The Taipei mayoral election should allow for in-depth debate. Candidates propose policies, the media inquires, and citizens judge. In the face of audiences with different positions, whether you can explain things clearly is a test that candidates should accept.
However, Shen Fuxiong interpreted Shen Boyang's actions of accepting exclusive interviews with media from different positions to win over middle voters as a carefully arranged personality reversal, and even asked Jiang Wanan to "pull him down from the altar" during the debate. Does this statement point out which of Shen Boyang's policies are problematic, or does it count as a success as long as he is no longer popular? Candidates arrange interviews, select audiences, and prepare answers. What's wrong with this? Jiang Wanan cannot accept an interview without a strategy. If Shen Boyang is wrong, point out the error; if the policy is not feasible, provide counter-evidence. Just because your opponent answered well and the audience is willing to listen, you cannot interpret this as a package that must be removed. Shen Fuxiong's discussion has led the election campaign into a trap that is difficult to discuss rationally. Shen Boyang's sincere attitude can be said to be a deliberate performance; maintaining a smile in the face of attacks can also be said to be good at disguise. When any reaction of a person can be interpreted as scheming, comments lose the possibility of being tested by facts.
Even Zhao Shaokang once responded that the program will invite candidates from different camps, and the audience should judge whether the answers are good or not. The truth is not complicated: the media lets the candidate speak, and the audience has the opportunity to get to know him for themselves. Just because the opponent may gain support as a result, it does not mean that the host is doing the wrong thing. Shen Fuxiong repeatedly warned Jiang Wanan that the election situation was critical, revealing his uneasiness about the blue camp losing its dominance. This cannot directly prove Jiang Wanan's own mental state, but it has pushed an anxious multiple-choice question in front of Jiang: Should he rely on municipal performance and policies to convince voters, or should the campaign focus on damaging the image of his opponent? For a mayor seeking re-election, the most important answer should be what has been done during his term and what issues have not been resolved.
If responses increasingly rely on personality labels as opponents gain attention, voters will naturally feel the urgency to defend themselves. The originally gentle image will also be tested due to the way of attack. Negative campaigning is not entirely without merit.
Evidence-based exposure of dereliction of duty and questioning of policy contradictions can help voters make judgments. However, comments such as "not a kind person" do not explain the specific facts, leaving only doubts about personality. Foreign research does not support the simple formula of "the harder the attack, the easier it is to win." A comprehensive analysis by Lau et al. found that negative information is easier to remember, but it may not increase votes and may slightly weaken political trust. Just because the attacker gets a voice doesn't mean he gets recognition.
This is also where Shen Boyang's recent response deserves recognition. At least when faced with the insult "Ocean currents are dirty", he did not respond with the insult. Instead, he quoted the Tao Te Ching's saying "Those with great power are dirty", bringing the topic back to the flow of water and listening. This sentence comes from Chapter 61 of the Tao Te Ching. It uses the river downstream to gather crowds to illustrate the principles of being subordinate and being humble. Shen Boyang extended it to political participation, giving a sentence originally meant to humiliate people room for continued discussion.
"Upper" and "lower" are therefore worth rethinking.
If being upper class is just about status, family background and social status, then it is an external condition. The cultivation of a public figure still depends on how he treats his critics, especially how he treats ordinary people who have no power and are even insulting him.
The valuable thing about Shen Boyang's response this time is that he did not belittle the supporter in turn. The other party does not support him, but they are still the citizens he must serve if elected. Whether the candidate can remember this incident is more worthy of voters' attention than whether the retort is pleasant. Therefore, if we want to say that this response shows his "elegantness", I would like to understand it as having words and deeds that are measured. But we don’t need to use this word to differentiate between two groups of voters. I affirm Shen Boyang's demeanor precisely because he did not accept the way of distinguishing people by humiliation.
This confrontation is not enough to predict the outcome of the election, nor can we judge governance ability by relying on a single ancient proverb. But it offers an observable moment: How does a candidate respond when offended? Does he allow conflict to escalate, or does he keep the possibility of dialogue open? Taipei City is particularly suitable to discuss this issue in depth. This city has rich educational resources, as well as conditions for diverse media and public discussion. Citizens have the ability to distinguish between policy criticism and character humiliation, and they also have reasons to demand better arguments from candidates.
The so-called standard of a city is reflected in what we are willing to listen to and ask. For Shen Boyang, one can inquire into his policy financial resources and implementation methods; for Jiang Wanan, one can examine his administrative achievements and unfinished responsibilities. Both sides should be held to the same rigorous standards. If Shen Fuxiong believes that Shen Boyang is not trustworthy, please provide evidence that is sufficient for the public to judge. Just asking him to be removed from the altar cannot answer how Taipei will be governed in the future. Shen Boyang deserves recognition for his restrained response to the insult this time. Next, what Taipei needs is to continue this discussion on policy, let the candidates speak clearly, and let the citizens ask the questions to the end.
