YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 【國昌直播SP】來聊聊台北市長辯論

【國昌直播SP】來聊聊台北市長辯論 — Transcript

by 黃國昌 · 19,537 words · 3,479 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

10:33Hello, good evening to all our viewers.
10:37Welcome to our grand review of the first
10:40debate in the 2026 battle for the
10:41capital.
10:43>> A grand review, super, super, super.
10:47Alright, let me explain why we’re
10:48hosting this review today.
10:53I’m sure that on every TV channel, the
10:56green media is all about "Shen winning,
10:58"
11:00>> And the blue media is all about...
11:02>> An,
11:02>> An's big vic...
11:03>> Victory. Now that we've finished talking
11:05about "An's big victory," so...
11:09>> As Taiwan’s most important third-force
11:11party, the Taiwan People’s Party wants
11:13to provide everyone with the most
11:14objective, neutral, and in-depth
11:16analysis.
11:19>> Because we aren't just sharing personal
11:20opinions, we’ve also conducted some
11:22fact-checking today.
11:23>> That’s right.
11:24>> And through this fact-checking, we’ll
11:26provide you, our viewers, with the most
11:28objective information.
11:30Let me first introduce our two very
11:32important guests.
11:35On my left is someone whose wife I would
11:37never dare to offend, Hsu Chiao.
11:40Sorry, I wouldn't dare to either. Hello
11:42everyone, I’m the candidate for City
11:45Councilor of Songshan and Xinyi, Hsu Fu
11:47, number 6, 666, all smooth sailing!
11:49Hello everyone.
11:50On my right is the former strongest and
11:53boldest spokesperson for the Taiwan
11:54People’s Party, and the candidate for
11:56Zhongzheng and Wanhua, Wu Yi-hsuan.
11:59>> Hello everyone, I’m Wu Yi-hsuan,
12:00candidate for Zhongzheng and Wanhua,
12:03number 4.
12:03>> Welcome, both of you.
12:05>> Are you both Taipei citizens?
12:06>> Yes.
12:07>> Of course.
12:09If you weren't, we'd have a bit of a
12:10problem.
12:12Unfortunately, I’m the only truly
12:13neutral one here today.
12:16Because I’m a New Taipei citizen, I
12:18can't vote for the Taipei Mayor, but
12:20both of you can.
12:23Alright, today I originally planned to
12:25have a "Red vs. Blue" showdown.
12:27>> Because our Chairman, and by that I mean
12:30our boss Ko Wen-je,
12:31>> Ko Wen-je always says that when we
12:33approach an issue, we should first have
12:36a "Red vs. Blue" confrontation.
12:39>> So, I intended to pick one person to
12:41represent "Shen Po-yang wins."
12:44And the other to represent "Chiang
12:46Wan-an wins."
12:50I wanted a "Shen Po-yang wins" team and
12:52a "Chiang Wan-an wins" team, so I could
12:54watch them argue during our review, each
12:57explaining why their position is correct
12:59.
13:03However, however, however, however,
13:05however, however, today’s afternoon
13:07debate can only be described as a "
13:09total disaster."
13:11Why call it a disaster?
13:15The reason is that just now, as the
13:17impartial organizer, I tried to
13:19coordinate these two to decide who would
13:21take which side, "Shen Po-yang wins" or
13:24"Chiang Wan-an wins."
13:27And this coordination meeting almost
13:29turned into a physical brawl.
13:31>> It’s ruined.
13:31>> A total breakdown.
13:32>> Ruined.
13:35Can you each explain the reason for the
13:36deadlock?
13:39>> It's not this; this silence is the
13:41answer, because when the professor, the
13:44chair, just asked us, we were silent too
13:46.
13:47>> Right, absolutely right.
13:48>> Each harboring their own hidden agenda,
13:50wondering how I can get it.
13:52>> Yes, how to get chosen for the one I
13:54want.
13:55Wait, the other side—but I suddenly
13:57wonder, Professor, would you like to
13:58jump in and take on the challenge? You
14:01play the judge, and the two of us...the
14:03difficulty is so high.
14:04>> You—because you are a professor.
14:06>> The difficulty is so high.
14:07>> You are a professor.
14:08>> Although I am, although I once was.
14:10>> We want to see your masterful debating
14:12skills.
14:13>> Oh my, oh my.
14:15>> Can you be the opposing judge?
14:17>> See, the professor's silence also
14:19represents an answer.
14:20>> Alright, the silence is here.
14:21>> Mm, the answer is all right here.
14:23>> I'll give it a try.
14:25I'll give it a try, I'll give it a try.
14:29Anyway, it's quite interesting today;
14:31there's that green media...
14:34>> Oh.
14:35>> The ones earning appearance fees.
14:37>> Green media pundits earning fees came
14:39out to urge everyone.
14:40That debate isn't worth watching.
14:42>> Yes, that Motel Chang, Motel Chang.
14:46>> Motel, hey, he's called "Motel Chang" on
14:48Threads, because at any time, no matter
14:50what he posts, people in the comments
14:52will bring up the things he did at the
14:54motel.
14:56And Motel Chang is cool today; when the
14:58debate ended, I was ready to see him
15:00write, "Oh, our Shen...Po..."
15:02>> Won.
15:03>> Won like a god, as expected of the
15:05surname Shen; Shen Po-yang. But no, he
15:07told us a cruel truth; he said don't
15:09watch this debate, it's ugly and boring
15:11.
15:13Better to watch our Shen Po-yang at the
15:15pride parade instead.
15:17>> And I think it's great.
15:18>> Are you saying the parade is less boring
15:20?
15:20>> No, I'm talking about the debate, the
15:22debate.
15:22>> It was quite entertaining.
15:24>> But I don't know, I don't know what
15:25state of mind he's in to think, "Oh,
15:27it's better to go watch the pride parade
15:28," while he's watching this debate and
15:30finding it too boring; what is the point
15:32of it being boring? Because he might be
15:33thinking, "It's over, I have an
15:34appearance coming up; how am I going to
15:36talk about this?"
15:37>> Because even he probably can't come up
15:38with anything to say in defense—wait,
15:40actually, wasn't it Shen Po-yang who was
15:42clamoring for a debate at the beginning
15:43?
15:43>> Not just one; wasn't it three, four, or
15:46five? How many?
15:47>> I think after the first one, he probably
15:49won't...
15:50>> Hope for a second one.
15:51>> We are really looking forward to a
15:53second one.
15:53>> Perhaps they want to appeal, maybe
15:55appeal...
15:56>> Oh, it’s like losing at mahjong.
15:58>> When you've lost until you're down to
16:00your underwear, nobody is allowed to
16:01leave.
16:02>> I’m going to appeal until the end.
16:05>> Alright.
16:07Since today is a very serious and
16:09shocking commentary, I ask you both to
16:11hold back your smiles.
16:13>> We won’t.
16:14>> Because today, during my commentary, I
16:17will test how familiar you both are with
16:19Taipei's municipal affairs. Wait, didn't
16:21you say the main point was just to
16:23provide company? We’re just here to keep
16:24you company, are we really going to talk
16:26?
16:26>> I mean, we kept you company during your
16:28premiere, and we’ll keep you company
16:29during your shows.
16:30>> The most important thing is the company
16:32, didn't you see it today? Shut up.
16:34>> Teacher, do you want to add us on LINE?
16:37Add us on LINE, add a friend.
16:40>> I actually want to add Lai Ching-te on
16:42LINE more.
16:44>> I don’t know if I’ve waited that long.
16:46>> Right. Isn't that right? The dignified
16:48chairman of the Democratic Progressive
16:49Party.
16:50>> He’ll add you and then block you right
16:51away.
16:53>> Okay, never mind.
16:54Today, I am essentially acting as a
16:57moderator,
16:59>> guiding the two of you to comment on the
17:01debate you watched,
17:04>> and within this debate,
17:05>> I want to test your familiarity with
17:07Taipei's municipal affairs.
17:09>> Familiarity with Taipei's municipal
17:11affairs is very important.
17:12>> Yes.
17:14Is it really that important?
17:15>> It is.
17:16>> Of course it's important. It should be
17:18very important.
17:20Looking at the performance of a certain
17:22mayoral candidate today, some might say
17:24it’s not important, but it is, because
17:26your familiarity with Taipei's municipal
17:28affairs and your observations on what
17:29the two of them discussed in the debate
17:31matter.
17:35Before we even started this program, we
17:37already wasted a full eight minutes on
17:39nonsense.
17:45Before we officially begin, editor,
17:46please show the format of this
17:48afternoon's mayoral debate on the screen
17:50, because we really value structure.
17:55Hmm.
17:57>> I always prepare before I do anything; I
17:59definitely don't just turn on the phone
18:01and start a random livestream.
18:04It’s absolutely not like that.
18:06And this afternoon...this afternoon...
18:09>> Our team verified everything.
18:11>> Wow.
18:12>> It's thick and packed.
18:14>> It’s all here in my hands, thick and
18:16heavy.
18:17>> But when we came here today, we thought
18:19it would just be a casual chat, not a
18:20stack of documents on the table that
18:22scared the living daylights out of us.
18:25It’s mainly divided into four parts:
18:27first, opening statements of eight
18:29minutes each; second, cross-examination
18:31with eight questions. For those eight
18:33cross-examination questions, there's one
18:34minute to ask and two minutes to answer
18:36. What's more interesting is that
18:37there's an additional one-minute
18:39follow-up question and a one-minute and
18:4030-second answer. So in total, there are
18:42eight questions, there are eight
18:44questions in total.
18:48We have listed those eight topics,
18:50including urban renewal, pet-related
18:52issues, abuse cases, drunk driving, and
18:54the Songshan Airport SOP.
18:59>> There are two media questions, one from
19:01TVBS and one from SET News. And finally
19:03, each person gets six minutes for their
19:05concluding statement.
19:07Do you know what surprised me the most
19:08about today's capital mayoral debate?
19:11What?
19:12>> What?
19:14>> I was shocked to see someone actually
19:16pick up a script and read it during
19:17their conclusion.
19:19Are you talking about a teleprompter?
19:21Someone was reading from a script.
19:22>> Did you guys see any insider details?
19:26>> Weren't they supposed to be eloquent and
19:28great debaters, and then that...
19:30>> No, Professor, last time you...
19:32>> A certain mayoral candidate, the mayor
19:34himself, came to your...
19:36>> When he was on your livestream, people
19:38said he kept looking at the prompter on
19:40his iPad and that he was reading a
19:41script, but today it seemed he didn't,
19:43but the other person did.
19:44>> The "black bear" candidate, he just
19:46picked it up and read it. Right, he
19:47basically told everyone, "I don't need a
19:49teleprompter.""I really don't need a
19:51teleprompter, because I'll just pick it
19:53up."
19:54>> It's just that his staff printed the
19:55font too small, so he had to pick it up
19:57to read it.
19:58>> They should print it bigger next time.
20:01>> So, we will provide an analysis from
20:03these four parts, and before we start
20:05today...
20:10>> Please, both of you, hold up your
20:12whiteboards for everyone to see.
20:15>> Okay, bye-bye. The whiteboard is blank.
20:17>> Clean, a completely blank slate.
20:20>> I’d like you both to give your overall
20:21scores for the two mayoral candidates.
20:24>> Yes, scores.
20:25>> Overall rating from 0 to 100, is 60 a
20:27passing grade?
20:28>> Oh, 0 to 100, okay.
20:30>> Zero.
20:31Is 60 a passing grade?
20:33>> Oh, name, then score, right? Name and
20:36score.
20:36>> Yes, yes, exactly. This is a very
20:39serious matter.
20:41Because in a moment, I’m going to
20:43challenge you on how you reached those
20:44...
20:49Some people say this is a very
20:51rebellious show, is it aggressive?
20:54>> Huh?
20:54>> Aggressive.
20:55>> No, no, they probably think we’re super
20:58biased.
20:59>> Professor, you know when I arrived today
21:01, I imagined there would be popcorn
21:03chicken or some big meal, and we’d eat
21:05and chat, just laughing and joking, but
21:07wow, not at all.
21:08>> You completely don't understand my style
21:10.
21:11When have I ever hosted a food show?
21:13When have I ever hosted a food show?
21:16>> My assistant even told me this afternoon
21:17, since I didn't eat until 3 or 4 p.m.,
21:19"Don't eat too much, there will be food
21:21to eat at the Professor's place later."
21:23>> Your assistant is overthinking.
21:25>> Coming here hungry.
21:26>> Your assistant clearly didn't do their
21:28job well.
21:28>> Oh my god.
21:30>> Tell them not to come to work tomorrow.
21:33>> Are they not keeping up?
21:34>> Alright, let's reveal the answers.
21:37Hurry up, you need to flip it over first
21:39. Should I flip mine too?
21:40>> Yes, yes, exactly. Alright.
21:43>> I'll start with the person on the left.
21:46Looking at these scores, I can tell Hsu
21:48is a nice guy.
21:49>> Yes, I am a nice guy.
21:50>> Hsu Fu is a nice guy.
21:52>> He is a nice guy.
21:53>> Wu Yi-hsuan is sharper.
21:56>> Wu Yi-hsuan is sharper. One is a nice
21:58guy, one is sharp.
21:59>> One is a nice guy, one is sharp.
22:01>> Right. One is a nice guy.
22:03>> I'm done for; this is too biased, really
22:05.
22:06>> Don't you think?
22:06>> Alright. It's fine, it's fine.
22:08>> Okay, okay, it's fine, really. Because
22:11didn't they all say they'd leave it to
22:12the citizens to score them?
22:14>> Are you a citizen?
22:15>> I am a citizen, absolutely.
22:17>> Are you a citizen?
22:18>> Exactly, so you both have the right to
22:20score.
22:21The only one here without the right to
22:23score is yours truly.
22:26>> Alright, let's start with the first part
22:28of the opening statements.
22:31Regarding the opening statements, who
22:33speaks first today, Chiang or Shen?
22:35Today.
22:37>> The statement starts with Shen speaking
22:39first.
22:40>> Shen speaks first. In his opening
22:42statement, he mentioned,
22:45>> He mentioned some of his own growing-up
22:47experiences.
22:49>> Yes.
22:49>> And then,
22:50>> appealing to emotion.
22:53>> Then he said there are many municipal
22:55issues that need to be handled well, and
22:57he said he believes in "citizenism."
23:01>> This city has citizens before it has a
23:03mayor.
23:05This term, actually.
23:07>> Mm.
23:08>> It's often used in past mayoral
23:10elections.
23:12I'm actually quite surprised he would
23:14use such a cliché.
23:17>> But, but, but what surprised me the most
23:19?
23:20>> Mm.
23:21>> What surprised me the most is that he
23:22mentioned school lunches.
23:23>> Mm.
23:24>> Mm.
23:25He mentioned school lunches during his
23:27opening statement.
23:30Alright, let me quiz the two
23:31councilor-candidates.
23:33>> May I ask.
23:34>> Yes.
23:36>> What exactly is the "three regulations
23:38and one certificate" for school lunches
23:40?
23:41>> Three regulations and one certificate.
23:43>> Yes.
23:43>> What is the "three regulations and one
23:45certificate" for school lunches? Wait,
23:48wait, wait, stop.
23:50Please respect the host's right to lead
23:51. How do you implement the "three
23:53regulations and one certificate"?
23:55>> This is the question Shen Po-yang raised
23:57today.
23:57>> Come on, how do you do it? Hsu, please
23:59answer first.
24:00>> I can't do it. "Three regulations and
24:02one certificate," I can't do it,
24:03councilor-candidate.
24:04>> Wu, please, you can't do it well either
24:06.
24:06>> You are really role-playing that aspect
24:08of Shen Po-yang's performance.
24:11>> You're already interpreting him. No,
24:12wait, you just said
24:14>> Honestly, I even have the transcript
24:16ready; you are already interpreting him
24:18.
24:18>> This is definitely what he said, right?
24:20It's not a rule, it's "three rules, one
24:22sheet," right?
24:23>> Fellow netizens, I am being responsible
24:25. I even have the transcript ready. I've
24:27done the fact-checking; may I ask what "
24:29three rules, one sheet" is about?
24:31>> It just doesn't exist.
24:32>> I haven't heard of such a term, sorry.
24:34>> Yes, it's really not a thing, and what
24:36on earth is "three rules, one chapter"?
24:38>> Fine, then I believe it must be a slip
24:40of the tongue. Uh, okay.
24:41>> So it's three sheets, then?
24:43>> It must be a slip of the tongue. What's
24:44really being addressed is the issue of
24:46three EQ sheets.
24:47>> Three EQ sheets.
24:48>> The issue of three EQ sheets.
24:51>> Why did I say that his mention of school
24:53lunches surprised me?
24:56Because today, as a neutral host, I can
24:58responsibly report to all our netizens.
25:01Legislator Bo-Yang has never cared about
25:03the issue of school lunches in the
25:05Legislative Yuan.
25:06>> Not even once.
25:08>> Not even once.
25:09I'll say it again, he has never cared
25:11about the issue of school lunches.
25:14>> Really.
25:15>> Uh-huh.
25:16>> He brought up something very important
25:18today, saying he would formulate a
25:19municipal ordinance for Taipei school
25:21lunches in the future,
25:23>> Uh-huh.
25:25>> And then, let the price be able to, with
25:27inflation,
25:28>> Make adjustments.
25:29>> Make adjustments.
25:30>> Hmm.
25:32>> Looking at his proposal, I only have
25:34four words.
25:35"Grandstanding."
25:36Why is it grandstanding? It's not that I
25:39oppose it,
25:40>> I support it,
25:41>> But why is it grandstanding?
25:43>> Because do you know?
25:44>> This matter of a specialized school
25:46lunch law,
25:47>> Hmm.
25:48>> The DPP first proposed it in 2019.
25:51>> Hmm.
25:51>> At that time, I was in the Legislative
25:53Yuan, and they promised to enact a
25:55specialized school lunch law.
25:56>> Hmm.
25:57>> It is now 2026.
25:59>> This year. 2026.
26:02>> Everyone can go fact-check 2019.
26:07>> Back in 2019, the DPP advocated for the
26:09Ministry of Education to value student
26:11lunches and enact a forward-looking
26:13school lunch law.
26:17>> Hmm.
26:17>> This is news from March 4th, 2019, and
26:20it's already 2026 now.
26:22>> Exactly.
26:22>> Why, by 2026, has the specialized school
26:24lunch law still not been completed?
26:26>> Hmm, and isn't Shen himself a legislator
26:28?
26:29>> And back in 2019, the DPP had full
26:31control.
26:32>> Now I need to play a role.
26:33>> It's because you "Blue-White" coalition
26:35are obstructing and causing chaos.
26:36>> Obstructing and causing chaos again, not
26:38surprised.
26:38>> From 2024 to now. Oh, 202...
26:42>> From 2024 to now, aren't you Blue-White
26:44in the majority?
26:45>> Hmm.
26:45>> You didn't pass the school lunch law,
26:47how can you shift the blame to the DPP?
26:50>> There were five years between 2019 and
26:522024 with full governing power.
26:54>> Yeah.
26:56Why do I feel so exhausted tonight,
26:58jumping back and forth between the pros
27:00and cons?
27:02>> The Taiwan People's Party has been
27:04consistently pushing for a School Lunch
27:05Act in the Legislative Yuan.
27:07>> Yes.
27:08>> Regarding the School Lunch Act recently
27:09.
27:10Oh, the Education and Culture Committee
27:12meeting was adjourned three times and
27:14couldn't continue the discussion.
27:17>> It couldn't get out of committee.
27:18>> Hmm.
27:20>> Do you know who is boycotting it?
27:22>> The Democratic Progressive Party.
27:24>> Hmm. It's all the DPP.
27:26>> Uh-huh.
27:27>> It's all DPP members boycotting the
27:29School Lunch Act, let me explain it to
27:31everyone.
27:33>> There are 14 members in the Education
27:35and Culture Committee.
27:36>> Hmm.
27:36>> Hmm.
27:37>> Seven members from the DPP.
27:38>> Uh-huh.
27:39>> Six from the KMT, and one from the
27:40Taiwan People's Party. One.
27:42>> Member, yes.
27:43>> The only ones who would schedule the
27:45School Lunch Act.
27:46Are the KMT conveners.
27:49>> Hmm.
27:50>> Our former member Liu Su-ping also
27:52scheduled it when she was a committee
27:53convener. Uh-huh.
27:55>> But when a convener chairs, the vote
27:58count becomes, what, 7 to 6?
28:00>> Hmm.
28:01>> 7 to 6.
28:02>> Uh-huh.
28:03>> With 7 to 6, it's very easy for the DPP
28:05to boycott. Don't discuss or process it
28:07today,
28:07>> directly move to adjourn, yeah.
28:10>> That's how they boycott it; do you
28:12understand what I mean?
28:17>> But Shen Po has made a historic
28:18contribution
28:22>> to the School Lunch Act passing out of
28:23the Education and Culture Committee.
28:25>> Oh.
28:26>> Really, it has passed out of the
28:27committee now.
28:29>> Do you know who deserves the most credit
28:31?
28:32>> Who? Shen Po.
28:34>> Because he's the leader?
28:36>> No.
28:37>> Because he took Wu Szu-yao.
28:39Hmm.
28:40>> And Chen Pei abroad, they went abroad,
28:43so that's why.
28:45>> So the DPP lost two votes in the
28:47committee suddenly, I see.
28:49>> The proceedings went smoothly, they went
28:51smoothly.
28:52>> They were suddenly short two votes.
28:54>> It went smoothly.
28:56>> And at that time, because I had been
28:57following this bill,
28:59>> I told Xiao Lo, Xiao Lo is Legislator Lo
29:02,
29:03>> he was the convener of the committee
29:04last session.
29:06>> I told Xiao Lo, "Now's our chance, it
29:09finally passed what?"
29:12It finally passed the Education and
29:14Culture Committee, and in this School
29:16Lunch Act that the DPP kept boycotting,
29:17there is a provision that actually
29:19implements Shen Po's campaign promise.
29:23>> Hmm.
29:24>> So Shen Po is essentially copying the
29:26School Lunch Act from this committee.
29:28>> Can't say copying.
29:29>> Can't say copying, learning from.
29:31>> A good system.
29:32>> We all do it together.
29:34But what is my confusion? My confusion
29:36is, this system is so good.
29:38>> Why does the DPP have to boycott it in
29:40the committee?
29:41>> Right.
29:41>> The School Lunch Act. The DPP needs to
29:44stand up and clarify this themselves.
29:47>> But we will continue to do what needs to
29:49be done.
29:50>> We will continue our work, and we will
29:52keep pushing this bill forward in the
29:54Legislative Yuan. Yes.
29:55>> As for when the Nutritious School Lunch
29:57Act will be brought to the plenary
29:59session,
30:00>> please stay tuned. The Taiwan People's
30:02Party will continue to make efforts,
30:05just like, just like
30:07>> last, or rather this week, our
30:09drug-impaired driving,
30:11>> driving
30:12>> aggravation matter.
30:13>> It seems it was also discussed today.
30:15>> Regarding the drug-impaired driving
30:16aggravation, we completed the third
30:18reading this week.
30:19This is also something that the Taiwan
30:21People's Party, under our insistence,
30:24>> has accomplished.
30:25>> But do you know that yesterday, when
30:27dealing with drug-impaired driving,
30:29>> hmm.
30:31>> Shen Po—is he against it or for it?
30:34He talked about proportionality today,
30:36but yesterday, his attitude wasn't clear
30:38, because he wasn't even present during
30:40the vote.
30:41>> Exactly, he wasn't there at all.
30:43>> He ran off.
30:44>> He ran, he ran.
30:45>> He ran.
30:46>> He ran. Is it because he ran that the
30:48Legislative Yuan went smoothly and it
30:50passed the third reading?
30:52>> Whether he wants to approve or oppose,
30:54he could have exercised his right to
30:56express his opinion, or even abstained
30:58on-site.
30:59But why did I see the scene where many
31:01legislators didn't know what was
31:02happening, and were told, "Everyone out
31:04, out, out," and they all ran out?
31:06>> Mm-hmm. I think for drug-impaired
31:08driving, what I want to say is, starting
31:10from the beginning of this year...From
31:12the end of last year to the beginning of
31:14this year, seeing endless cases of
31:15drug-impaired driving, people getting
31:17injured or killed on the road—at that
31:19time, everyone said we must handle this
31:21strictly, we must develop laws. Then,
31:22now it's already past October, and when
31:24we finally submitted the bill, I really
31:26didn't understand why the only person
31:28from the DPP to vote against it
31:29yesterday was Chuang Jui-hsiung.
31:31>> And the others all ran away.
31:32>> Only he was there.
31:33>> Why would one oppose drug-impaired
31:34driving, especially for repeat offenders
31:36? Uh, that, death...
31:38>> How did he talk about this today?
31:40Actually, it's just a "hindsight"
31:42statement. After he finished saying his
31:44piece, he basically contradicted himself
31:46. We also have a fact-check transcript
31:48here, saying something like, "
31:50Drug-impaired driving is already murder
31:52, which is currently punishable by the
31:53death penalty, so the sentencing for
31:55fatal drug-impaired driving is worth
31:57discussing." He said in the first part
31:59that it's already the death penalty, and
32:01then in the second part he wants to
32:03discuss how to determine the sentencing
32:04; it's just an empty, infinite loop.
32:06Then, he kept emphasizing the principle
32:08of proportionality, saying that
32:10prevention is better than cure. Of
32:12course, prevention is better than cure,
32:14and that is what we hope the government
32:15will do, but the premise of prevention
32:17should also include heavier penalties so
32:19that this issue is taken seriously. I
32:21think the most important point here is
32:23that they dare not take a stand.
32:26>> During the mayoral election process,
32:28everyone chose to be absent as a silent
32:30form of protest.
32:32But the problem is, when you are asked
32:34to actually declare whether you support
32:36or oppose it, they cannot say it.
32:38No one dared to be as serious as Chuang
32:40Jui-hsiung in addressing it. Since he
32:42had so much to question, to speak about
32:43the city government, and to speak about
32:45Chiang Wan-an's thoughts on
32:46drug-impaired driving, why didn't he
32:48just state whether he supports it or
32:49opposes it? Why didn't he go into the
32:51chamber to vote? He couldn't say.
32:54Right, I still want to ask the professor
32:56later, because I saw their argument is
32:58that this issue was just thrown out
33:00crudely without any discussion, and
33:02there was no proper, careful
33:03deliberation at all.
33:05But personally, I feel that driving
33:07under the influence is already
33:09inexcusable, and then you hit and kill
33:11someone, especially if it’s a repeat
33:12offense within the year.
33:14I believe that a maximum penalty of the
33:16death penalty meets social expectations
33:18, and I can't figure out why.
33:20>> They don't support it. Why don't they
33:21support it? Is it because it’s a bill
33:23proposed by the DPP, so they don't
33:24support it? So professor, was there
33:26really no discussion? They feel they
33:28were forced into it.
33:29>> Right, they said there was no discussion
33:30.
33:31>> This is exactly what Pao-yang Shen is
33:33best at, which is cognitive warfare.
33:37>> Mm.
33:38>> He is a master of cognitive warfare.
33:41>> Why do I say this is cognitive warfare?
33:44He says:
33:46>> It’s being pushed through without
33:47discussion.
33:48>> Mm.
33:49>> Let me ask everyone a question.
33:51You can all go to the Legislative Yuan's
33:53IVOD to watch yesterday's plenary
33:54session.
33:56Regarding the amendments to the Criminal
33:57Code.
33:58>> Mm.
33:59>> Articles on drug-impaired driving and
34:01drug-impaired driving resulting in death
34:03.
34:03>> Mm.
34:05>> When that bill was being discussed in
34:07the second reading at the plenary
34:08session, I’ll ask one simple question.
34:12Did Pao-yang Shen go up to speak?
34:15No.
34:16>> No.
34:17>> Did Pao-yang Shen go up to speak?
34:20What does "without discussion" mean?
34:22What does "without discussion" mean?
34:25Everyone will find that, mm.
34:27>> Each party only sent one person to speak
34:29.
34:30>> Mm.
34:31>> Come, I will continue to show you, look
34:33, this is the party caucus consensus.
34:36>> It has Tsai Chi-chang's signature on it
34:38. It has Chuang Jui-hsiung's signature,
34:40and Fan Yun's signature.
34:43>> Come on, everyone, look at the third
34:45point, look at the third point. The
34:47Criminal Code of the Republic of China
34:49amendment.
34:50Continue processing after the motion
34:52from the consultation conclusion is
34:53extracted and handled. All party
34:55caucuses agree to a broad discussion,
34:57with each party nominating one person to
35:00speak. No speeches during the
35:01section-by-section discussion.
35:04Handle according to the order in which
35:05each party caucus submitted its version
35:07.
35:08No speeches during the third reading.
35:10Shen Po.
35:11>> Hmm.
35:12>> Stop playing these cognitive warfare
35:14games.
35:14>> Hmm.
35:15>> Stop playing these cognitive warfare
35:17games.
35:18Your own DPP caucus, your own DPP caucus
35:21said that one person from each caucus
35:25>> representing them to speak is enough,
35:27what do you mean by no discussion?
35:29>> What do you mean by no discussion?
35:31What is the point?
35:33The point is that your DPP is so guilty
35:35that you don't even dare to take a
35:37stance.
35:39>> Mmhmm.
35:40>> I'll say it again, so guilty that you
35:42don't even dare to take a stance. Hmm,
35:45>> Because today we are talking about
35:47municipal issues, including many issues
35:49Shen Po-yang himself proposed.
35:51>> Hmm.
35:52>> The issue of child abuse.
35:54>> Do you think Shen Po cares about the
35:56child abuse issue?
35:57>> He has often used this topic recently as
35:59a common political focus, but has he
36:01done so in the Legislative Yuan?
36:02>> So I’ll just ask, excuse me, Shen Po.
36:05When the Legislative Yuan pushed for
36:07legal amendments related to child abuse
36:09twice,
36:10>> how many bills did Shen Po propose?
36:15I'll let you guess.
36:16I was deeply involved in both times,
36:20>> And mentioning the Kai case today,
36:22>> I feel very deeply about it,
36:24>> Because after the Kai case happened,
36:25>> Hmm,
36:27>> At that time, I was—because they have a
36:29mothers 'group, a group that seems to
36:31want to accompany you as you grow up,
36:33and we have kept in very close contact
36:35with them.
36:37>> And when it came to the second and third
36:39readings that day, I actually invited
36:41them specifically. Hmm,
36:42>> Last year, right?
36:44>> To the Legislative Yuan, to the second
36:46floor, to watch the whole discussion and
36:48voting process.
36:49>> Last year, the discussion and voting
36:52process, let's take a look.
36:53>> Hmm.
36:54>> This is the footage from that time.
36:56>> Pictures are proof.
36:57>> This is "Criminal Code safeguards,
36:59temporary angle, children grow up
37:01without worries, protect minors,
37:03anti-bullying."
37:04>> And then, what did the DPP say? The DPP
37:06was messing with us, we were on the
37:08ground, oh. Mmhmm.
37:10>> That big self-explosive device was
37:12crushed by the DPP,
37:13>> Crushed to pieces; I was deeply involved
37:15in both of these times,
37:17>> Hmm,
37:19>> But, but in these two amendments, in the
37:21versions from various legislators and
37:23caucuses, there was never any Shen
37:25Po-yang
37:27>> Hmm,
37:28>> participation; he went silent again and
37:30had no opinion again.
37:31>> He didn't even appear in this at all,
37:33really.
37:34>> This matter, so today when mentioning
37:37the Kai case, mentioning abuse,
37:38mentioning child abuse, mentioning drugs
37:40and drunk driving, I’ll tell you all
37:42honestly. I cannot listen to it anymore
37:44.
37:45>> Hmm.
37:45>> I can't stand to listen to this anymore
37:47. Even if we concede every point today.
37:49If you truly believe that the version we
37:51proposed is so terrible,
37:53>> I will ask one simple question. Why
37:55didn't you press the button to vote
37:57against it?
37:57>> Exactly.
37:58>> You didn't dare to. Why didn't you press
38:00the button to vote against it?
38:04I'll just ask this simple question: why
38:06didn't you press the button against it,
38:08and then go on to say what?
38:11Saying there was no discussion,
38:15>> violating the principle of
38:16proportionality, and calling this just
38:18an election maneuver.
38:21>> Yeah.
38:23>> Brushing it off as just an election
38:25maneuver.
38:26From the child abuse bills to the drunk
38:28driving bills, why am I so angry about
38:30drunk driving?
38:33>> Because I was questioning Minister of
38:35Justice Cheng Ming-chien in the
38:36Judiciary Committee. I’ve been asking
38:39since 2024.
38:40>> Yeah.
38:40>> Every time I asked him, "
38:42>> When will the draft be submitted?" Yeah
38:43, "
38:44>> When will the draft be submitted?"
38:46>> But Cheng Ming-chien just gave me the
38:48runaround, talking nonsense, until this
38:50year when drunk driving kept happening
38:52and took many lives.
38:55Only after the anger of civil society
38:57ignited,
38:58>> did they hurriedly say they wanted to
39:00push for amendments regarding drunk
39:02driving.
39:03>> Right.
39:04>> And we were waiting for your Executive
39:06Yuan version.
39:08Do you all know the reason why it
39:10dragged on until now? Because we were
39:12waiting for the Executive Yuan's version
39:14.
39:14>> Yeah.
39:14>> The Executive Yuan's version finally
39:16came out,
39:17>> and I could finally handle it.
39:21I could finally process it, yet they
39:23claim that handling it now is just an
39:24election maneuver.
39:27>> Let me be honest with everyone.
39:29>> Up to this point.
39:29>> I can't stand it.
39:30>> I'll say it again, I absolutely cannot
39:33stand to hear this.
39:34>> Yeah.
39:34>> Why did it drag on until now to be
39:36processed?
39:37>> Yeah.
39:37>> When exactly did your Executive Yuan
39:39submit its version?
39:41>> Yeah.
39:42>> I'll ask a simple question: why did it
39:45wait until the second half of 2026 to be
39:47processed?
39:48Because we were waiting for your
39:50Executive Yuan's version.
39:51>> Yeah.
39:52>> Waited forever.
39:54Okay, let's take a look.
39:57I'll just put this slide up in a moment
39:59.
40:01From the current slide.
40:03>> Why does the DPP support lenient
40:05sentences for drunk driving?
40:08>> In the motion we proposed, let's look at
40:10the end: repeat offenders within ten
40:12years causing death.
40:15>> Yeah, yeah, right, repeat offenders face
40:17life imprisonment or imprisonment for
40:19more than ten years. The Executive Yuan
40:22version supported by the DPP is
40:24imprisonment for seven years or more.
40:27>> Which version do you support?
40:28>> Yeah.
40:31Of course we support the version we
40:32proposed ourselves.
40:37Do you see this comparison now?
40:39This is ours.
40:40>> This, this is about drug driving; if you
40:42commit the offense again within ten
40:43years and cause death, for this we
40:45propose the death penalty, life
40:46imprisonment, or a prison term of ten
40:48years or more, whereas the Executive
40:49Yuan’s version is a prison term of seven
40:51years or more.
40:51>> I, personally, feel that with this
40:53version proposed by the Executive Yuan
40:55of seven years or more, seven years
40:56usually ends up becoming the standard
40:58for sentencing. Fine, you didn’t, you
41:00didn't have intent, you just caused
41:02death, you didn't mean to, so I'll
41:04sentence you to seven years; this repeat
41:06drug driver might be out in just three
41:07and a half years.
41:08>> To the victims' families, I especially
41:10want to mention how Shen Po-yang
41:12frivolously said, "Oh, you know, when I
41:14was with some victims 'family
41:15association or other, I even learned
41:17tarot cards to help them with
41:18psychological reconstruction or
41:20something." But in terms of the system,
41:21you have never supported these victims'
41:23families, and you have never strictly
41:25punished these perpetrators; this is a
41:27repeat drug driving offense.
41:28>> He was caught drug driving, and after
41:30that, he drug drove again, getting
41:32behind the wheel of a machine that can
41:34kill while in an altered state of mind;
41:36honestly, to me, this is no different
41:38from intentional homicide.
41:40Regarding what was just said about the
41:42children, I remember one scene very
41:44vividly; at the time, they didn't vote,
41:46but when the bill finally passed its
41:48third reading, everyone from the DPP
41:50stood in the chamber, unfurled banners,
41:52claimed to support increasing the
41:54penalties, and took credit for the whole
41:56process.
41:57You spent the whole time opposing it,
41:59then rambled on nonsensically about how
42:01the Taiwan People's Party was
42:02manipulating populism to amend the law,
42:04only to rush in front of the cameras
42:06when it passed the third reading.
42:09>> Taking photos and posing, I remember Wu
42:11Pei-yi's face, I remember it very
42:13clearly; I thought to myself, can DPP
42:16legislators be this shameless? It's just
42:18...
42:19>> Just answering.
42:21>> You didn't take a stance during the
42:23process, and beyond attacking the
42:24opposition parties, after it was over,
42:26you still wanted to reap the benefits of
42:28this entire legislative amendment
42:30process; I really couldn't stand to
42:32watch it.
42:34And then, on top of that, I remember
42:36last week our Councilor Hsu Li-hsin was
42:38at the anti-bullying rally or related
42:40legislative protest on Ketagalan
42:42Boulevard, and I saw Shen Po-yang get up
42:45on stage; I was actually very puzzled,
42:47like, why is he getting up there?
42:50>> What did he say when he got up there?
42:51>> He just got up there and gave that same
42:53old script, the standard, practiced
42:55speech; but the problem is, for me, I am
42:57extremely puzzled as to...
42:58>> Up to this point, the Legislative Yuan
43:00has completed the Child Abuse Prevention
43:02Act, and our Taiwan People's Party has
43:04put a lot of heart and effort into it.
43:08Regarding the intensification of
43:09penalties for child abuse that we
43:11mentioned earlier, if you stand up there
43:13today and want to include things like
43:15mandatory surveillance footage retention
43:16, you could actually do that in the
43:18legislature right now, but we haven't
43:20seen any proactive performance or
43:22initiative on the issue of child abuse
43:23in the past.
43:26>> None. That's right, none.
43:29But now that you're on that stage, I
43:31don't know on what basis you are
43:33expressing your importance, because
43:34so-called protection should be about
43:36execution, not just empty talk.
43:40You've made a promise to everyone, but
43:42you could do it right now; if you aren't
43:44doing it now, how can you expect others
43:46to wait until you're elected to do it?
43:49It's very strange, though.
43:50>> I can responsibly say that in the
43:52Legislative Yuan,
43:53>> he neither proposed a bill,
43:54>> yes.
43:55>> nor pushed for one.
43:56>> And, in the process, he even talked a
43:58bunch of nonsense.
43:59>> Hmm.
44:00>> Because during one of the consultations
44:02,
44:02>> Shen Bo was there.
44:03>> Oh.
44:04>> But I knew he hadn't done his homework,
44:06>> and why did I know he hadn't done his
44:07homework?
44:08>> Hmm.
44:08>> Because when he was talking about the
44:10Criminal Code and the Protection of
44:11Children and Youths Welfare and Rights
44:13Act,
44:13>> when those two laws overlap—and by
44:15overlap, I mean when both regulate the
44:17same matter—he couldn't even get the
44:19legal articles straight.
44:21>> Hmm.
44:23>> At that time, I very politely, in a very
44:25courteous tone, told him, "You are wrong
44:28."
44:29Hmm. "
44:29>> You are wrong." Hmm.
44:31>> Then he heard me and realized he was
44:33wrong, and in the next round of speaking
44:35, he went, "Oh, of course I know how
44:36it's this and that..."
44:38>> Bluffing, does he really know?
44:41>> So at that time, sitting across from him
44:43talking about this, my head was spinning
44:45; someone who has never cared about this
44:47suddenly butts in, and after butting in
44:49, everything he says is wrong.
44:52Let's not spend too much time on this
44:53today, but if you netizens are really
44:55interested,
44:57>> I will tell you exactly what happened
44:58during another livestream.
45:00But Shen Bo did address this today,
45:02because people are attacking him, saying
45:04you're talking about child abuse now,
45:06but look at what you actually did in the
45:08legislature in the past. He said
45:10something that I felt was a dead end in
45:11the argument; he said, "If you're so
45:13interested in Legislative Yuan matters,
45:15why don't you go back to being a
45:16legislator, and I'll be the mayor
45:18instead?" I think that's just a
45:19desperate sophistry when one runs out of
45:20things to say; it’s really just
45:22unacceptable.
45:22>> It’s sophistry, it’s just being a rascal
45:24.
45:24>> Right, that’s just a rascal move, it’s
45:26being a rascal. No, whether you care
45:29about an issue should be judged by your
45:30current position.
45:32>> Have you put any real effort into this
45:34issue?
45:34>> That is the best standard for
45:36verification, mm-hmm.
45:37>> How can it be that while you are a
45:39legislator, you never cared about this
45:41issue, and perhaps even stood
45:43>> on the opposite side of the stance you
45:44hold now,
45:45>> Mm-hmm.
45:46>> and then people aren't allowed to bring
45:47it up for scrutiny?
45:48>> Exactly.
45:49>> How could such a thing possibly happen?
45:51>> That's right.
45:51>> Right, but what is more important today
45:53?
45:58What's more important today is that
46:00after the whole debate, I saw a very
46:01important core theme: whether he truly
46:03understands the city affairs of Taipei,
46:05because during the cross-examination
46:07today,
46:12>> Mm-hmm.
46:13>> Chiang Wan-an made a very heavy first
46:15move, in my opinion.
46:16>> Mm-hmm.
46:17>> Why do I say it was a heavy move? Chiang
46:19Wan-an's first question was directly
46:20about urban renewal.
46:21>> Mm-hmm.
46:22>> Right.
46:23>> Urban renewal in the second phase of
46:24residential areas.
46:25>> Why is it so difficult?
46:27>> What kind of challenges have you
46:28encountered?
46:29>> Do you know?
46:30>> Mm.
46:31>> There are 12 neighborhoods in Neihu.
46:33There are old buildings. What is the
46:34reason they can't undergo urban renewal
46:36?
46:36>> Mm-hmm.
46:37>> This was truly a direct confrontation on
46:39professional issues. Mm-hmm.
46:41>> And Chen Shih-chung's answer...Was just
46:43as expected.
46:46>> A huge disappointment.
46:47>> Mm-hmm.
46:48>> He said Taipei has a lot of old houses.
46:50>> Mm-hmm.
46:51>> Houses over 30 years old account for 70
46:53%.
46:53>> Mm-hmm.
46:55We can't just look at pretty numbers.
46:58We need to look at the entry and exit
46:59points of urban renewal. Lower the entry
47:01threshold for urban renewal, but urban
47:03renewal requires companionship.
47:06>> Urban renewal has issues with review and
47:08approval; it's not just about
47:09deliberation and approval, but also
47:11construction and completion.
47:13>> The most important thing is the system
47:15of companionship.
47:16>> Right, companionship. Oh my god, my...
47:18>> That’s why I’m saying the most important
47:20thing today, whether starting or ending
47:21the broadcast, is that we are here
47:23providing companionship.
47:24>> Oh, right, right, it’s all you two, you
47:26...
47:26>> You can't just look at these pretty
47:27numbers online, like the 8,000 to nearly
47:2910,000 viewers; that's not important.
47:31>> What's important is the companionship;
47:32it's important that we are sitting here
47:33.
47:33>> We are sitting here providing
47:34companionship to the netizens online.
47:36>> Right, right, what's important is the
47:37two of you sitting here providing
47:38companionship, right.
47:39>> Dodging the question with nonsense.
47:42>> Really, really, this is quite outrageous
47:44because I saw a point today that the
47:46media questions this time were
47:48apparently given to both sides in
47:49advance, meaning that...
47:54>> Oh, I see, for both parties.
47:59>> I think this is quite different from
48:01before; it seems they gave them the
48:02topics beforehand, so including the
48:04urban renewal question asked later by
48:06the media...
48:08>> Too shocking.
48:09>> So I am, I am very surprised.
48:12That Shen Bo-yang actually responded
48:14with nonsense, because if this is true,
48:16you are involving yourself in public
48:18deception.
48:20>> No, really, you are involving yourself
48:22in public deception.
48:25>> We, we, I learned from news reports,
48:27according to reports, yes, so it's
48:29credible, that's what I saw.
48:33Wait, let me explain to everyone why my
48:35words are so harsh.
48:37If what Xu just said is true, it's very
48:39serious, because do you know what I
48:41thought the sequence was? I thought the
48:43sequence was that because Chiang Wan-an
48:45brought up urban renewal first, hmm...
48:47>> And caught Shen Bo-yang...
48:49>> Off guard, or...
48:51>> It just showed his unfamiliarity with
48:52municipal affairs, completely...
48:55>> Without a doubt, so that's why Chiang
48:57gave his assessment that...
48:59>> Shen Bo-yang is unfamiliar with city
49:01affairs and responded with nonsense.
49:03Honestly, I have to say this comment...
49:05Does not constitute being mean or harsh
49:08; it is quite a factual statement.
49:09>> Responding with nonsense.
49:11>> So later, during the third round of
49:13media questioning, SET TV asked about
49:15urban renewal again. Hmm.
49:17>> When SET was asking about urban renewal
49:19, my own feeling, at first I thought, ah
49:21...
49:23>> Maybe they saw that Shen Bo-yang
49:24answered this question so poorly...
49:26>> And were feeding him an easy pitch.
49:28>> But if, according to what Xu said...
49:30>> The fact that SET was going to ask about
49:32urban renewal was already...
49:34>> Given in advance.
49:35>> The questions were given in advance.
49:36>> Given in advance.
49:40That is something I feel, Shen Bo-yang
49:42didn't treat the debate as a debate
49:44today at all; instead, he treated the
49:46whole event as "Shen-style chicken soup
49:48for the soul."
49:51>> Shen-style chicken soup.
49:55He talked about companionship, and then
49:57said he even learned tarot cards, etc.
49:59He never seriously intended to answer
50:01how to execute things item by item.
50:04So, I'll state a conclusion first: the
50:06popularity that Shen Bo-yang has built
50:08up for himself cannot constitute the
50:10executive power required for municipal
50:12governance. First, he talked about "
50:14accompaniment." Now the "Blue Bird"
50:16movement is spinning it for him, taking
50:18news releases from Ko Wen-je’s mayoral
50:20term. In those releases, it mentions
50:22urban renewal stations, whether it’s
50:24about accompaniment, providing
50:26comprehensive support to solve problems
50:28, or whatever. They pull the word "
50:30accompaniment" out of a dense wall of
50:32text and say, "Look, it’s in Ko Wen-je’s
50:34news release!" It’s the same concept as
50:36"stitching," you know? "Stitching." In
50:38the original urban planning document,
50:40among all that dense text, the word "
50:42stitching" appeared, and he started
50:44saying, "Oh, we are going to do this '
50:46stitching'." But he completely
50:48misinterpreted it. His entire concept
50:50and structure, compared to what he calls
50:52"accompaniment" and what he’s actually
50:54doing, are worlds apart. Actually, I’ll
50:56say this: the Mayor has already made it
50:58clear.
50:59While urban renewal in Taipei is indeed
51:01very difficult, there are urban renewal
51:03stations. Let me jump in here. Just a
51:05little while ago, or rather this past
51:07week, I took Dr. Ko to the Shuiyuan
51:09Phase 2 and 3 site. Back then, for
51:11Shuiyuan 2 and 3, it was very difficult
51:13to coordinate the residents because,
51:15after all, everyone had so many
51:16different opinions, so integration was
51:18tough. So at that time, the city
51:20government used a reverse approach: we
51:22sent out forms stating "disagreement."
51:25If you didn't mail back saying you
51:26disagreed within the deadline, we
51:28assumed you agreed.
51:30That’s how we reached the threshold.
51:32>> Once the threshold was met, the
51:33government intervened to conduct
51:35public-led urban renewal. Regarding this
51:36current term, it was Deputy Mayor Lee
51:38Shih-chuan who went to the Urban Renewal
51:40Center to sign the contract back then.
51:43So, you can see that it takes a massive
51:45amount of time, and there are so many
51:46various factors involved.
51:48But the "urban renewal station" was
51:50something Dr. Ko mentioned at the time.
51:52It is clearly such a specific term, "
51:54urban renewal station," yet it can be
51:56simplified into just "accompaniment." It
51:58sounds like chicken soup for the soul,
51:59and I really don't know if this kind of
52:01chicken soup has any practical
52:03application for actual execution.
52:04>> Do you know why he said it that way?
52:06>> Mm.
52:07>> I’ll bet you.
52:08>> I’ll bet you. Want to...
52:09>> Read it.
52:10>> Read what?
52:11>> He has no idea.
52:12>> Oh.
52:13>> During Ko Wen-je’s term, regarding urban
52:15renewal, they had already set up
52:17resident workstations.
52:18>> Right.
52:19>> Exactly, mm.
52:20>> Let me say it again.
52:21>> Mm.
52:22>> Why would he speak like that?
52:23>> Yeah. The reason is clear, he really
52:25doesn't know,
52:27>> He really doesn't know,
52:28>> that there are already stationed work
52:30units in place.
52:32So, this point was immediately countered
52:34, saying that everything you're
52:36suggesting is already being done, so
52:38acting as if it's difficult to implement
52:40is inaccurate.
52:42Actually, I think Chiang Wan-an’s
52:44cross-examination today started with a
52:46move that was quite unexpected, because
52:48for the most part, people...
52:51>> It’s usually the challenger who
52:52challenges the incumbent mayor, saying,
52:54"Hey, why is urban renewal so slow, and
52:56what solutions do you have?" But he did
52:58the opposite.
52:58>> Urban renewal is slow, urban renewal is
53:00hard,
53:01>> and do you know...
53:01>> Do you know why? He is testing whether
53:03you understand municipal affairs. In
53:05fact, he immediately exposed Chen
53:06Shih-chung’s lack of preparation.
53:08>> Especially, regarding urban renewal, the
53:09"companionship" programs Chen mentioned
53:11are already being done. What is truly
53:13difficult? What's truly difficult
53:15includes integration, and as just
53:16mentioned, balancing the interests
53:18between developers and residents.
53:21Actually, I want to bring up something
53:22related to Mayor Ko. After the Core
53:24Pacific City case, many Taipei City
53:26civil servants are really too afraid,
53:28thinking, "I'll just look out for myself
53:30." Because
53:31>> the floor area ratio bonus was
53:32originally something meant for citizens
53:34to share, but I'd rather not touch it.
53:36I'd rather play it safe and pass this
53:37hot potato to someone else,
53:39>> rather than being hounded later.
53:41This administrative efficiency might
53:42require everyone to give them a little
53:44more confidence and protection.
53:48I think to let civil servants be more
53:50smooth and proactive in their
53:52intervention—I want to reiterate this—
53:54first, the comment just made by Hsu...
53:58>> basically said that Chiang Wan-an caught
54:00Chen Shih-chung off guard.
54:01>> I originally thought that was the case,
54:04>> but I just heard that SET TV had already
54:06provided the questions to him in advance
54:08, um.
54:10>> I already had the exam questions,
54:12>> yet you still managed to perform like
54:14this.
54:14>> Oh, it’s really...If he had known, how
54:16should he have answered? Let me
54:18demonstrate. Okay,
54:20>> please allow me to demonstrate.
54:21>> Please, Mayor Huang, you are acting as
54:24...Yang, please.
54:26>> Although Taipei City's urban renewal,
54:28during Mayor Ko Wen-je's term, um,
54:33>> has already established stationed work
54:35stations that can provide various
54:37integration services, I think this
54:38direction is correct,
54:42>> um.
54:43>> But
54:44>> I think we need to be more proactive.
54:46>> Yes. We must go beyond just stationed
54:48work stations.
54:50>> I want to establish an urban renewal
54:51task force,
54:53>> directly and proactively intervening,
54:56>> with the city government helping to
54:57consolidate.
54:59>> Building on Mayor Ko's foundation, I'll
55:01do even better.
55:02>> Mm.
55:03>> How is it? I think this point was made
55:05quite well, and
55:06>> 100 points. Do you want to join the
55:07provincial party? No need.
55:09>> Next time he debates, he'll just do this
55:12, just let
55:13>> me think of the sad past.
55:15When I was in the New Taipei City
55:17mayoral primary, my first press
55:18conference
55:19>> was about urban renewal.
55:20>> It was New Taipei urban renewal express
55:22, fast and efficient, three stars, wait
55:24, wasn't it held right here? It was held
55:26right here.
55:27>> Welcome to draw.
55:28>> Just keep at it. Besides speeding things
55:30up with the urban renewal express,
55:32parallel reviews, and 100-day permit
55:33issuance, the second thing is, didn't
55:35you see the urban renewal task force?
55:37>> Proactively intervening to assist with
55:39consolidation.
55:40>> So it was just a pitch for yourself.
55:42>> No, this is much more concrete than "
55:44companionship," right?
55:45>> Much more concrete, of course,
55:46absolutely concrete.
55:47>> Right, exactly. Otherwise, that "urban
55:49renewal companionship" is just sitting
55:51there playing tarot cards, needing tarot
55:52cards. What
55:53>> the heck is that? How do you "accompany
55:54" people?
55:55>> Alright, never mind. Let's get back to
55:57the topic.
55:58After handling the first issue, urban
56:00renewal, the next is the Kai-Kai case,
56:02right?
56:04>> Mm.
56:04>> Oh.
56:05>> Yes.
56:05>> And, hey, third issue.
56:07>> Oh.
56:08>> Corridor. And
56:09>> Civic Boulevard, corridor...
56:12>> What kind of corridor?
56:13Civic Boulevard.
56:15I'd like to ask.
56:17Have the two of you ever walked from
56:19SOGO to Breeze Center?
56:22>> Walked to Breeze Center?
56:24>> Might have to ask that...
56:26>> Maybe if I'm accompanying the wife I
56:28dare not offend,
56:30>> shopping during an anniversary sale and
56:32can't get a taxi, and she wants to look
56:34at shop windows along the way, maybe I
56:36have, but generally speaking, it's very
56:38rare, because
56:39>> usually, anniversary sales have
56:41different times.
56:42Different shopping districts have their
56:44own seasons.
56:46People will choose to go here or go to
56:47Breeze today.
56:49>> But I don't feel like there's a wall
56:51blocking the middle, is there really?
56:54>> There really is a very big invisible
56:56wall.
56:57>> It's called Civic Boulevard. Civic
56:58Boulevard has split Taipei City in two.
57:01>> Are you imitating? Are you acting? I'm
57:03talking to you about something very
57:05serious.
57:06>> North Taipei and South Taipei.
57:08>> And Civic Boulevard has split Taipei
57:10City into two parts.
57:13I advocate that Taipei City must undergo
57:15a large-scale stitching project so that
57:17in the future, everyone can walk from
57:19SOGO to Breeze Center without any
57:21obstacles.
57:22This is what I—what obstacles? This is
57:25my proposal. What obstacles are there
57:27now?
57:27>> Because, no, no, there is a huge
57:29psychological obstacle now.
57:30>> Psychological.
57:31>> Because Civic Boulevard is there, and I
57:33can't cross it, so
57:34>> when I see Civic Boulevard,
57:36>> I feel like I can't bridge this chasm,
57:38so I need to go through a whole process
57:40of stitching it together,
57:41>> let the dogs be handled by the dogs, let
57:43the Breeze be handled by the Breeze,
57:44>> after the Xu residence [renovation],
57:46when I accompany my wife, I'll have to
57:47help her overcome this mental barrier,
57:49>> but she basically doesn't want my
57:51company now, because she says it's
57:52pretty scary for me to know too much
57:54about their anniversary sales.
57:55>> No, honestly, when he talks about this "
57:57stitching" thing today, I feel like it's
57:59because he's stuck in a situation he
58:01can't get out of, and while being
58:02pressured by Chiang Wan-an, he just
58:04starts rambling wildly. Actually, when
58:06he talked about stitching, he mentioned
58:08Taipei Main Station and the Linear Park
58:10. I'll address two things: Taipei Main
58:12Station is the result of the West
58:13District Gateway Project during Ko
58:15Wen-je’s term, which happens to be in my
58:17—yes, let me quickly record my district
58:19.
58:21Why was that area able to open up and
58:23serve as a new face for this city's
58:25urban planning?
58:27The point is, what did Ko do?
58:33He demolished the Zhongxiao Bridge ramp
58:35to open up the skyline of Beimen,
58:37created the Beimen Plaza there, and
58:39combined it with many nearby historical
58:41buildings to form a cohesive area, which
58:43allows tourists entering our national
58:45gateway to have a view and experience
58:46the beauty of Taipei.
58:52Next, for the Linear Park, it's based on
58:54existing space.
58:55Everyone knows about the new Zhongshan;
58:57if you don't know how beautiful it is,
58:59you can check it out—Councilor Lin
59:01Zhen-yu has taken everyone to see that
59:03Linear Park.
59:05It uses the existing space, without
59:07demolishing anything, and adds elements
59:09like connecting the local Chifeng Street
59:11and blacksmith street, allowing for
59:13local markets to be held and linking the
59:15entire corridor together.
59:18So, I think the Mayor mentioned a
59:20crucial point today: you aren't
59:22demolishing Civic Boulevard, nor are you
59:24using existing space to plan this.
59:27>> The existing space there is a parking
59:29lot, so, are you going to demolish the
59:31parking lot, or are you not going to use
59:33that parking lot? But Shen Bo-yang
59:35couldn't answer, which shows he just
59:36threw out an idea he couldn't explain or
59:38figure out how to implement, and when
59:40asked this specific question about how
59:42to solve the parking lot issue, he
59:44couldn't say. Actually, after he
59:46finished speaking today, there were
59:47follow-up questions, and he was asked, "
59:49Do you even know how high the
59:50utilization rate of this parking lot is
59:52?" Actually, he had already memorized
59:53the data and tried hard not to fall into
59:55this trap, but he didn't expect Shen to
59:57really respond with nonsense to confuse
59:58the issue. He actually started talking
1:00:00gibberish. And regarding the beginning,
1:00:02didn't he say he spent three days
1:00:04looking into it, only to finally bring
1:00:06it up and say, "Look, this is a
1:00:07stitch-up"? That is complete and utter
1:00:09nonsense. Why? When discussing the
1:00:11Jianguo Brewery initially, it was
1:00:13actually about Zhongshan Girls High
1:00:14School.
1:00:15>> Regarding that specific area, he was
1:00:16actually saying that there are several
1:00:18spots along the Civic Boulevard overpass
1:00:20that need to be more pedestrian-friendly
1:00:22to make walking smoother and more
1:00:24convenient; he wasn't talking about the
1:00:25north and south sides of Civic Boulevard
1:00:27.
1:00:28>> Because that area is near Civic
1:00:29Boulevard, but Ko himself actually said
1:00:31directly, "If you're going to put it
1:00:33that way, you might as well say it was
1:00:34the Jianguo Elevated Bridge that cut
1:00:36them off from each other." So I think
1:00:38responding with confusion is a very,
1:00:40very terrible thing, but he clearly
1:00:42panicked on this question today.
1:00:43>> Why? Because he previously mentioned the
1:00:46AI "wolf belt" issue, and actually, he
1:00:48was speaking to me.
1:00:50>> Do I look like Long Tai?
1:00:52>> Do I look like Long Tai?
1:00:54>> Do I look like Su Hui?
1:00:55>> Do I look like Su Hui?
1:00:57>> No, I
1:00:58>> The question itself is a major insult to
1:01:01me.
1:01:02Yes, so I think this is Shen Boyang
1:01:03being forced to reveal his true colors,
1:01:05because the Shen Boyang everyone was
1:01:07familiar with in the past is probably
1:01:09just like this. Now, including a "
1:01:11stitch-up" and a "wolf belt" suddenly
1:01:13being thrown in, he also answered the "
1:01:15wolf belt" thing nonsense. He said, "I
1:01:17think different areas between Taipei
1:01:19City and New Taipei City are 'wolf belts
1:01:21' because they cross city lines, but if
1:01:23it's different areas within Taipei City
1:01:25, then it can't be called a 'wolf belt'
1:01:27." But why? What does this sentence mean
1:01:29? I don't understand, it's just
1:01:31>> What is a wolf, what is a belt.
1:01:32>> So I am a bit disappointed with these
1:01:34questions today because everyone has
1:01:36these offensive and defensive strategies
1:01:38, there are past questions, and there
1:01:40are simulations.
1:01:43>> This should have been a mandatory
1:01:44question for Shen Boyang, and yet he
1:01:46handled it like this; I feel quite let
1:01:48down.
1:01:50>> Okay.
1:01:50>> Okay.
1:01:51>> Okay, we've discussed the "wolf belt"
1:01:53issue enough, right?
1:01:56Then next, for the fourth question in
1:01:58the cross-examination, I think Shen
1:02:00Boyang asked a very sharp question.
1:02:04>> He said that this, this, this
1:02:07>> A smoke-free city?
1:02:09>> Dongmen Market, and the incident of
1:02:11trees being mistakenly cut down.
1:02:13Where exactly did the city government go
1:02:15wrong?
1:02:16And questioning whether Chiang Wan-an
1:02:18can grasp the SOP of municipal
1:02:20administration.
1:02:22Oh.
1:02:25When Shen Po-yang asked Chiang Wan-an
1:02:27about this incident regarding the trees
1:02:29mistakenly cut down at Dongmen Market.
1:02:33I must say, Chiang Wan-an.
1:02:36This time you are in the wrong.
1:02:38>> How so?
1:02:39>> He did not answer directly.
1:02:40>> Hmm.
1:02:41>> Hmm.
1:02:41>> He did not answer directly; see how fair
1:02:44and objective our station is.
1:02:46>> I totally agree.
1:02:48Right, now it's our turn to question
1:02:50Chiang Wan-an, wait a minute, to
1:02:51criticize Chiang Wan-an.
1:02:54>> In a moment, the pro-green media will
1:02:55immediately report: "Huang Kuo-chang
1:02:57heavily criticizes Chiang Wan-an for not
1:02:59answering Shen Po-yang's question."
1:03:01>> Not answering, no.
1:03:05That's not it, actually we later found
1:03:06that Chiang answered in his concluding
1:03:08statement.
1:03:13>> The conclusion, yes, he answered in his
1:03:15conclusion, it is actually a pity that
1:03:17if he had just said on the spot that the
1:03:19contractor changed "transplant" to "
1:03:21remove".
1:03:25>> Transplant became remove, if he had just
1:03:27openly and generously admitted the
1:03:28mistake, that would have been fine.
1:03:33But he did mention later that it was the
1:03:35contractor's oversight, and I think Shen
1:03:37Po-yang has somewhat narrowed his own
1:03:39perspective by getting hung up on this
1:03:41one tree at Dongmen Market, and then.
1:03:46>> It’s a bit distracting, because he
1:03:48actually started by.
1:03:49>> Let me wait, okay.
1:03:51>> Immediately taking Shen's side.
1:03:56>> Are you going to tell me why you are
1:03:57hung up on the Dongmen Market incident
1:03:59later?
1:04:01Let me speak first, let me allow you to
1:04:03fully argue, the other party has
1:04:05priority.
1:04:05>> Should I speak first?
1:04:07>> No, I want to say one thing first; Shen
1:04:09Po-yang said at the beginning he would
1:04:11do three things, the first thing is to
1:04:13replant the trees.
1:04:14>> And I was thinking, replant the trees?
1:04:17The first thing I thought of was, why
1:04:18are you stealing policy ideas from Lai
1:04:20Jui-lung? Kaohsiung probably needs tree
1:04:22replanting more; that is the first point
1:04:24.
1:04:27Secondly, he said in his argument that
1:04:29it's not just about why the tree was cut
1:04:31down; it's about the lack of public
1:04:32trust in the government caused by the
1:04:34whole affair.
1:04:37He said earlier to replant the trees,
1:04:39it's not just about them being cut down
1:04:41, and then later, when answering
1:04:43questions, he said, "I never said there
1:04:45was an incident of cutting down trees."
1:04:47Aren't you being inconsistent? Were the
1:04:49trees cut down or not? In the end?
1:04:50>> The frozen image of the tree being cut.
1:04:52So, you, what you said earlier, oh, "
1:04:54replant the trees," why would you need
1:04:56to replant them? You say there was no
1:04:58tree felling one moment, that there was
1:05:00the next, and then that you weren't
1:05:01questioning the tree felling; we really
1:05:03don't know what your point of contention
1:05:05is.
1:05:07So when I heard about planting the trees
1:05:09back today, we had a major question: has
1:05:11a mayoral candidate reached the point of
1:05:13mayoral-level rumor-mongering?
1:05:17I mean, no matter how you verify the
1:05:19press releases, it should be clear to
1:05:21you.
1:05:22Actually, aside from cases of planting,
1:05:24transplanting, or removal, the others
1:05:27were either diseased or necessitated a
1:05:29change of target or location.
1:05:32Could it be that these things are so
1:05:33hard for Shen to understand?
1:05:35>> Um, let me ask—no, no, today the two...
1:05:39>> Yes, to both of you, we are going to—no
1:05:41, I am going to finish my point, because
1:05:43everyone might have forgotten what Shen
1:05:45said after what Yi-hsuan just mentioned
1:05:47, so we have the transcript here.
1:05:49>> Chen didn't say directly in his opening
1:05:51statement that we want to replant the
1:05:53trees; he simply explained that the
1:05:55trees were cut because this incident
1:05:56caused public distrust in the government
1:05:58, and so on and so forth. But then, in
1:06:01the fourth question of the
1:06:02cross-examination, he answered Wan-an by
1:06:04saying that because this was an
1:06:05accidental felling, he never accused the
1:06:07city government of cutting down trees.
1:06:10>> When you said in your opening statement
1:06:11, "I will plant the trees back because
1:06:13the people no longer trust the
1:06:14government." But then later, after being
1:06:16told, "So you're spreading rumors; it
1:06:18was clearly a contractor's mistake, they
1:06:20mistook removal for transplanting." Then
1:06:22he says, "Right, so I didn't accuse you
1:06:24." I think this is Shen Po-yang's style
1:06:26of sophistry; he often gets stuck, then
1:06:28says, "I didn't say that, you're taking
1:06:30my words out of context." Like that, but
1:06:32.
1:06:34Looking back, I think if he had answered
1:06:35, we would have been fair.
1:06:39He should have honestly explained what
1:06:41the so-called tree protection principles
1:06:43are.
1:06:44The SOP—I think the most important thing
1:06:46to state within that limited time is how
1:06:48to prevent contractors from repeating
1:06:50this situation.
1:06:51If you have a mechanism, I think putting
1:06:53that forward would have scored you
1:06:55points. All right, Po-yang, please go
1:06:57ahead.
1:06:57>> Po-yang, it's your turn.
1:06:58>> No, that was very well put.
1:07:00>> No, first of all, the criticisms both of
1:07:03you just made regarding Wan-an.
1:07:05>> Mm.
1:07:06>> I think they are all correct. Really,
1:07:08all correct; first,
1:07:10>> Regarding the Dongmen Market expansion,
1:07:12Hsuan's analysis just now was correct.
1:07:15>> Clearly, Yi had a good grasp of the
1:07:17whole situation.
1:07:18>> So, I realized he didn't answer that
1:07:20question.
1:07:20>> When it came to the conclusion,
1:07:22>> Yeah. I suspect that when he reached the
1:07:24conclusion, he realized he hadn't
1:07:26answered that question, so he quickly
1:07:27tried to address it at the very start of
1:07:29his closing remarks.
1:07:31>> But in a debate, simply put,
1:07:34>> when an opponent puts you in an
1:07:36embarrassing spot, you should really
1:07:37just respond to it directly right then
1:07:39and there.
1:07:40>> Right.
1:07:41>> You really should just respond directly
1:07:43.
1:07:43>> He could say,
1:07:44"
1:07:44>> Regarding the Dongmen Market
1:07:46tree-felling incident, the vendor must
1:07:47take responsibility."
1:07:49>> Yeah. "
1:07:50>> The city government takes this seriously
1:07:52.""
1:07:52>> We will not be lenient."
1:07:53>> Yeah.
1:07:55"
1:07:55>> This...""
1:07:55>> As head of the city government, the
1:07:57responsibility that falls to me,"
1:07:59>> Yeah. "
1:07:59>> I will absolutely hold them accountable
1:08:01."
1:08:01>> Yeah.
1:08:03"
1:08:03>> Most importantly, I will ensure this
1:08:05never happens again."
1:08:07>> Yeah. "
1:08:08>> Facing the problem,"
1:08:09"
1:08:10>> and solving the problem has always been
1:08:11my city government's consistent attitude
1:08:13; we do not cover up or—"
1:08:15>> Yeah.
1:08:18"
1:08:18>> That would work, right? I think that's
1:08:20perfect. Can we do that? Okay, second
1:08:22point, second point."
1:08:26As for Councilor Shen, you finally spoke
1:08:28a fair word during your questioning and
1:08:30follow-up.
1:08:34>> Yeah.
1:08:36>> Councilor Shen said, "I did not accuse
1:08:37the city government of felling the trees
1:08:39." Then may I ask, Councilor Shen?
1:08:42>> Who said it then?
1:08:43>> Who accused the city of felling the
1:08:45trees?
1:08:45>> They are all spreading rumors; Councilor
1:08:47Shen, accusing the government of felling
1:08:49trees is spreading rumors.
1:08:50>> It is.
1:08:51>> Is it spreading rumors? Yes, he says
1:08:54it's rumors.
1:08:54>> Right, he said, "I didn't accuse the
1:08:56city government of felling trees," and
1:08:58he doesn't think—
1:08:59>> Bo-yang is...first of all, thank you. If
1:09:02I were Chiang Wan-an,
1:09:03>> I would show grace on the spot: "Thank
1:09:05you, Councilor Shen.""
1:09:07>> Today, you have provided the best
1:09:08clarification for the Chiang
1:09:09administration."
1:09:10>> Right.
1:09:11"
1:09:11>> You never accused the city government of
1:09:13felling the trees."
1:09:14Then I’ll quote a very creative netizen
1:09:17: Chiang should say to Shen Bo-yang, "
1:09:19Your trees, Shen Bo-yang." Exactly.
1:09:22>> Right, now Shen Bo-yang, it's "your
1:09:24trees," Shen Bo-yang.
1:09:27Secondly, I also want to thank Councilor
1:09:29Shen.
1:09:31Oh, he said, "I never accused them of
1:09:34food poisoning."
1:09:36>> Oh.
1:09:37>> Wow.
1:09:37>> He said that today, too.
1:09:39>> Wow.
1:09:41>> Yes, because Chiang Wan-an said at the
1:09:43time, "Shen Bo-yang spread false
1:09:45information, intentionally claiming mass
1:09:47food poisoning occurred at schools like
1:09:49Jinhua Junior High,"
1:09:52"
1:09:52>> but subsequent inspections all passed."
1:09:54"
1:09:54>> He has yet to apologize to the students
1:09:56and parents."
1:09:58>> In response to Chiang's statement, Shen
1:10:00Bo-yang said, "That's a controversy; I
1:10:02was just asking the city government to
1:10:04test it quickly. I didn't directly
1:10:06accuse them of food poisoning." Amazing
1:10:08, right? He didn't say it directly and
1:10:11wiped his hands clean.
1:10:12When your opponent tries to shift the
1:10:14blame,
1:10:17>> you just directly build upon that
1:10:18foundation.
1:10:20>> I am very grateful to Councilor Shen.
1:10:23>> For finally clearing the city
1:10:24government's name today.
1:10:25>> Yeah.
1:10:26>> No food poisoning.
1:10:28>> So, for the short video, it's the second
1:10:31one, right, the second one.
1:10:35What Legislator Shen mentioned at the
1:10:37beginning of his opening statement
1:10:38regarding why people distrust the
1:10:40government.
1:10:41>> Hmm.
1:10:41>> Well, it's clear from our Q&A session
1:10:43just now that Legislator Shen has
1:10:45already given the best answer.
1:10:46>> Hmm.
1:10:48>> Because some people are spreading
1:10:49misinformation,
1:10:52>> cognitive.
1:10:52>> Some people are spreading misinformation
1:10:54. I'm using this debate opportunity
1:10:56today to publicly invite the legislator
1:10:58to join me in condemning whoever spread
1:11:00the rumor that Jinghua Junior High
1:11:02students had mass poisoning. We should
1:11:04condemn it together, and I must uncover
1:11:06the mastermind behind it.
1:11:07>> Yes.
1:11:08>> That's right.
1:11:09>> Yes.
1:11:10>> Legislator Shen, are you willing to do
1:11:12this with me?
1:11:13>> Aren't you supposed to be playing
1:11:14Legislator Shen? How did you suddenly
1:11:16become Mayor Chiang?
1:11:17>> I'm telling you, I'm very conflicted.
1:11:19>> You're playing two roles.
1:11:21>> Yes. I have two roles. Yes, two roles.
1:11:24Yes, yes. You have the red and blue
1:11:26teams fighting inside you.
1:11:27>> You must be so exhausted internally.
1:11:29>> Really, really, truly very exhausted.
1:11:31>> So tired. Come on, we still have five or
1:11:33six questions, let's continue.
1:11:35>> Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, this
1:11:37one is impressive, this one is
1:11:39impressive, come on, you ask this.
1:11:42>> See who wants to play Chiang Wan-an to
1:11:44cross-examine me.
1:11:45>> Play Wan-an to cross-examine you.
1:11:47>> Let's just prepare, he has nine
1:11:49questions, go ahead.
1:11:51>> Go ahead, please. Alright, I'll take
1:11:54this one.
1:11:54>> Okay. Then, "The City Forum is a breach
1:11:57for infiltration," who said this?
1:11:59"It's very helpful to us when Chinese
1:12:01missiles fly over," who said this? "
1:12:03Handing out 10,000 is the Communist
1:12:05Party's tactic to impoverish Taiwan
1:12:07first, then unify," who said this? "If
1:12:08it weren't for the 'bird' operation,
1:12:10could TSMC have expanded globally?" And
1:12:12who said this? "I'm more into this
1:12:14abolition of the death penalty thing,"
1:12:15who said this? "The Republic of China is
1:12:17a quasi-colonial system that needs a new
1:12:19constitution to resolve," who said this
1:12:21? "We can't act like a spendthrift today
1:12:23, giving 10 or 20 billion to every city
1:12:25and county," may I ask who said this? "
1:12:27Mayday fans in the Ziqiang Tunnel," who
1:12:29supports the prey? Saying it's good to
1:12:31be vigilant, may I ask who said they
1:12:32hope for an independence referendum in
1:12:34Taipei in the future? Wow, the nine
1:12:36questions, who said them?
1:12:38>> Who said it?
1:12:39>> I said all of them.
1:12:40>> You admitted it.
1:12:41>> I admit I said all of them.
1:12:42>> You are heavily ideological; you are
1:12:44constantly resisting China to protect
1:12:45Taiwan.
1:12:46>> Absolutely no ideology.
1:12:48>> Then why are you now talking about
1:12:50looking for enemies within our own
1:12:51compatriots, and why did I say the City
1:12:53Forum is a breach for infiltration?
1:12:57When the Mayor of Taipei is from the
1:12:59Kuomintang
1:13:01>> it is a breach.
1:13:02>> When it's Ko Wen-je, the Twin City Forum
1:13:04is definitely a breach.
1:13:06>> But please rest assured, when I am the
1:13:08Mayor of Taipei, the Twin City Forum
1:13:10will never be a breach.
1:13:12What does this represent?
1:13:14It represents my firm consciousness of
1:13:16Taiwan, the trust Taipei citizens have
1:13:18in me, and that when I represent Taipei
1:13:20at the Twin City Forum, the citizens are
1:13:23absolutely at ease.
1:13:25>> But the people caught by Bo-yang serving
1:13:27the Premier are all from the DPP.
1:13:28>> Hold on, let me finish first.
1:13:31Can we not interrupt my brilliant
1:13:32discourse
1:13:34>> like this?
1:13:36>> What do I need to cheer for?
1:13:38>> I...I think...
1:13:40>> I wasn't persuaded, I have nothing...
1:13:42>> You're addicted to acting.
1:13:43>> Really?
1:13:44>> Yeah.
1:13:45>> But he didn't say it like that. He acted
1:13:47180 degrees differently from you; he
1:13:50evaded and evaded.
1:13:51>> How did he evade? Come on, explain it to
1:13:53the netizens. He said, "Everything you
1:13:55mentioned is a central government matter
1:13:57," but it doesn't matter, let me tell
1:13:59you, these are things you once said
1:14:01yourself.
1:14:02The first blind spot in his answer was
1:14:04that he was a bit, a bit, a bit angry, a
1:14:06bit embarrassed, and asked, "Do I look
1:14:08like Cho Jung-tai?"
1:14:10"Do I look like Su Chiao-hui?"
1:14:14He always starts by saying, "Although
1:14:16you are asking a very strange question,
1:14:18I will still answer you nicely," but the
1:14:20problem is that these are all things you
1:14:22—Huang Kuo-chang already imitated the
1:14:24correct way to answer once.
1:14:26>> But he didn't, he was very evasive; he
1:14:28said these are all central government
1:14:29matters, but the most outrageous thing I
1:14:31think is the issue of the
1:14:32ten-thousand-dollar handout
1:14:33impoverishing Taiwan.
1:14:34>> Uh-huh.
1:14:34>> We saw that the transcript is a bit
1:14:36strange; he just said, "Oh, whether it's
1:14:38the ten-thousand-dollar handout or the
1:14:40constitutional amendment system today,
1:14:42as Brother Fu just said, if you are very
1:14:44interested, Mayor Chiang, why don't you
1:14:46come back and be a legislator?"
1:14:48>> I'll go be the mayor.
1:14:50I'll go be the mayor, but people are
1:14:51asking about your past comments on why
1:14:53you thought the ten-thousand-dollar
1:14:55handout would impoverish Taiwan.
1:14:57He didn't respond directly. Who exactly
1:14:59was questioning Chiang Wan-an in the
1:15:01past?
1:15:03>> Today, Shen Po-yang simply dares not
1:15:05face his own past, and instead claims
1:15:07these were remarks from 10 or 15 years
1:15:09ago.
1:15:10Hey, he said he wouldn't hold the Twin
1:15:12City Forum but would hold an Unlimited
1:15:14City Forum after he decided to run, and
1:15:16he said the ten-thousand-dollar handout
1:15:18was a CCP policy to impoverish Taiwan
1:15:20just last year.
1:15:22Actually, the things you've said during
1:15:24this time have just been temporarily
1:15:26packaged by your warm persona, blinding
1:15:28everyone.
1:15:30You see, I think going through these
1:15:31nine questions today is about
1:15:33confronting the fact that the Shen
1:15:34Pao-yang of the past and the Shen
1:15:36Pao-yang of the present are completely
1:15:38different and contradictory.
1:15:40Shen didn't seize the horn of
1:15:42counterattack today; he still just kept
1:15:44evading and dodging.
1:15:46I think this easily turns into that "
1:15:48head in the sand" mentality— "I won't
1:15:50listen, I won't look, as long as the '
1:15:52Bluebirds' don't care, then it's fine."
1:15:56I think he probably didn't anticipate
1:15:58Chiang Wan-an’s offensive being so sharp
1:16:00today, and he was likely feeling quite
1:16:02rattled and flustered himself. So,
1:16:03during this series of responses, he
1:16:05actually claimed these were things he
1:16:07said 10 or 15 years ago. This wasn't 10
1:16:09or 15 years ago; no one really knew
1:16:11Professor Shen Pao-yang back then. These
1:16:13are things you said in these few years
1:16:15since entering politics as a legislator
1:16:17. I'd like to ask the professor about
1:16:18this later, but there is one thing today
1:16:20that needs fact-checking: this matter of
1:16:22the 10,000 NT dollar universal handout.
1:16:24He said he supports the idea that we
1:16:26shouldn't incur debt for this money, or
1:16:28something about debt and the Fiscal
1:16:29Diversification Act. He actually mixed
1:16:31the two together.
1:16:33Was there really any debt incurred or
1:16:34not? So let me read it. He said the most
1:16:36important thing about the Fiscal
1:16:37Diversification Act at the time was that
1:16:39it required incurring debt. I don't
1:16:40think fiscal laws and debt are related.
1:16:42What on earth is he saying?
1:16:43>> What exactly is he talking about? He
1:16:45said that incurring debt to do this
1:16:46today is an incorrect thing for us.
1:16:48Should we debunk Shen directly on this,
1:16:49Professor?
1:16:50>> No, let's just speak directly first.
1:16:52Last year, last year...
1:16:53>> Mm.
1:16:54>> When the universal handout was proposed
1:16:56last year,
1:16:56>> Shen Pao-yang said this was "
1:16:58impoverishing Taiwan first,"
1:16:59>> Right.
1:17:00>> And then "unifying it."
1:17:01>> Right.
1:17:02>> Mm. "
1:17:02>> Impoverish Taiwan first, then unify."
1:17:04His basic argument was that the
1:17:05opposition party was colluding with
1:17:07Beijing,
1:17:07>> That's why they wanted the universal
1:17:09cash handout, "impoverish Taiwan first,
1:17:11then unify,"
1:17:11>> He said this last year.
1:17:13>> And this year, when faced with
1:17:15questioning, they say, "Oh, it's because
1:17:17we have to incur debt and so on." Let me
1:17:19tell you all. If I were Chiang Wan-an, I
1:17:21would have blasted him on the spot.
1:17:23>> Oh. Mm.
1:17:24>> Because it's not like they only changed
1:17:26their tune this year; they already
1:17:27changed it last year, mm.
1:17:28>> When the 10,000-dollar handout was
1:17:30released last year, do you know who was
1:17:32the first to jump out and attack it?
1:17:33>> Could it be the Executive Yuan?
1:17:34>> It's the Executive Yuan—no, wait.
1:17:36>> Not the Executive Yuan,
1:17:37>> It was Wu Sz-huai.
1:17:39>> Oh,
1:17:39>> not surprised, is it again
1:17:41>> That is, we, oh, we issued an extra ten
1:17:43thousand.
1:17:44It’s our DPP's policy achievement, how
1:17:46strange, Shen Po-yang, shouldn't you all
1:17:49align your talking points first?
1:17:51>> Last year when they issued ten thousand
1:17:52, it was already said to be what,
1:17:54>> Hmm,
1:17:54>> this is the DPP's achievement,
1:17:56>> Hmm,
1:17:57>> this isn't just contradictory this year
1:17:58.
1:17:59>> Hmm,
1:17:59>> it was already contradictory last year.
1:18:01>> Hmm,
1:18:02>> Second point. Today Chiang Wan-an
1:18:04brought up something, talked about the
1:18:05Fiscal Discipline Act, I think he spoke
1:18:07very well. Because when the Fiscal
1:18:09Discipline Act was being amended back
1:18:11then, Shen Po-yang was against it.
1:18:12>> Hmm,
1:18:13>> Hmm. He was against it, oh,
1:18:15>> Alright. What was his whole argument?
1:18:17You guys are just handing out 10 billion
1:18:19, 20 billion to every city and county
1:18:21like this.
1:18:22It still goes back to his argument, that
1:18:25this is basically to ensure the central
1:18:26government has no money to do anything,
1:18:28and so on.
1:18:31But I think what was said today is very
1:18:33good, and this is a common problem
1:18:35facing DPP mayoral candidates this year
1:18:37, which is
1:18:39>> they have made a bunch of campaign
1:18:41promises. Hmm,
1:18:42>> the funding for those promises all came
1:18:44from what we added when we amended the
1:18:46Fiscal Discipline Act,
1:18:48>> added.
1:18:49>> Hmm, no money,
1:18:50>> I will say it again,
1:18:51>> the promises they are making now
1:18:54>> are all from what we
1:18:57>> added to the funding sources when we
1:18:59amended the Fiscal Discipline Act last
1:19:01year.
1:19:02So,
1:19:03>> they are really, I will put it this way
1:19:05, on one hand criticizing, hmm
1:19:08>> on the other, they want to directly
1:19:10benefit.
1:19:10>> Hmm, on one hand receiving,
1:19:12>> on the other criticizing.
1:19:13>> Hmm
1:19:14>> on one hand wanting to receive.
1:19:15>> Hmm
1:19:16>> Whether it's Shen Po-yang or Su
1:19:18Chiao-hui,
1:19:18>> it's the same.
1:19:19>> Because of this matter, I scolded Su
1:19:21Chiao-hui,
1:19:22>> I scolded her several times, the
1:19:24promises she made,
1:19:25>> may I ask where the funding comes from?
1:19:27>> Hmm
1:19:28>> May I ask where the funding comes from?
1:19:30That funding all, all must rely on. The
1:19:32the fiscal amendments we made at that
1:19:34time,
1:19:34>> Right.
1:19:36>> The funding we added, and the amendments
1:19:38we made last year were the DPP's
1:19:40position from over a decade ago, it
1:19:42really is the DPP's, it really is the
1:19:44DPP's position from over a decade ago,
1:19:47but I think in the whole process of the
1:19:49confrontation, Chiang Wan-an's
1:19:51questioning
1:19:53>> Hmm
1:19:53>> Hmm
1:19:54>> really hit him
1:19:55>> Hmm
1:19:56>> a bit off-balance.
1:19:57>> That is why he took the Fiscal
1:19:59Discipline Act
1:20:01>> and and all these things, just what,
1:20:04>> distorting the facts to reply, all of it
1:20:06.
1:20:07>> Or does he really not understand?
1:20:08>> It's possible he really, really doesn't
1:20:09understand the work of a legislator, he
1:20:11doesn't understand.
1:20:12>> He, he has no other moves in the
1:20:13Legislative Yuan, he only has one trick
1:20:15.
1:20:15>> Whatever bill the opposition party
1:20:17proposes,
1:20:18>> he will tell you that there must be a
1:20:19CCP conspiracy behind it.
1:20:22>> Really.
1:20:22>> No matter what bill the opposition party
1:20:24proposes, right,
1:20:26>> behind it there must be what,
1:20:27>> a CCP conspiracy.
1:20:29>> Right.
1:20:30>> Whatever bill, what you see is basically
1:20:32the same argument,
1:20:33>> Hmm
1:20:34>> they are all cut from the same cloth,
1:20:36they are all like this.
1:20:37>> Teacher, let me ask one thing, because
1:20:39he also mentioned the Twin Cities Forum
1:20:41, and I’m quite curious.
1:20:43>> In the past, Shen Po-yang viewed all
1:20:45such exchanges as united front work,
1:20:47with a hidden agenda behind them, so he
1:20:49flatly rejected the Twin Cities Forum.
1:20:51But before the debate, I saw that from
1:20:53the very beginning... "
1:20:54>> Unlimited City Forum"—meaning we don't
1:20:56need to exchange with the Mainland, we
1:20:57can exchange with other cities, with
1:20:59Paris, with anywhere else.
1:21:00>> Later, he revised it to: When both sides
1:21:02are equal, why should I have a Twin
1:21:03Cities Forum with Beijing? Why should I
1:21:05have a Twin Cities Forum with Shanghai?
1:21:07Now he has revised it to: Fine, the
1:21:09Shanghai Twin Cities Forum, but I need
1:21:10it to be without political preconditions
1:21:12, plus many additional requirements,
1:21:14then maybe we can work within that
1:21:16framework. But after hearing all this,
1:21:18he keeps retreating back to the original
1:21:19Twin Cities Forum, yet saying it without
1:21:21really saying anything. He didn’t
1:21:23specify what kind of conditions or what
1:21:25kind of framework he means today. It’s
1:21:27as if, just like the performance earlier
1:21:29, if Shen Po-yang runs the Twin Cities
1:21:31Forum, there’s no "united front" issue,
1:21:34but if others do it, there is. His logic
1:21:36seems...
1:21:37>> It seems to lack any factual basis, just
1:21:39making statements on a whim.
1:21:41>> So I’ll tell you, the best answer is the
1:21:43one I just gave.
1:21:44>> If Shen Po-yang does it, then it's OK.
1:21:46>> Right, right, right, Shen Po-yang on
1:21:48this matter. The long...
1:21:49>> Take Liang Wen-chieh, the Deputy
1:21:51Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council
1:21:53.
1:21:53>> Mm-hmm.
1:21:55>> If Liang Wen-chieh weren't from the DPP
1:21:57and went across the strait to do
1:21:58business,
1:21:59"
1:21:59>> Sucking up to the Communists,"
1:22:01>> Mm.
1:22:01>> Exactly. "
1:22:02>> Clinging to the CCP's leg,""
1:22:04>> Preparing to sell out Taiwan,""
1:22:06>> A fellow traveler of the CCP."
1:22:08>> But...
1:22:09>> If Liang Wen-chieh sees their New Tide
1:22:11faction bigwig Hung Chi-chang go over,
1:22:13that’s "healthy and orderly exchange."
1:22:17"
1:22:17>> We support healthy and orderly exchange
1:22:19."
1:22:21>> Oh. Lying through their teeth.
1:22:24>> Mm.
1:22:27>> Liang Wen-chieh already demonstrated
1:22:28that for everyone in the past.
1:22:31>> Mm.
1:22:32>> The DPP’s double standards have been
1:22:34demonstrated for everyone, so the only
1:22:36solution to the DPP’s double standards
1:22:38...Is the one I just gave.
1:22:41Because it’s the DPP.
1:22:42>> So... "
1:22:43>> So if I do it, nobody needs to worry."
1:22:45By now, if you don't have a DPP party
1:22:47card,
1:22:47>> It’s definitely "healthy and orderly
1:22:49exchange."
1:22:50>> If you are not from the DPP,
1:22:51>> You must be a fellow traveler of the CCP
1:22:54.
1:22:55>> Basically, that is their current mindset
1:22:57.
1:22:59>> And they want to highly regulate it,
1:23:00saying it’s for your own protection.
1:23:04>> Then the sixth topic is child abuse,
1:23:06which we just discussed; the seventh is
1:23:08drunk driving.
1:23:10>> And what is the eighth topic? The eighth
1:23:12topic is...
1:23:12>> Songshan Airport. It’s the matter of
1:23:14Songshan Airport.
1:23:16>> Regarding Songshan Airport, let me, let
1:23:18me think for a second.
1:23:20>> Actually, even now, Shen Po-yang is
1:23:22still the same. On the relocation of
1:23:24Songshan Airport, he hasn't committed to
1:23:26whether he wants it or not, or whether
1:23:28he thinks it's good or bad.
1:23:30He says this matter needs to be
1:23:32discussed and shouldn't be handled so
1:23:33hastily.
1:23:34>> No, it has been discussed for decades.
1:23:36>> Mm.
1:23:37>> What are your thoughts?
1:23:38>> It has been advocated for decades. I’m
1:23:40not entirely speaking on his behalf here
1:23:42. I think regarding the Songshan
1:23:43relocation, of course, I have asked the
1:23:45local residents myself. Many people,
1:23:47perhaps because they are in the Songshan
1:23:48area, are restricted by height limits
1:23:50and cannot undergo urban renewal. There
1:23:51are many old houses, fifty or sixty
1:23:53years old, that do have leakage problems
1:23:55. But it cannot be denied that many
1:23:56people in the Minsheng Community or the
1:23:58Songshan area feel that having an
1:23:59airport in the capital is very
1:24:01convenient. It's great for me to go
1:24:02abroad to Japan or Korea, and these
1:24:04opinions are by no means in the minority
1:24:06. I think what should be said is that
1:24:07Chiang proposing this represents that,
1:24:09as the mayor of a capital city, he
1:24:11believes he wants to release this space
1:24:12for comprehensive planning. That is his
1:24:15perspective. However, there is one thing
1:24:17I think Chiang could improve upon.
1:24:20When he threw out this idea, he should
1:24:21have immediately explained the concerns
1:24:23people have had in the past and the
1:24:25supporting measures that are deemed
1:24:26necessary, rather than just putting it
1:24:28out there.
1:24:29But what's worse is Shen.
1:24:31>> He provided no explanation at all. He
1:24:33just said he didn't know if he should
1:24:34support it or oppose it. I feel he
1:24:35hasn't studied this entire issue at all
1:24:37. First, it's impossible for him to
1:24:39oppose it.
1:24:40>> Mm.
1:24:40>> How could he possibly oppose it? That's
1:24:42right.
1:24:44>> The past several DPP candidates running
1:24:46for Taipei mayor, mm.
1:24:48>> All of them proposed this.
1:24:50>> Yeah.
1:24:50>> Including Wellington Koo.
1:24:52>> Mm.
1:24:52>> Including Wellington Koo.
1:24:55How could he possibly oppose it?
1:24:57Second, how would you expect him to
1:24:59support it?
1:25:00>> Supporting it would just mean following
1:25:02Chiang Wan-an's lead.
1:25:04>> So he can neither oppose it.
1:25:06>> Nor can he support it. Mm.
1:25:08>> So the conclusion is just what you see
1:25:10right now, so he said, "Why don't we add
1:25:11each other on LINE later?" That, that
1:25:13was Shen Po-yang's final conclusion. "
1:25:15>> We can join you to discuss Songshan
1:25:17Airport."
1:25:18>> When I saw the debate, at the end he
1:25:19said, "Hey, let's add each other on LINE
1:25:21." What kind of response is that?
1:25:22>> Right, right, right. Ah.
1:25:25No, if you are at a debate venue, and
1:25:27you don't answer questions when asked,
1:25:29what good would adding someone on LINE
1:25:31do?
1:25:33>> Seriously, how is adding someone on LINE
1:25:35going to help?
1:25:37>> Is he hoping to recruit him to be some
1:25:39kind of campaign staff?
1:25:40Will he be promoted to Yang Liu?
1:25:42>> Where did Yang Liu go?
1:25:44>> Hmm.
1:25:45>> OK, great.
1:25:47Then the media asked, what do you want
1:25:49Taipei to look like four years from now
1:25:51?
1:25:52>> That was the TVBS reporter. That's right
1:25:54.
1:25:55>> I have to say, Qiming's question was
1:25:58very neutral.
1:26:01>> It was very open-ended, effectively
1:26:03creating a free-for-all for the two of
1:26:05them.
1:26:07>> As for the second question, about the
1:26:09urban renewal that SET was asking about
1:26:10, which we just mentioned to everyone
1:26:12...
1:26:15...
1:26:16>> but when Shen Boyang was answering the
1:26:17media's question, when answering Qiming
1:26:19...
1:26:23...
1:26:23>> he said this bookstore held a "walking
1:26:25tour" event.
1:26:27>> Speaking of "walking tours,"
1:26:28>> The professor has done a lot of research
1:26:30on walking tours.
1:26:31>> When I heard the word "walking tour," I
1:26:33was shocked because I am currently being
1:26:35investigated by the Taipei District
1:26:37Prosecutors Office because of a walking
1:26:39tour.
1:26:40>> Then you should learn from Shen Boyang,
1:26:42he's promoting these walking tours.
1:26:43>> Right, maybe your case will be resolved
1:26:45because of it, right?
1:26:46>> Right, you might get off the hook, just
1:26:48say Shen Boyang also organizes walking
1:26:49tours.
1:26:50>> Then you're wrong again. Wrong, because
1:26:51you're not in the DPP.
1:26:53>> Right, because he's from the DPP, the
1:26:55same set of rules. But regarding Shen
1:26:57Boyang's answers to the media, there are
1:26:58two points that stand out to me. First,
1:27:00regarding the urban renewal question,
1:27:02regardless of whether the DPP was "
1:27:04feeding him a pitch" to hit...Hmm.
1:27:06>> Shen Boyang talked about wanting to
1:27:08refer to Tokyo's land rights transfer
1:27:10system, but after saying that, he said,
1:27:12"But due to time constraints, I can't
1:27:14answer properly today."
1:27:16If, as Brother Fu said, the questions
1:27:17were provided in advance, then if you're
1:27:19going to bring something up, telling
1:27:21everyone you don't have time to explain
1:27:23it properly means you shouldn't have
1:27:24brought it up at all.
1:27:26"I have a good suggestion for you, but I
1:27:27can't tell you right now, you can later
1:27:29...""
1:27:30>> You can just Google it yourself later."
1:27:32He really likes telling people to Google
1:27:33things. So, I feel that since they
1:27:35already set it up for you, either don't
1:27:37mention it, or if you do, fully
1:27:39articulate your argument. Your answer.
1:27:41That's the first point. The second is
1:27:42that he later mentioned something about
1:27:44"seismic coefficients," wanting to
1:27:46guarantee the public's "right to know"
1:27:47when buying a home. Hmm.
1:27:50>> Honestly, when I heard that, I
1:27:51immediately thought: are you trying to
1:27:53let everyone know and label these
1:27:55buildings, saying "Oh, this house's
1:27:57seismic coefficient is insufficient,
1:27:59don't buy it"?
1:28:00Wow, once that's said, property values
1:28:02will probably plummet.
1:28:04How are the local residents at the time
1:28:06supposed to accept that?
1:28:07You can tell just by looking at it that
1:28:09this will be incredibly difficult.
1:28:13Furthermore, in his first response to
1:28:15the media, he mentioned he wants to
1:28:17bring electric buses into communities—a
1:28:19sort of mobile fitness minibus.
1:28:25>> Once the doors open, there would be two
1:28:27fitness coaches, maybe even a
1:28:28nutritionist and a physical therapist,
1:28:30so that seniors can go downstairs and
1:28:32immediately start resistance training.
1:28:35Wow, my first thought was, well, we have
1:28:37to consider how you're actually going to
1:28:40execute this.
1:28:41First of all, where are you going to
1:28:43park it? Parking spaces are so hard to
1:28:45find in Taipei right now, so where will
1:28:47you park? That’s the first thing. The
1:28:49second thing is, where are your fitness
1:28:50coaches coming from? Are you going to
1:28:52borrow them from the gym? Or how will
1:28:53that work? Those are the first and
1:28:55second points.
1:28:58And furthermore, even if all those
1:28:59issues were resolved, Taipei actually
1:29:01already has many centers where seniors
1:29:03can get strength training, and they’ve
1:29:05long been doing things like yoga.
1:29:09>> Right, you should really be saying that
1:29:11we need to find suitable spaces to
1:29:13increase the number of these centers, so
1:29:15you can have them near your home or even
1:29:17within your community.
1:29:19>> You could have these resources available
1:29:21to use.
1:29:23I think we should be revitalizing
1:29:25existing spaces instead of saying, "Oh,
1:29:27it's inconvenient for you, so I'll drive
1:29:29a health minibus around."
1:29:31It’s just a pipe dream without any
1:29:33execution power.
1:29:35I’d like to add something regarding this
1:29:37so-called "health electric minibus."
1:29:40If you really want people to exercise,
1:29:42as Yixuan mentioned, there are many
1:29:44centers.
1:29:46You could make them more affordable,
1:29:48perhaps with lower fees or government
1:29:50subsidies, to help people get into
1:29:51exercise; that’s one way.
1:29:55His assumption is that because it's
1:29:56convenient and right downstairs, people
1:29:58will naturally come down to do it.
1:30:02But in reality, for seniors who are
1:30:04unwilling or resistant, there’s a major
1:30:06issue—I noticed he mentioned "after
1:30:08seniors go downstairs," but going
1:30:10downstairs is actually a painful ordeal
1:30:12for them, because...
1:30:14>> There are still so many old
1:30:15neighborhoods in Taipei with many stairs
1:30:17; they live on the fourth or fifth floor
1:30:20.
1:30:20>> Asking seniors to go out, they won't
1:30:22want to unless absolutely necessary.
1:30:24Because their knees and stamina aren't
1:30:26enough; going down and coming back up is
1:30:28a very, very painful thing for them.
1:30:31The first thing is how to make these
1:30:33elderly people live comfortably in their
1:30:35old homes, for example, by adding
1:30:37elevators or related auxiliary
1:30:38facilities.
1:30:40I think this is the most important thing
1:30:42to make seniors willing to step out of
1:30:43their homes.
1:30:45This is the first thing to do, rather
1:30:47than pandering by setting up a minibus
1:30:49or a tent downstairs, where even if you
1:30:51yell your throat sore, they won't come
1:30:52out.
1:30:54Actually, this debate, I'm sorry, I
1:30:56misspoke.
1:31:00It’s not a debate; it’s a policy
1:31:01presentation and interactive questioning
1:31:03session.
1:31:06>> Watching it today, and actually from
1:31:08yesterday's Kaohsiung debate. That
1:31:10Kaohsiung debate, I have to tell
1:31:12everyone, was a complete landslide.
1:31:14Really, Ko Chih-en's performance was
1:31:16just too good.
1:31:17>> Hmm.
1:31:18>> Because the Kaohsiung result was not
1:31:20very surprising to anyone. Hmm.
1:31:22>> It really wasn't surprising, because if
1:31:23you've heard Ko Chih-en and Lai Jui-lung
1:31:25speak in the Legislative Yuan, you'd
1:31:27know the result would definitely be like
1:31:29this.
1:31:29>> Hmm.
1:31:30>> I wasn't very surprised by today's
1:31:32Taipei City one either.
1:31:33>> Oh.
1:31:34>> I really wasn't, I really wasn't.
1:31:36>> Because you've clashed with him in the
1:31:37Legislative Yuan.
1:31:38>> I've seen it too many times, but let me
1:31:40talk about yesterday's Kaohsiung one
1:31:42first.
1:31:42>> Hmm.
1:31:43>> Because Ko Chih-en and Lai Jui-lung,
1:31:45those two. I have to say this:
1:31:49>> The result was predictable.
1:31:52Ko Chih-en talks about things very
1:31:54clearly, while Lai Jui-lung sometimes
1:31:56has a lot of time, but keeps saying the
1:31:58same things over and over, all because
1:32:00he's being scripted.
1:32:03>> Hmm.
1:32:03>> He's being scripted. Because Lai
1:32:05Jui-lung is so bad that he just reads
1:32:07off a script. For instance, we were
1:32:09discussing urban renewal, right?
1:32:11>> Then move on. No, no, no. He picks up,
1:32:14we’re discussing urban renewal, and the
1:32:16script he picks up is...
1:32:20"
1:32:20>> I advocate for promoting fitness
1:32:22minibuses, because fitness minibuses can
1:32:24provide our elderly with convenient
1:32:26exercise opportunities and accompany our
1:32:28seniors."
1:32:31>> Is he even...
1:32:32>> Healthy aging, is he even listening?
1:32:35>> Back then, I was sitting in the back,
1:32:37listening to Lai Jui-lung.
1:32:39>> Hmm.
1:32:40>> Reading that script, I thought, he must
1:32:42not know what clause we're discussing at
1:32:44all.
1:32:45He really must not know.
1:32:47>> You just mentioned in the Legislative
1:32:48Yuan.
1:32:49>> Yes, yes, yes. He must not have known
1:32:51what clause we were discussing; he just
1:32:53took it.
1:32:54Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, because I’ve
1:32:57been through the Legislative Yuan.
1:32:59>> So,
1:33:00>> regarding yesterday's event in Kaohsiung
1:33:02,
1:33:02>> I wasn't surprised at all, not even a
1:33:04little, but
1:33:06>> you have to admire how impressive the
1:33:08DPP is. Mm.
1:33:10>> Because yesterday's event was a total
1:33:12blowout, it was just, oh, what a mess.
1:33:17>> They were just—look at how they went
1:33:19after Ke Chih-en.
1:33:23>> Overbearing, harsh, and mean-spirited.
1:33:27>> And it's precisely because the gap
1:33:28between the two sides was so huge.
1:33:31>> In the end, they could only resort to
1:33:32using their internet armies or pro-green
1:33:34media to seize the narrative.
1:33:36>> Mm.
1:33:37>> Great, you should record that. Yes, yes
1:33:40, record it, exactly. I've been a victim
1:33:42of this for too long.
1:33:43>> Really, really, really, really, really,
1:33:46really.
1:33:47>> Those who speak clearly are the ones who
1:33:48end up getting attacked.
1:33:51>> Mm, that was yesterday, but for today's
1:33:53debate, at first, I was thinking about
1:33:55how all this recent packaging of Shen
1:33:57Po-yang—Everyone was saying, "Wow, Shen
1:33:59is like a god, how do you know the
1:34:01answer to every question? How do you
1:34:03have a solution for everything? How can
1:34:05you just throw out so many plans at any
1:34:07moment?" They set the bar so high for
1:34:09him, while portraying Chiang Wan-an as
1:34:10someone who can't speak without a script
1:34:12, or someone who can't even read a
1:34:13script well, just a useless teleprompter
1:34:15reader.
1:34:16>> And they were the ones calling others
1:34:17teleprompter readers, yet today, the one
1:34:20reading from a script was Shen Po-yang.
1:34:22>> Exactly.
1:34:23>> So, I originally thought it would be a
1:34:25close contest,
1:34:26>> but unexpectedly—in my personal view—I
1:34:29feel that in this debate, Shen Po-yang
1:34:31either underestimated his opponent, was
1:34:34completely unprepared, or thought that
1:34:36just like this,
1:34:37>> he could just coast through by acting
1:34:38like that.
1:34:39>> Right, coast through, and then rely on
1:34:40the side saying, "Anyway, this isn't
1:34:42worth watching.""Not worth watching, not
1:34:44worth watching, my dear followers,
1:34:45everyone stop watching the debate now,"
1:34:48>> and that would be it, right, it might
1:34:50just pass, but I just saw that Chairman
1:34:52Ko seems to have some thoughts on this
1:34:54debate.
1:34:56>> Chairman Ko mentioned that Mayor Chiang
1:34:58really just needs to talk about the last
1:35:00four years, and he has actually been
1:35:01saying this for the past few days.
1:35:06I think that's exactly what happened
1:35:08today; as long as Chiang calmly and
1:35:09steadily conveys his understanding and
1:35:11insights on city governance, he
1:35:13completely
1:35:17>> destroys the mask that was packaged for
1:35:19Shen Po-yang.
1:35:21And I feel that today, this event...
1:35:25>> The debate really allowed many people to
1:35:27see who Shen Boyang truly is.
1:35:30Today, he sort of shed his outer shell,
1:35:33letting everyone see his true nature.
1:35:39But for those who can still support him
1:35:40, I think you should really think
1:35:42carefully: can his statements be truly
1:35:44implemented and executed if you cast
1:35:46your vote for him?
1:35:49The most important focus of our Taiwan
1:35:51People's Party is execution.
1:35:54If you talk a good game and spout
1:35:56slogans, but can't actually deliver once
1:35:58you're in office, is my vote for you
1:35:59really worth it?
1:36:02>> Let me add that I highly recommend
1:36:03everyone print out their transcripts
1:36:05like we did today, because once printed
1:36:07, you'll get a profound feeling as we
1:36:09highlight the parts that just glossed
1:36:10over things.
1:36:11>> It's all very abstract—all feelings, all
1:36:14concepts, all dreams, all just
1:36:16sentiments.
1:36:17>> And I think, speaking of Wan-an, he has
1:36:19the advantage of four years in office.
1:36:22In theory, if he simply stated what he
1:36:24has done over these four years, what he
1:36:26is currently working on, and how he
1:36:27plans to implement these things in the
1:36:29next four years, he would have a
1:36:31significant inherent advantage by
1:36:32performing steadily.
1:36:34>> Yesterday, when Wan-an was giving his
1:36:36conclusion
1:36:37>> Yes.
1:36:38>> Actually, let me put it this way
1:36:39regarding his conclusion.
1:36:41>> For all the netizens who don't have time
1:36:43to watch the whole event. Mm.
1:36:45>> Mm.
1:36:46>> If you really care and want to hear what
1:36:48they are talking about.
1:36:50>> Mm.
1:36:51I suggest everyone just watch the final
1:36:53closing statements.
1:36:55>> Just watch the closing statements, yes.
1:36:58>> Look at these two people.
1:37:00From the opening arguments to the
1:37:02cross-examination, and finally to the
1:37:04closing statements.
1:37:06>> The content they spoke about.
1:37:08>> Mm.
1:37:09>> The self-confidence they displayed.
1:37:11>> Mm.
1:37:12>> As for who is the script reader, I
1:37:13guarantee you, after watching the
1:37:15closing statements.
1:37:16>> You will definitely have your answer.
1:37:18Mm-hmm.
1:37:18>> Today, Wan-an said something very sharp
1:37:21during his closing statement. Packaging
1:37:23can change a person's image.
1:37:25>> Mm.
1:37:25>> But it cannot change a person's inner
1:37:27self. Mm.
1:37:28>> Mm.
1:37:29>> Mm.
1:37:32>> Packaging can change a person's image,
1:37:34but it cannot change a person's inner
1:37:37self.
1:37:40I think this explains it very clearly:
1:37:42double standards.
1:37:45>> Let me add one more thing.
1:37:46>> Go ahead.
1:37:48This immediately reminds me of something
1:37:50Ko-P also said.
1:37:52>> Ko Wen-je said, and he said it in
1:37:53English of course, that if you want to
1:37:55judge a person, you should look at what
1:37:57they do, not listen to what they say.
1:38:00>> What do you say and what do you do?
1:38:01>> Right.
1:38:02>> When Ko said this, I thought to myself,
1:38:04wise people surely say things that
1:38:06resonate deeply with the public.
1:38:08>> Because
1:38:09>> over this past period, we've been struck
1:38:11by this so-called "warm current," and
1:38:13it's still sweeping through Wanhua now.
1:38:15>> Yes.
1:38:17And you might be curious, thinking that
1:38:19when you have the ability to discern,
1:38:21shouldn't you be reviewing how you did
1:38:22in the debate at a time like this? No,
1:38:24even if you performed poorly, it doesn't
1:38:26matter, because it was too cold this
1:38:28afternoon.
1:38:28>> Too cold.
1:38:29>> So I need a warm current
1:38:31>> to nourish me.
1:38:32>> That’s exactly what’s needed, yes.
1:38:34>> Because this afternoon was too cold,
1:38:36returning
1:38:36>> deeply traumatized, I need
1:38:40>> to be surrounded and to be bolstered by
1:38:42confidence.
1:38:46>> But this allows for weeding out those
1:38:48outside things, so I still return to
1:38:49that saying: you really have to look at
1:38:51what's been done, not what's been said;
1:38:53when you always let their words—
1:38:59>> these flowery phrases—package things and
1:39:01influence your vote, that is a truly
1:39:03terrifying thing.
1:39:06A few days ago, I painstakingly dug up
1:39:08the news about Chairman Huang Kuo-chang
1:39:11and Enoch Wu's past conflicts.
1:39:15In the process of finding them, I
1:39:16discovered a problem: we had to flip
1:39:18through many pages because they have
1:39:20massive media coverage creating this
1:39:22warm image and public opinion, which
1:39:24forces you to search with specific
1:39:26keywords to find anything.
1:39:29Otherwise, if you search for "Enoch Wu
1:39:31vs. Taiwan People's Party" now, it might
1:39:33be very difficult to find.
1:39:36That ability, but what were we like in
1:39:38the past?
1:39:40I want to add one more thing: Enoch Wu
1:39:42once lumped the Communist Party, the
1:39:44Kuomintang, the Taiwan People's Party,
1:39:46and the New Party all together as the
1:39:48four great enemies of Taiwan opposing
1:39:50him.
1:39:53>> He said that just last year, yet when he
1:39:55makes these claims, he never provides
1:39:57any fundamental arguments or basis.
1:39:59It’s always just "resist China and
1:40:01protect Taiwan," saying the Legislative
1:40:03Yuan is just causing trouble, and
1:40:05constantly resorting to personal attacks
1:40:07against Chairman Huang.
1:40:11The reason I can't be swayed is because
1:40:13we were there in the news, we saw it
1:40:15clearly and experienced it ourselves, so
1:40:16we remember it all perfectly.
1:40:21So, I think today's debate is a great
1:40:23opportunity for everyone to re-examine
1:40:25who Shen Po-yang really is.
1:40:29Because from where I was sitting in the
1:40:31Legislative Yuan,
1:40:33>> He and Wu Szu-yao, the two of them,
1:40:36>> Came right up in front of me,
1:40:37>> Ranting wildly,
1:40:38>> Hurling insults,
1:40:39>> Truly cursing at me.
1:40:41>> But do you know why I didn't say a
1:40:42single word back then? Because I knew
1:40:44their strategy.
1:40:44>> They wanted to—
1:40:45>> They wanted to provoke me. They would
1:40:47provoke me,
1:40:49>> And when I reacted, the pro-green media
1:40:50would just highlight me getting angry or
1:40:52whatever.
1:40:54>> Right, right, right, right, because this
1:40:57tactic—
1:40:59>> When I first returned to the Legislative
1:41:01Yuan this term, Fan Yun did it once.
1:41:04>> Mm.
1:41:04>> Fan Yun did it once; she ran right up in
1:41:07front of me,
1:41:08>> Just kept cursing and yelling, over and
1:41:10over.
1:41:10>> Mm.
1:41:10>> And later, I couldn't take it anymore,
1:41:13so I fired back at her. Mm.
1:41:15>> And when the news came out,
1:41:16>> Mm.
1:41:16>> It only showed me firing back at her.
1:41:18>> Her provocation beforehand was
1:41:19completely ignored.
1:41:20>> None of it.
1:41:21>> So later, when Wu Szu-yao and Shen
1:41:23Po-yang,
1:41:23>> Used the same trick—it was identical.
1:41:25>> They used the exact same move, and...
1:41:27>> They were really there screaming and
1:41:28waving things around. When they finally
1:41:30left, what did they say?
1:41:32>> Mm. "
1:41:32>> Democracy is about fists.""
1:41:34>> Democracy is about who has the bigger
1:41:36fist."
1:41:37>> Mm.
1:41:37>> I stand by what I said; I take full
1:41:39responsibility. This is on YouTube now.
1:41:41You’re lucky we still have independent
1:41:43media.
1:41:44Yes, we rely on independent media now.
1:41:47Right, "democracy is about fists."
1:41:50Regarding the closing statement,
1:41:51actually, before I came here, I saw it
1:41:53being shared in many of our online
1:41:55groups, and what they were sharing was
1:41:57Chiang Wan-an's closing statement.
1:41:59He talked about how a city’s progress
1:42:01isn't just the work of one person.
1:42:04Of course, he specially thanked the
1:42:05civil servants and the citizens, but in
1:42:07the end, he set aside party lines and
1:42:09called out the names of previous mayors
1:42:11.
1:42:12>> And he specifically mentioned former
1:42:13mayor Ko Wen-je, saying he laid a solid
1:42:15foundation—whether it's the Taipei Dome
1:42:17, social housing, or the Beitou-Shilin
1:42:19Technology Park. On that foundation,
1:42:21Chiang can quickly develop Taipei. He
1:42:23also mentioned fiscal discipline, saying
1:42:24that the fiscal discipline Ko emphasized
1:42:26is also his guiding principle, having
1:42:28cut over 40 billion, which is the best
1:42:30among the six major municipalities.
1:42:31Specifically, there's a part later on
1:42:33that mentions that despite the judicial
1:42:35persecution by the DPP, Mayor Ko still
1:42:37bravely stepped forward on various
1:42:39municipal issues to offer fair and
1:42:41objective evaluations—essentially,
1:42:43informed opinions. Actually, putting
1:42:45aside the first part, let's talk about
1:42:47the latter part; he is asking if Ko has
1:42:49ever done things properly? He says yes.
1:42:51He feels that regarding municipal
1:42:52policies, for example, if he criticizes
1:42:54why something was done a certain way, he
1:42:56has indeed voiced criticism, but the
1:42:57same goes for Shen Pao-yang. It's not
1:42:59like Shen Pao-yang would say a couple of
1:43:00nice things, like "Oh, Mayor Ko is
1:43:02someone I want to consult," or "I think
1:43:03Mayor Ko is doing a great job," or
1:43:05whatever.
1:43:05>> And none of that happened.
1:43:06>> Wait, has Shen Pao-yang ever said such
1:43:08things?
1:43:08>> He said he wanted to consult him. He
1:43:10wanted to consult him. He specifically
1:43:12drew a line, saying, "I think Ko Wen-je
1:43:14did a good job in his first four years
1:43:15because the DPP was there at the time."
1:43:19He said, "I think there were things
1:43:20worth learning from his first four years
1:43:22, but I think Ko is very practical when
1:43:24it comes to municipal affairs, rather
1:43:26than just talking nonsense."
1:43:30>> I really hope I can encourage the boss,
1:43:32yeah.
1:43:33>> To find an opportunity to talk about his
1:43:35first four years.
1:43:37Yeah.
1:43:37>> The people he used in his first four
1:43:39years were all pushed on him by the DPP
1:43:41.
1:43:41>> I really hope to encourage the boss.
1:43:44>> To come out and talk about the faces of
1:43:46those people the DPP forced on him.
1:43:48>> And what standards they used while
1:43:50serving in office.
1:43:51>> That would be a very fascinating story.
1:43:53>> What kind of faces they had.
1:43:55>> What standards they used to serve.
1:43:56>> Mhm, mhm, mhm. "
1:43:58>> Previously, others were doing the
1:44:00skimming.""
1:44:00>> Oh, now it's finally my turn to skim"—
1:44:03even things like that were said.
1:44:04>> I've heard of this.
1:44:06>> You've heard of it?
1:44:07Yeah.
1:44:09>> For Shen to dare say such things, I only
1:44:11have two words for it.
1:44:13>> Yeah.
1:44:15>> It makes me want to vomit. It just makes
1:44:16me want to vomit. Why do I say that?
1:44:19>> Yeah.
1:44:20>> When I heard he had said those things,
1:44:22the only two words I had were "want to
1:44:24vomit," and I will never forget it.
1:44:26>> Yeah.
1:44:29>> The day Ko was indicted.
1:44:31>> Yeah.
1:44:31>> The Legislative Yuan was reviewing the
1:44:33Whistleblower Protection Act.
1:44:35>> Yeah. While reviewing the Whistleblower
1:44:37Protection Act, the Mirror Media at the
1:44:39time.
1:44:40>> Used the boss on their cover.
1:44:43>> And at every MRT station.
1:44:45>> They were handing them out outside.
1:44:46>> Handing them out, right?
1:44:49>> At that time, every DPP legislator in
1:44:52the chamber, led by Wu Szu-yao.
1:44:56>> Held up the Mirror Media, shaming the
1:44:58Taiwan People's Party and shaming Ko
1:45:00Wen-je, and one of those people was
1:45:02named Shen Pao-yang.
1:45:05>> Wu Szu-yao, have you done this? Shen
1:45:08Pao-yang, have you done this? Stand up
1:45:10and explain yourself clearly. Trying to
1:45:13rewrite history, huh? I, Huang Kuo-chang
1:45:15, am not buying that.
1:45:18>> Oh, sorry, I didn't think of that.
1:45:26Yeah, I was just thinking, we've already
1:45:28been through so much—all these cognitive
1:45:30warfare tactics, the labeling, even
1:45:32criticizing everything you do as if it
1:45:34were worthless—but now that they need
1:45:36votes, they've done a total turnaround.
1:45:43And they just say, "Oh, we want to
1:45:44consult you because you did a great job
1:45:46in your first term." Well, let me ask
1:45:48about the Core Pacific City case; he
1:45:50didn't even touch that in his first term
1:45:52.
1:45:52>> Exactly, it’s very simple; they just
1:45:54need to answer one question. If he did
1:45:57such a great job in his first term.
1:45:58>> Mm-hmm.
1:45:59>> If they acknowledge he did well in his
1:46:01first term, then I ask the DPP to answer
1:46:03one question.
1:46:04>> Then why did they send Yao Wen-chih out
1:46:05back then?
1:46:06>> Exactly.
1:46:07>> Back in 2018, how were they slandering
1:46:09him?
1:46:10>> Mm-hmm.
1:46:11>> Do you think everyone has forgotten?
1:46:12>> Mm-hmm.
1:46:14>> As if everyone has forgotten.
1:46:16And I want to add, saying he did a great
1:46:18job in his first term, especially when
1:46:20talking about stitching together the
1:46:22Civic Boulevard—I saw a row of people
1:46:24below, I saw the "Bluebirds" watching
1:46:26Lin come out to support him. I see, what
1:46:28a high peak of irony that is, that such
1:46:31a "wonderful" person was recruited by
1:46:33Enoch Wu. If you agree that Enoch Wu
1:46:35thinks Lin Chou-min is super great, then
1:46:36is Enoch Wu going to take office now and
1:46:38tear down the Taipei Dome?
1:46:40>> Right.
1:46:40>> It was Lin who obstructed the Taipei
1:46:42Dome; it was Lin who obstructed it. The
1:46:44reason Mayor Ko spent so much time
1:46:46building nearly 99%of the Taipei Dome's
1:46:48foundation was that he was cleaning up
1:46:50the mess Lin Chou-min left behind.
1:46:53When he was the Commissioner of the
1:46:55Department of Urban Development, he
1:46:56strongly insisted the Dome couldn't be
1:46:58built, claiming it was dangerous.
1:47:01But if you don't build the Dome, it’s
1:47:03already been excavated, which would pose
1:47:04a public safety risk to the entire area
1:47:06.
1:47:07So, despite what people said, Mayor Ko
1:47:09withstood the pressure to finish it. And
1:47:11in the end, it was blocked because—at
1:47:13the time, since he was running for
1:47:14president—the Ministry of the Interior
1:47:16just wouldn't pass the fire safety
1:47:18regulations. Then, when the Chiang
1:47:19administration took office, it took some
1:47:21effort, but the Taipei Dome finally
1:47:22opened, and everyone said, "Wow, the
1:47:23Taipei Dome is great, I love it." But
1:47:25Enoch Wu, if you bring in someone like
1:47:27Lin, you have to tell me: are you going
1:47:28to tear down the Taipei Dome?
1:47:30>> Right.
1:47:31>> Okay. Last but not least.
1:47:33>> Last but not least.
1:47:34>> I want to formally clarify to everyone,
1:47:36hmm.
1:47:38Why am I hosting this livestream tonight
1:47:39?
1:47:42Beyond providing everyone with the most
1:47:44neutral, objective, professional,
1:47:46in-depth, and fact-checked analysis,
1:47:48actually, regarding these debates,
1:47:52>> Hmm.
1:47:52>> I’ve never really been that interested.
1:47:54>> Oh.
1:47:54>> Yeah.
1:47:55>> You like watching sheep too, huh?
1:47:57>> No, no, I...
1:47:59>> The only thing I’m interested in is
1:48:01waiting to see when Lai Ching-te will
1:48:02come out for a debate. Fine, that’s okay
1:48:05, that’s fine. What is the most
1:48:07important thing?
1:48:08The most important thing is, for all my
1:48:10friends, the citizens of Taipei,
1:48:16>> I hope that when you make your choice,
1:48:18you think about what kind of city you
1:48:19want and what kind of city leader you
1:48:21want.
1:48:24>> Hmm.
1:48:26>> Is it worth the time to watch? Why do I
1:48:28say my interest is low?
1:48:30>> Ah, I’m not a Taipei citizen.
1:48:33>> Really?
1:48:34You are a Taipei citizen, aren't you?
1:48:37Right.
1:48:38>> So for the Kaohsiung part, I did follow
1:48:40it a bit, I took a look.
1:48:42>> And people were saying how Ko Chih-en is
1:48:44this and that, let me tell you.
1:48:46>> Hmm.
1:48:49>> Ko Chih-en's performance was commendable
1:48:51, and everyone could see that the
1:48:52closing statement alone was exciting
1:48:54enough to tell who was better, but
1:48:59>> by my standards, she was still too
1:49:01gentle.
1:49:02>> Hmm.
1:49:03>> If it were me up there, I’m telling you
1:49:05, Lai Jui-lung would have been KO’d
1:49:07right on the spot. Anyway, I want to
1:49:09emphasize to everyone why I am hosting
1:49:11this livestream tonight.
1:49:12>> Hmm.
1:49:13>> It’s not for Chiang Wan-an,
1:49:14>> and it’s not for Shen Hui-hung,
1:49:16>> but for these two people beside me.
1:49:18>> Accompanying.
1:49:18>> Accompanying.
1:49:19>> These two who are accompanying me.
1:49:21>> Really, the most important thing is
1:49:23these two people next to me, because
1:49:25they don’t have a past track record to
1:49:27serve as a foundation.
1:49:29>> Right.
1:49:30>> They are newcomers, after all, they
1:49:31haven’t served as city councilors before
1:49:33.
1:49:33>> Hmm.
1:49:35>> As for our four incumbent councilors,
1:49:37like the boss said, I believe their
1:49:38performance over the past four years can
1:49:41withstand scrutiny; when you look at
1:49:42their past report cards,
1:49:45>> everyone will know that these are the
1:49:46people to vote for. That's right.
1:49:48>> Including these four in Taipei, or
1:49:50including Chen Hsuan, I have 100%
1:49:52confidence in them.
1:49:55But I want to specifically ask my
1:49:56friends in Taipei, I really want to ask
1:49:58my friends in Taipei,
1:50:02>> whether it’s Yi or Hsu-fu, they are both
1:50:04truly very capable people.
1:50:08And I really want to ask, in this Taipei
1:50:11city election, first, the Taiwan
1:50:12People's Party—I specifically wore the "
1:50:15People's Taipei Team" jersey today.
1:50:17>> Oh, yes, yes, yes, that’s our...
1:50:20>> The "People's Taipei Team" jersey.
1:50:22>> They gave it to me, I know what they
1:50:24mean.
1:50:25>> Hmm.
1:50:25>> So, all six seats for the People's
1:50:27Taipei Team must be won.
1:50:28>> Hmm.
1:50:30>> Especially for those I dare not offend,
1:50:32those in the Xu family, everyone who
1:50:34knows friends in Songshan-Xinyi, please
1:50:36concentrate your votes on Number 6.
1:50:40>> Number 6, everything goes smoothly,
1:50:42Number 6, Number 6, oh, just vote 6 for
1:50:45Xinyi!
1:50:46>> Oh, my, you should have a slogan.
1:50:48>> Call it "Songshan-Xinyi 6 Rises Up,"
1:50:50rise up, yes, rise up with 6.
1:50:52>> Rise up with 6.
1:50:53>> 6-6-6, rise up!
1:50:57"
1:50:57>> Songshan-Xinyi 6 Rises Up," and for our
1:51:00friends in Zhongzheng-Wanhua, I am
1:51:02specifically asking you to concentrate
1:51:04your votes on Number 4, Wu Yi-hsuan.
1:51:08Your business is Wu Yi-hsuan's business
1:51:10, vote for Wu Yi-hsuan, priority number
1:51:134.
1:51:14>> Your business is Wu Yi-hsuan's business
1:51:16; I beg everyone to concentrate your
1:51:18votes and let both of them be elected by
1:51:20a high margin.
1:51:21>> Yes, that's right.
1:51:23>> Thank you, thank you, Chairman.
1:51:25>> I gave such a moving speech, yet these
1:51:28two have absolutely no......
1:51:29>> tears of gratitude. Absolutely no
1:51:31reaction at all.
1:51:32>> No feedback whatsoever, is that it?
1:51:36>> Fine, then tonight I declare that this
1:51:38is the last time these two will be on my
1:51:40show.
1:51:42>> Wait, we have thousands of viewers.
1:51:45>> Give us a chance.
1:51:48>> No, so the conclusion for today is that
1:51:51we hope all our friends in
1:51:52Zhongzheng-Wanhua, Songshan-Xinyi, and
1:51:54all across Taipei will accompany our six
1:51:56Taipei candidates to the City Council,
1:51:59alright?
1:52:01I ask everyone to help all six TPP
1:52:03candidates get elected.
1:52:07Yes, actually when I drew Number 6, the
1:52:09day I was thinking of the slogan, the
1:52:11first thing everyone thinks of is their
1:52:13own situation, but I care more about the
1:52:15fact that I really want all six of us to
1:52:17get in.
1:52:20That's why at the time I said something
1:52:23like, "Songshan-Xinyi vote 6," and "
1:52:25Taipei's six seats all in."
1:52:28It should be like that because I think
1:52:30unity is a great power.
1:52:32After all, this is a Taipei City that
1:52:34Mayor Ko has governed for eight years;
1:52:36every district has great achievements
1:52:38left by Mayor Ko, and they should
1:52:40continue to be promoted.
1:52:42Including just two days ago, I went to
1:52:44look at the Guangci Social Housing again
1:52:46, and everyone thinks it's built very
1:52:47well. I initially thought to tell him
1:52:49that my platform is that after I become
1:52:51a councilor, I will urge the city
1:52:53government to keep building social
1:52:55housing, but he said "No." I wondered
1:52:56why it was wrong, and he said before
1:52:58building more, we should examine the
1:53:00social housing we've already built, one
1:53:02by one, and check with the residents who
1:53:04have lived there for a few years, as
1:53:06they must have needs different from the
1:53:08original planning.
1:53:09>> You must gather that data first so that
1:53:11the social housing you build later will
1:53:13get better and better, from good to
1:53:15great.
1:53:17This is an area that needs more effort,
1:53:19so I feel that in all six districts of
1:53:21Taipei, we must have our own councilors
1:53:22.
1:53:25Besides demonstrating the values of the
1:53:27TPP, we can also continue to carry on
1:53:30this so-called TPP spirit and Chairman
1:53:32Ko's spirit.
1:53:34So I’m asking everyone for your help.
1:53:35For Songshan-Xinyi, please support me,
1:53:37and for Zhongzheng-Wanhua, please
1:53:39support Yi-hsuan. Please work hard to
1:53:41help us get votes and show your support
1:53:43. Make calls and remind people to vote
1:53:45for No. 6, thank you.
1:53:47Coming back to our Chairman, I feel that
1:53:49Chairman Kuo-chang took on the role
1:53:51during the most difficult time after
1:53:53stepping into the position.
1:53:56>> And 2026 will indeed be a very tough
1:53:59election.
1:54:01I have seen you endure all kinds of
1:54:03pressure, traveling north and south,
1:54:05including elections and party affairs.
1:54:11I also hope that we won't let you down,
1:54:13that we can produce great results and
1:54:14show you that we are warriors who can
1:54:16stand tall, and that you didn't misjudge
1:54:18us back then.
1:54:21>> And did not waste your efforts in
1:54:22cultivating us.
1:54:23>> Alright.
1:54:25Thank you very much to both of you for
1:54:27finally saying a few things at the end
1:54:28of the show.
1:54:30>> Finally said a few things, yes, yes, yes
1:54:33, alright.
1:54:36Finally, at the end of this program, I
1:54:38want to promote an important event for
1:54:40us next week, November 8th.
1:54:44>> Gather in Zhubei to support Cheng-yuan.
1:54:46>> Hmm.
1:54:47>> A nationwide gathering in Zhubei to
1:54:49support Cheng-yuan.
1:54:52On November 8th, we are holding a very
1:54:54important event in Zhubei called the "
1:54:56Three-Star Connection."
1:54:58>> What is the "Three-Star Connection"?
1:55:00What number is Chiu Cheng-yuan?
1:55:01>> Number three.
1:55:02>> Number three.
1:55:03>> What number is Wu Ta-wen?
1:55:04>> Number three.
1:55:05>> Number three. What number is Chang
1:55:06Chi-kai? Number three. A 3-3 connection
1:55:09on November 8th.
1:55:10I ask all our good friends in Zhubei,
1:55:12Hsinchu, and of course all supporters of
1:55:14the Taiwan People's Party across the
1:55:16country to join us in Zhubei to support
1:55:18Cheng-yuan.
1:55:20"Zhubei supports Cheng-yuan, happiness
1:55:22forever." Hey, that slogan is pretty
1:55:24good.
1:55:25>> Yeah. "
1:55:25>> Zhubei supports Cheng-yuan, happiness
1:55:28forever."
1:55:29>> Alright, today's program.
1:55:31>> Super Bien Bien Bien Bien.
1:55:32>> Super Bien Bien Bien.
1:55:33>> Give me two seconds because I just saw a
1:55:35lot of donations, and I saw that
1:55:37Commissioner Hsu Hsiao-hsin is here, yes
1:55:39, yes, it’s already scrolling by.
1:55:40>> She is thanking Teacher Kuo-chang and
1:55:42also encouraging everyone. Commissioner
1:55:44Hsu has also been very helpful in my
1:55:46Songshan-Xinyi district, so I’d like to
1:55:48use this live stream to thank her as
1:55:50well, yes.
1:55:51>> OK.
1:55:53Alright, thank you very much to all the
1:55:55netizens for watching today.
1:55:57Our "Super Bien" project comes to an end
1:55:59here.
1:56:01I hope there will be exciting municipal
1:56:03debates in the future that will let me
1:56:05ask, Wang Hui, when exactly are you
1:56:06going to accept Chang Chi-kai's
1:56:08invitation?
1:56:10>> Oh, let's start debating!
1:56:12>> Even Bo dared to debate. If even someone
1:56:14like Pao-Yang Shen dares to step out and
1:56:16debate, and Jui-Lung Lai dares to do it
1:56:18too, why wouldn't Mei-Hui Wang dare to
1:56:20debate?
1:56:20>> Yes, yes, yes, she should accept
1:56:22immediately.
1:56:23>> The Mei-Hui Wang I saw in the
1:56:24Legislative Yuan always spoke with such
1:56:26vigor.
1:56:28>> So why is she shrinking away now when
1:56:30Chi-Kai asks for a debate on Chiayi's
1:56:32municipal affairs? This isn't, this is
1:56:34absolutely not the Mei-Hui Wang I know.
1:56:36I hope Legislator Mei-Hui Wang accepts
1:56:38Zhang Chi-Kai’s challenge.
1:56:46Alright, that's it for our livestream
1:56:48tonight.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 【國昌直播SP】來聊聊台北市長辯論 by 黃國昌, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 19,537 words across 3,479 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.