◎ Shen Yuming
The dignity of Congress is established by professionalism, political integrity and respect for people, not by correcting other people's clothing. When Lai Hui turned the parliament scene into a "clothing and grooming inspection" and responded to Jia Yongjie's explanation with "Do you want to continue the debate?", what did the people see, was it the professionalism of supervision or the arrogance of power?
On October 14, Jia Yongjie went to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Yuan for consultation, but member Lai Hui asked her to dress as plainly as everyone else next time. When Jia Yongjie tried to explain what she was wearing, she received a reprimanding question. This confrontation, which had nothing to do with business content, turned a discussion of public affairs into a lecture on personal aesthetics.
Legislator Lai Huiyuan (right) was dissatisfied with the outfit of 101 Chairman Jia Yongjie (left) and asked her to be "simple", sparking discussion and later publicly apologizing. (Photo taken from IG, file photo, synthesized by this newspaper)
Of course, legislators can strictly inquire about Taipei 101’s business performance, public share governance and public responsibilities, and they should also require those who ask questions to give clear answers. But why should "whether it matches my dressing sense" become the criterion for measuring whether the other party respects the Congress? Without clear and consistent norms, the so-called "simplicity" is just personal preference cloaked in power.
What Jia Yongjie deserves to be seen is not only her beauty and outfit, but also her elegance and high EQ when facing pressure. Faced with the sudden comments about her clothing, she chose to explain her position; this showed an attitude that was neither humble nor overbearing. Being elegant doesn’t mean you have to be silent, and having high EQ doesn’t mean you should accept unreasonable lectures. Respecting Congress and safeguarding one's own dignity can be accomplished at the same time.
Her beauty and style are expressions of personal aesthetics; her professionalism and leadership abilities have concrete results that can be tested. In 2025, during Jia Yongjie's tenure as chairman, Taipei 101's annual revenue reached 6.636 billion yuan and after-tax net profit was 2.843 billion yuan, with both revenue and profit hitting record highs. This is the overall achievement of the Taipei Financial Tower Company, covering businesses such as shopping malls, office leasing, and observation decks. It is also the result of the joint efforts of her and the management team.
What Jia Yongjie wears has nothing to do with her abilities. During her tenure as chairman in 2025, Taipei 101's annual revenue reached 6.636 billion yuan and after-tax net profit was 2.843 billion yuan, both record highs. (File photo)
Of course, this achievement does not mean that we can avoid supervision, but it is enough to bring the discussion back to its essence: can growth be sustained? Is the business strategy sound? How does the team perform? How can companies implement public welfare and social responsibilities into concrete actions? These questions can help evaluate a chairman’s professionalism and leadership.
Having the courage to make breakthroughs, not being afraid of noise, and being willing to accept reasonable supervision are workplace attitudes worthy of recognition. Personal aesthetics, professional execution and public responsibility can coexist. The way a jacket is worn cannot negate the team's efforts, nor should it replace the substantive discussion of business results.
What is particularly disappointing is that Green Camp legislator Lai Huiyuan actually reprimanded Jia Yongjie on her personal dress standards and suppressed the other party's explanation in a condescending tone. This kind of interaction raises questions: After Lai Hui has power, will he also copy the authoritarian culture that restricts women and form "female elite bullying"?
Just because a woman is in a high position does not mean that there will be no gender bias. Using clothing to discipline women and using power to deny the other party’s space for interpretation is exactly the kind of chauvinistic thinking that deserves vigilance. Gender equality cannot be just a political slogan, but should also be about respecting the choices and dignity of others. This kind of public lecture on the imbalance of power cannot be dismissed lightly by Lai Hui with a "kind reminder".
President Lai Ching-te subsequently issued a statement emphasizing that personal style should be respected, and professionalism and seriousness should not be judged solely by clothing. This statement also highlights the gap between this incident and the values of freedom and pluralism.
President Lai Ching-te also issued a message afterwards, emphasizing that personal style should be respected, and professionalism and seriousness should not be judged solely by clothing. (Excerpted from Lai Qingde Threads)
Later, Lai Hui said that the incident was not based on clothing to judge personal abilities at the beginning. He also admitted that the expression was inappropriate and said that he would deeply review it. These follow-ups should be explained truthfully, but her explanation still does not answer the core question: Since clothing has nothing to do with ability, why was Jia Yongjie asked to dress "simple" at the inquiry site? When the other party tries to explain, why is the explanation regarded as "justification"?
"You have no ability to judge by your clothes" and cannot rationalize the clothing instructions on the spot. What the outside world is questioning is why she turned her personal aesthetics into a requirement that those who inquired must accept, and why her power to host meetings was not accompanied by due restraint. True self-reflection requires a positive admission of inappropriate words and deeds, and an answer to the question of whether power has crossed the line, rather than just emphasizing that one had no malicious intent.
This is also a public relations crisis worthy of vigilance. When politicians are busy explaining their true intentions but do not fully face the harm caused by their words and deeds, a personal gaffe may expand into a crisis of trust for the entire DPP. Admitting that you made a mistake is just the starting point, and subsequent changes are the key to repairing trust.
The DPP does not need to rely on Lai Huiyu, who replaces professionalism with arrogance and responds to legislators with different styles with contempt, let alone condone chauvinistic clothing instructions. Mr. Lai Hui's performance this time lacked due professional distinction and also exposed his ignorance of the value of pluralism. If the DPP cherishes freedom, equality and respect, it should clearly condemn Lai Huiyuan’s words and deeds and ask its public opinion representatives to reflect on and improve, instead of allowing Lai Huiyuan’s arrogance to continue to erode the public’s trust in the DPP.
Lai Huiyuan later made a video to emphasize that he had no malicious intent, but he was still criticized by netizens. (Extracted from Lai Huiyuan’s Facebook)
When the people elect legislators, they need someone to seriously deal with public issues. A truly weighty political inquiry should allow the people to see the problems and solutions, rather than subject the inquirer to reprimands that have nothing to do with business.
Facing 2028, Tainan’s first district deserves new choices and legislators with better professionalism and political quality.
Respect and professionalism are the most indispensable basic skills for representatives of public opinion; the dignity of Congress should also be built on respect and professionalism.
