

The Taipei Mayor’s Debate is about to take place, and Chiang Wanan will face the test of public debate. What exactly can this debate allow citizens to see?

First of all, it must be clarified: being good at eloquence does not mean that other talents are good, and being eloquent does not mean that you are good at governing. You cannot judge who is a great or a small talent based on just one debate. However, eloquence is by no means meaningless. Real debate requires quick thinking, nuanced observation, accurate judgment, and the ability to quickly grasp the core of the issue. When faced with doubts, being able to answer questions directly, express opinions clearly, and put forward persuasive plans are all indispensable skills for politicians.

Advancing policies often requires facing resistance from vested interests. Whether the government can explain the necessity and benefits of the policy so that the people understand and support it is an important test of its governance capabilities.

In a previous food safety incident, a member of Parliament asked whether Taipei City has tested the carcinogen benzenepyrene. Jiang Wanan asked, "Has Kaohsiung tested it?" This triggered a "Ask A, Answer B" criticism. Pushing the question back to the opponent does not mean answering the question, and gaining the upper hand for a moment does not mean winning trust. I really want to ask Mayor Chiang: "Taipei City has the most health and medical resources. Why is it that the vaccination results are at the bottom every year? Even counties and cities across the country are ranked first or second from the bottom?" Don't "ask A and A" and say that America is worse than Taipei City; and don't secretly change the concept and reply, "Don't insult our hard-working grassroots civil servants." Because the problem is that civil servants work hard but their results are not good. Is it the mayor and the director's problem?

Democratic debate is not about fighting in a ring. What citizens want to know is: Who knows more about urban issues? Whose proposed policy is feasible? Who can clearly state their claims from a public interest standpoint?

Four years of municipal experience is the most direct argument. If policies cannot be expressed concisely and concisely during the second term, and if faced with doubts and only rely on empty words or rhetorical questioning techniques to respond, citizens will naturally have reason to question whether "small talents can make great use of" and re-evaluate their governance capabilities.

Debate is not about talking skills, but about who can answer questions head-on and propose policies that are in the interests of citizens. There is no point in using the sophistry skills of the school debate club to challenge your opponents. The real victory is to make the people understand, convince and believe in your ability to govern the city well. Otherwise, eloquence will only become a disaster in the debate.