◎ Guo Suo
Taipei Mayor Chiang Wanan (right) recently went south to Kaohsiung to support Kuomintang Kaohsiung mayoral candidate Ke Zhien (left). On the stage, he strongly affirmed Kaohsiung's current development. (File photo)
Taipei Mayor Chiang Wanan went south to Kaohsiung on September 19 to stand on stage for KMT Kaohsiung mayoral candidate Ko Chi-en. He was supposed to tell Kaohsiung citizens "why political party rotation is needed," but what he said on stage was quite intriguing. Jiang Wanan said that Kaohsiung’s concert economy has been booming in recent years, and Kaohsiung’s progress must move from the stage to the alleys. After the media asked, he explained that urban progress cannot only depend on the concert economy. What’s even more interesting is that even Ke Zhien himself said that Chen Qimai encouraged him when he did well and admitted that “Kaohsiung has made progress in recent years.” In other words, in today’s KMT campaign, no one from the candidates to the supporters denied that Kaohsiung is making progress. In this case, voters can naturally ask: If the current governance does bring progress, what exactly does Ke Zhien want to change? What policies are better than now? This is the most basic policy argument before "replacement".
What’s even more embarrassing is that Jiang Wanan has repeatedly mentioned Kaohsiung when answering questions at the Taipei City Council in the past. Even Chen Qimai publicly stated the day before Chiang left that Jiang Wanan often mentioned Kaohsiung when answering questions, but he “didn’t seem to know Kaohsiung very well.” He was welcome to visit more. As a result, when Jiang Wanan really came, what he saw was not a city without development, but a city that even he himself admitted had a booming economy, advantages in semiconductors and manufacturing, and a city that Taipei and Kaohsiung could learn from each other. Politicians affirming the achievements of cities governed by different political parties should be encouraged. However, when Jiang Wanan is serving as Ke Zhien's candidate for this trip, he must add the most critical paragraph: Since Kaohsiung has developed worthy of recognition, in what specific indicators can the alternative plan proposed by the Kuomintang improve the current situation? Otherwise, there is still a lack of a complete causal argument between "Kaohsiung's progress is visible to everyone" and "Kaohsiung must replace people."
Please read on...
What Jiang Wanan should be more careful about is that when he compares urban governance, the same ruler will naturally return to Taipei. How much new urban competitiveness has been added to Jiang Wanan during his tenure, and what public governance issues still need to be improved. In contrast, Kaohsiung has indeed combined concerts, tourism, business districts and city marketing in recent years. Chen Qimai proposed on the 19th that the concert economy has created a cumulative output value of 18.9 billion yuan. Even Jiang Wanan admitted that this economic activity is quite prosperous. Therefore, instead of Jiang Wanan standing in Kaohsiung asking "What happens after the concert is over?" Taipei citizens can also send the question back to the mayor: how much consumption and city brand is left after the concert in Kaohsiung is over and the tourists leave, which can be tested with data; then, what new results have been left behind by Taipei's large-scale events, industrial policies and public construction in recent years that can also be quantified?
Jiang Wanan should answer the public about what measurable results Taipei’s large-scale events, industrial policies and public construction have left in recent years. The picture shows the Dome Mall. (File photo)
Perhaps the most intriguing thing is that Jiang Wanan seems not to mind that these remarks may in turn become test questions that Ke Zhien must answer. He came to help with the election, but he first affirmed that Kaohsiung has made progress; Ke Zhien wants to challenge the current governance, but he also acknowledges that Kaohsiung has made progress. In this way, the real choice before Kaohsiung voters should not be just the blue and green labels, but a concrete comparison of two governance lines: one side advocates continuing existing policies and dealing with unfinished issues, while the other side must prove that changing the governance team can produce better results. As for netizens jokingly calling Jiang Wanan "Green Wanan" and even questioning whether such a platform is helping the election or "leading the race", they can be regarded as political jokes; the real question worth staying is still Jiang Wanan's own words. Since you have seen the progress of Kaohsiung, please tell the citizens of Kaohsiung, why should we change the governance line that is improving? Please also come back to Taipei and tell the citizens of Taipei: While you have seen the progress of Kaohsiung, what new progress have you created for Taipei in recent years?
(The author is a freelance reviewer)
