Free Speech" non-reading competition for the mayor of the capital city. Courage to face is the key to success.

◎ Liao Minghui

The two-hour televised debate on the Taipei mayoral election has come to an end. What Taipei citizens should remember most is not that Huida, the Big Dome and fresh milk were mentioned several times, but two completely different ways of speaking. Jiang Wanan organized the municipal government into a performance list, while Shen Boyang turned citizens' questions into test questions that the city government must answer. On the surface, it is a battle to defend the mayor, but in fact, it is asking whether Taipei City needs to continue bureaucratic management, or to rediscover the vitality of citizen participation in governance?

The Taipei mayoral election debate ended on October 31. Chiang Wanan (left) organized the municipal administration into a performance list, while Shen Boyang (right) turned citizens' questions into test questions that the city government must answer. (File photo) Shen Boyang opened the show by greeting Jiang Wanan, who was sick, and then talked about urban life from his memories of growing up in Wufenpu without reading the script. There are pauses and turns in his speech, and he can respond impromptuly when questioned. He is more like a person thinking than acting according to pre-written lines. Jiang Wanan's argument was like following a manuscript, reading out the Big Dome, Huida's entry into Beishike, transportation construction, and childcare benefits. Although these policy achievements are worthy of recognition, we cannot just pick good-looking figures. For example, can citizens waiting for urban renewal, childcare and road improvements also find themselves on this report card?

Shen Boyang's strength is not only that he doesn't read manuscripts, but that he knows where to look for problems. He proposed to use artificial intelligence to sort through more than three million 1999 petitions and collect opinions through online platforms, street soap boxes and municipal debug offices. Although these methods may not guarantee correct policies, they bring about new power relations; citizens do not have to wait for elections to be heard, and the city government cannot always be responsible for announcing answers.

The attack and defense of the eggplant tree in Dongmen Market particularly illustrates the differences between the two in municipal management. Shen Boyang asked where the tree protection procedures failed and how to prevent recurrence; Jiang Wanan refuted the results of tree canopy coverage and tree planting, and said that his opponent's statement was untrue. However, the number of trees planted in the city cannot replace the explanation of how to deal with individual cases. Governance is not just about showing total performance, but also about being able to take responsibility and repair the system after making mistakes.

The attack and defense of the eggplant tree in Taipei's Dongmen Market particularly illustrates the differences between the two in municipal management. (File photo, taken from Hong Wanzhen’s Facebook) The same goes for the battle over attendance at major meetings. Jiang Wanan said that for major cases, ad hoc meetings will be convened immediately, and there is no need to stick to routine meetings. This is reasonable, but ad hoc case handling and regular supervision are not an alternative. If the prevention and treatment of child abuse is only decided by the chief minister after an incident occurs, who will be responsible for early warning and tracking on weekdays? The mayor may not be required to attend every meeting, but he must clearly explain the authorization, supervision and accountability mechanisms.

Jiang Wanan also asked about Shen Boyang's pain points. He questioned the feasibility of Songshan Airport based on flight height restrictions, child care manpower and dual tutor system, which is not without purpose. How many nannies and teachers will be added, where the money will come from, and when the standards will be met are the real tests of governance. If Shen Boyang wants to allow citizen innovation to enter the city government, he cannot just say that it will be launched on a trial basis first, but he must also come up with cost, schedule and effectiveness indicators later. However, Jiang Wanan's rapid questioning of his opponent's political statements from many years ago can test the consistency of his stance, but it also takes the focus of the municipal government out of focus. Shen Boyang said, "You go back and be a legislator, and I'll be the mayor." He brought the battlefield back to local governance. When he invited another debate on the spot, he made a humorous request to continue to be tested publicly. In the face of attacks, being able to explain problems in natural spoken language is Shen Boyang's most distinct advantage in this campaign.

Being the mayor of the capital is not a reading competition, and not reading the manuscript does not mean you will be able to govern. However, whether you can leave the pre-written answers and answer questions that are not in the question bank reveals a person's attitude towards power. In the next four years, Taipei should not just let the city government's performance list become thicker and thicker, but also allow citizens to wait less for no response. The mayor's real achievement is not how much he can recite, but whether he has the courage to admit that he has not done it well and can change it for the better.

Taipei Mayor Chiang Wanan recently put forward the idea of ​​relocating Songshan Airport and raised issues such as flight height restrictions during the debate. (File photo) (The author is an assistant researcher at the China Economic Research Institute)