Taiwan's Election Debate Shock: Experts Picked the Mayor, but Voters Disagreed

Friends, the first televised debate between Chiang Wan-an and Puma Shen has just concluded, and an interesting scene unfolded. The Blue Camp is celebrating across the board. Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen praised Chiang Wan-an for a clear victory, and experts and media outlets even gave Chiang a high score of 90, while describing Puma Shen as being a bit too whimsical. However, when the polls came out that evening, the entire internet was stunned. 47% of Taipei citizens felt that Puma Shen performed better, and among the crucial independent voters, Shen crushed Chiang Wan-an with 44% to 24%. Isn't that strange? For the same debate, why is there such a huge gap between the perceptions of the experts in the know and the voters who are actually buying it? The debate lasted two hours, and many of you might not have time to watch the whole thing, so let me take you through the highlights in just 25 minutes. And friends, stay tuned until the end, because I have some good news to announce. This time, Chiang Wan-an was definitely well prepared. A few days before the debate, he caught a cold. And at the time, people were speculating whether he would reschedule. But as it turned out, he kept a smile on his face the whole time, spoke at a measured pace, and still came across with a lot of presence. Throughout the debate, he said at least eight times that Councilman Shen doesn't really understand city affairs. He even used Taiwanese and Cantonese to take jabs at Shen Po-Yang, essentially saying that he spent the whole night thinking of all sorts of ways to do things, but when dawn broke, he hadn't taken a single step, meaning you're all talk and no action. During his closing statement, he thanked each of the previous mayors one by one, specifically calling out Ko Wen-je to thank him for the solid foundation he laid. This was clearly a move to win over the little grass supporters of Ko Wen-je. Some media outlets commented that while Chiang Wan-an is often perceived as giving non-sequitur answers when interviewed, this debate gave him the uninterrupted time to fully develop his points, which actually made him come across as quite articulate. That comment sounds like a compliment, but somehow it feels a bit sarcastic. On the other hand, Shen Poyang made a few minor mistakes, including misstating the three labels and one QR code food safety certification for school lunches as three regulations in one label. Chang Wan caught him on the spot and retorted, You don't even know something this basic? Do you really care about the children? Also, during the cross-examination segment, the maximum time allowed for an answer was only two minutes, and Chang Wan-an would throw out several accusations all at once, leaving Shen Poyang with no time to refute them one by one. After the debate, he himself said it was a pity that there were still many negative labels he hadn't managed to shake off, especially since the other side kept answering a different question than the one asked. To sum it up in one sentence, if you look at the surface and the momentum, Chiang Wan-an won. But if you look at the depth and follow the details, then Shen Poyang is the winner. For those who disagree, hey, don't be in a rush. Hear me out. Watching the whole debate, I noticed that Chiang Wan-an has three tactics. The first one, which is also a move he often uses. Let's take the debate about tree cutting as an example. In Taipei, cutting down trees is a big deal. Over the past year or two, the Taipei city government has pruned or removed quite a few street trees. The reason given by the city government is that many of the trees have contracted brown root rot, and their trunks have rotted. So when a typhoon comes, they would fall over, potentially injuring people or damaging cars, which is why they have to be dealt with in advance. However, those who oppose it say that you've cut down too many, and too ruthlessly, making Taipei summers hotter and hotter. The controversy escalated to this July, when rumors even spread online that Taipei had cut down over 4,000 trees to clear the way for drone incursions. The city government stated that this is a rumor, and that they will work with the police to gather evidence and handle it according to the law. DPP councillors, in turn, criticized the city government for suing citizens. Shen Poyang's camp made replanting trees one of his main campaign promises. After all the back and forth, what citizens really want to know is just one thing. Does the city government actually have a basis and standard procedure for cutting down trees? And this brings us to the bishop wood tree at Dongmen Market. Next to Taipei's Dongmen Market on Jinshan South Road, there used to be a bishop wood tree with a very dense canopy. On April 23rd of this year, the Parks and Street Lights office went to the site, inspected it, and decided that the tree pit was too small for it to grow well, so they decided to move it, transplanting it to a green space more suitable for its growth. Note that it was being moved, not cut down. As it turned out, when construction began in May, the outsourced contractor didn't do the job right. And the firm responsible for supervision didn't keep an eye on things either. The entire tree was cut down, sawed into pieces, loaded onto a truck, and hauled away. Just like that, a transplant turned into a removal. What's even more outrageous is that nobody said a word about this for several months. It wasn't until October 20th when DPP councillor Hung Wan-Chin received reports from the public and questioned the city government that the incident was exposed. Parks and Street lights office subsequently admitted their negligence, penalized the contractor, and demanded compensation of over 320,000 New Taiwan Dollars. Friends, remember this. The city government itself admitted that this tree was cut down by mistake. It wasn't something made up by rumors. So with that background in mind, let's look at this debate scene. During the second round of cross-examination, Shen Poyang first cited a few examples, saying that the city government doesn't have standard operating procedures for its actions, such as launching the smoke-free city initiative without completing the assessment. The budget for Sladden Brown has skyrocketed in the last three months, and before the start of the school term, there were still schools that couldn't find suppliers for free school lunches. Then he asked a very specific question. The bishopwood tree at Dongmen Market was cut down by mistake. Mayor, when you were establishing the SOP, where exactly did things go wrong? I've always felt that, Mayor Wanon, you don't seem to have a very clear grasp of this SOP thing. Take the smoke-free city initiative. Launched without assessment, now staff are counting cigarette butts. They've discussed sun umbrellas for a year, yet the budget jumped from $14 to over $50 million. They promised free school lunches, but bids failed right before term, leaving schools without food. Fresh milk redemption is down, and uptake among vulnerable groups remains low. None of these issues have improved, proving that mastering SOPs is vital. So, Mayor, regarding the mistaken felling of the Bishopwood tree at Dongmen Market, where did the SOP process fail, leading to that tree being cut down? How did Cheng Wannan respond? He started right off by saying, it's regrettable that Commissioner Shen continues to spread many untruths here today. And then he started talking about school lunches. Then he accused Shen Poyang of spreading misinformation about a mass food poisoning incident at Jinghua Junior High School, saying, you aren't even willing to offer a single apology. Friends, remember this. We'll talk about it again later. Finally, he mentioned that Taipei provides free fresh milk to students, something the central government couldn't do, but Taipei is doing. It is regrettable that Commissioner Shen continues to make many untruthful statements here at this debate today, continuing to spread them. You just mentioned many issues, including school lunches. Actually, when we promoted the school lunch program, free didn't mean a compromise in quality. We maintained the original bidding process, and we still use the Lunch Public Welfare Committee to ensure quality control. Furthermore, our subsidy in Taipei City is the highest in the country, and even Mayor Huang Wei-che from your own party was willing to follow suit. This is the right direction. But today, you oppose this policy for the sake of the election, and you deliberately spread false information, claiming that many schools, including Jinhua Junior High School, had large-scale food poisoning. However, the facts prove that the subsequent inspections were completely satisfactory. You have hurt so many students, children, parents, school staff, and teachers, yet you are not even willing to offer a single apology? Additionally, regarding the issue of trees you mentioned, you went to Songshan District and even claimed, wow, the number of trees in Songshan District has decreased significantly. However, we have already issued press releases and held press conferences to clarify this, yet you are still continuing to spread false information today. In Songshan District this year, we added 808 square meters of green space and 16,000 trees and shrubs. These are facts. Why spread rumors for an election? Regarding the fresh milk for every class policy, it was unachievable. I told the Executive Yuan to leave the funding and let Taipei handle it. But Premier Chen Chien-jen refused, and you failed to speak up for the children. It's fine. If the central government won't do it, Taipei will. I personally visited major convenience chains and retailers, identifying and resolving every issue I found. Digital student IDs ensure kids get fresh milk for calcium, helping them grow healthier. That's my goal. And what about that bishop wood tree? Chiang Wan-an didn't mention it at all. Then Shen Poyang followed up. I just asked about the bishop wood tree at the East Gate. What exactly went wrong with the SOP for this tree? It seems like you didn't answer that. Mayor Chiang, my question just now was about the bishop wood tree at the East Gate. What went wrong with the SOP for cutting down this tree? I hope you can explain, but it seems like you didn't answer it. I want to circle back and ask you, how exactly is your SOP established and how do you intend to follow it? And if it isn't followed, for example, like this case of the tree being mistakenly cut down, which part of the process went wrong? Can you explain that clearly to the citizens? So surely Chiang Wan-An should have answered the second time, right? He cited the Academia Sinica report, saying that a reduction in tree canopy doesn't equal the city government cutting down trees, mentioned that the city government has planted over 42,000 trees in four years, and finally circled back to nitpick Shen Poyang's slip of the tongue regarding 3-1 queues, but still didn't mention the bishop wood tree. It feels like going to a restaurant, ordering a cake, taking a bite, and finding it incredibly salty, only to realize the kitchen mistook salt for sugar. You ask the manager, where exactly did your kitchen's process go wrong? The manager replies, We are the most popular restaurant in the city. We have this and that new item, and you even spread rumors last month that we caused food poisoning. You haven't even offered me an apology. Doesn't that just completely miss the point? Cross-examination is supposed to be a Q&A session, and what Shen Boyang was asking is actually what all Taipei residents are concerned about. How exactly can we ensure the next tree won't be cut down by mistake? And right up until the debate ended, Chiang Wan-an never provided an answer. However, during his closing statement, he did mention that the contractor had been penalized. But as for how to prevent the next tree from being cut down by mistake, Chiang Wan-an never provided an answer from start to finish. But did you notice that when Chiang Wan-an was responding about the bishopwood tree, he said, you aren't even willing to offer a single apology. The part we just mentioned, that sentence actually hides his second tactic, misattributing facts and shifting blame. Let's use a specific example. Regarding the part Chiang Wan-an just mentioned that Shen Poyang spread false rumors about mass food poisoning at Jinhua Junior High School and didn't even offer an apology, what is this actually about? For those who aren't familiar with the political situation in Taipei, it's hard to tell who actually won this debate just by listening to it. So I've done the work for you all, digging into the ins and outs of this whole thing. If you find this helpful, please give me a like. Here's what happened. On September 4th, at Taipei Jinhua Junior High School, there was a dish on the school lunch menu called Savory Squid, which is just small squid. Five days later, the school received the first formal report from a student saying they felt unwell after eating it. And two days after that, two more students reported the same thing. By September 23rd, DPP Taipei City Councilor Chan Shu Pei held a press conference and suddenly revealed that she had received complaints from parents, stating that people in multiple classes and even in the teacher's office had experienced diarrhea and vomiting. The next day, the Taipei City Department of Education came out to refute this, stating that the school only had records of one student with diarrhea and two others in the same class who felt unwell, but their symptoms were all different, so it was definitely not a case of mass food poisoning. They claimed the other side was making a false accusation. At the time, Chiang Wan-an also spoke out, calling out Shen Po-yang by name, saying that Shen Po-yang had continued to spread rumors without verification and was engaging in cognitive warfare. The Department of Education also demanded at the time that both Chen Shu-pei and Shen Po-yang apologize. But this matter didn't end there. Another elementary school that uses the same squid supplier, Minzu Elementary School, was reported to have nine students feeling unwell. At Jishin Elementary School, 11 students and one teacher developed symptoms of gastroenteritis. The health bureau went to inspect, and they did indeed find food safety issues in the kitchen, discovering a rusty strainer. A few days later, the principal of Jinhua Junior High School issued an open letter confirming that three of their students were affected, apologizing to them, and stating that they would re-examine food safety procedures. However, the principal also emphasized that there was no so-called mass food poisoning incident. On October 2nd, the Department of Education announced that the test results for the same batch of squid were normal. So, the reality of this situation is likely that the supplier was found to have food safety violations, and indeed some students and teachers did feel unwell after eating school lunches that had food safety issues, but it did not result in a mass food poisoning incident. The initial claims made by counselor Chan Shu Pei about multiple classes and even the teacher's office being affected were indeed somewhat exaggerated and sensationalized. The most important thing is, how did Shen Poyang react at the time, and what did he say? What he said was that the samples should be sent for testing immediately, to clarify whether it was an isolated incident or if there was a problem with the supplier. Hey, that was just one sentence. Who used the words mass food poisoning? It wasn't Shen Po Yang. The closest statement to that would be from Chan Shu Pei. Now, let's go back to the debate scene. Chiang Wan-an said, Counselor Shen, for the sake of the election, you deliberately spread the word that many schools, including Jinhua Junior High, had mass food poisoning. How many students, children, parents, school staff, and teachers have you harmed, and you won't even offer a single apology? What is this? This is misattribution and distortion. First, he attributed what someone else said to him. The second step is to take the moral high ground and demand an apology. How many viewers watching at home actually understand what happened in September? How many know the true facts of this incident? But when Chiang Wan-an questions him like this, it easily creates a false impression that Shen Po-yang spread rumors, harmed children, and still refuses to apologize. This is why we need to understand the real situation and not be misled. If you agree with me, please like this video and share it with more friends so that more people can know and see clearly who is really playing political games. And to be honest, I think this approach is very similar to how the CCP brands someone first before taking them down. So why would Chiang Wan-an do this? Because creating the perception that Shen Poyang is spreading rumors serves his third tactic perfectly. Labeling. This tactic works especially well in Taipei. Why is that? Taipei is the KMT's stronghold. For decades, with the exception of Chen Shui-bian and Ko Wen-je, the mayors of Taipei have almost exclusively been from the KMT. Many voters in Taipei have a deep affection for the Republic of China and are quite reserved regarding radical independence advocacy. So friends, if you are in Taipei, what is your stance? Leave a comment and share it with us. If you're running for mayor in Taipei and get labeled with Taiwan independence, it's equivalent to losing a huge chunk of the moderate vote. If there's anything I've said that's inappropriate or inaccurate, I must ask my friends in Taiwan to remind and correct me in the comments section. Thanks in advance, everyone. As for Chen Poyang, he is already considered the number one Taiwan independence figure in Beijing's eyes. The Taiwan Affairs Office has listed him as a die-hard Taiwan independence separatist. Chongqing police have opened a case against him, and CCTV has declared they will arrest him globally. Regarding this, we have previously covered Chen Poyang's four confrontations with Beijing in detail in our show. Friends who missed it are welcome to go watch it. This is also why when Chen Poyang was nominated at the time, many people, even within his own party, were not optimistic. Because as long as Chen Poyang is linked to this image, the image of Taiwan independence, it can make swing voters hesitate about him. Then, and during this second round of cross-examination, Cheng Wan-an brought out his prepared ammunition. Like he was reading a verdict, he reeled off eight sentences in one breath, and after each sentence he followed up with, Who said this? The city forum is a breach for infiltration. Who said this? The Republic of China is a quasi-colonial system that needs to be resolved through constitutional reform. Who said this? I hope that in the future, Taipei will have an independence referendum. Who said this? Councilor Chen, the City Forum is a breach for infiltration? Who said this? If Chinese missiles are fired over, it will be a great help to us. Who said this? The universal cash handout of 10,000 is the Communist Party's strategy to impoverish Taiwan first and then unify it. Who said this? If it weren't for the Bluebird movement, could TSMC have expanded globally? Who said this? I'm more inclined to support the abolition of the death penalty. Who said this? The Republic of China is a quasi-colonial system that needs to be resolved by drafting a new constitution. Who said this? We can't be playing the role of generous donors today, handing out 10 or 20 billion to every county and city. May I ask, who said this? Mayday fans filming in the Zhaicheng Tunnel, who supported the witch hunt, saying that being vigilant is a good thing? May I ask, who said they hope Taipei will have an independence referendum in the future? After asking this series of who said it questions, Cheng Wan-an flashed a smug smile. Friends, look closely. How did Shen Poyang respond? I think there are two things. First, Mayor Cheng is clearly very interested in my past, digging up a lot of things, even posts from 10 or 15 years ago. If I were to explain them one by one, it would probably take half an hour. That's the first thing. Second, aside from the Twin City Forum, almost everything you just mentioned concerns central government affairs. If you're so interested in things like the universal cash handout of 10,000 NTD or the constitutional amendment system we discussed today, I would suggest that you come back to be a legislator and I'll be the mayor. That might be a bit faster. After looking into these eight statements, the vast majority were indeed said by Shen Poyang, but they were spoken with specific context and in particular situations. Let's pick two of the most typical examples to break down. At the time, Cheng Wan-an used a few parallel sentences, who said this, which are extremely damaging if you don't know the story behind them. The first one is this sentence, I hope that Taipei can have an independence referendum in the future. This sentence comes from a Facebook post by Chen Poyang on September 20th, 2014, in which he discussed two completely unrelated matters. The first matter was that Scotland had just held an independence referendum at that time, and the whole world was discussing it. It was a hot topic. The premier of the Executive Yuan in Taiwan at the time said that the Republic of China does not need an independence referendum. Shen Po-yang said, hey, I agree, because Taiwan is already an independent country, so there's no need for another referendum. What's really needed is to draft a new constitution. The quasi-colonial system needs a new constitution that Cheng Wan-nan mentioned? That sentence comes from here. The term quasi-colonial needs a bit of explanation. It's a common phrase used by the Taiwan Independence Camp, or the pro-independence faction. They believe that the constitution of the Republic of China, currently used in Taiwan, was passed by the Kuomintang in Nanjing in 1946, and that the Kuomintang later brought this constitution with them when they retreated to Taiwan and used it to govern the island. From the perspective of the pro-independence camp, this is a government that came from the outside, using a constitution not chosen by the Taiwanese people themselves to govern Taiwan. It feels very much like colonialism, but it's not entirely colonialism. So it's called quasi-colonial, meaning similar to colonialism. So in the eyes of the pro-independence camp, Taiwan should have a newly drafted constitution. Pay attention! So what does this mean? If you connect this with the following sentence, well, it's a big deal. The second thing happened in the same year. The KMT's Sean Lai-en was running for mayor of Taipei. Sean Lai-en is the son of former Vice President Lai-en Chan, and his family is very wealthy. When he was talking about how to develop Taipei, he said this. He said if Taipei could gush oil, it would be better than Brunei. We all know Brunei is a small country in Southeast Asia that made a fortune from oil. This statement was mocked by netizens in Taiwan for a long time, who felt it was just a rich kid's daydream. Chen Po-yang then riffed on this joke, saying that if Taipei could gush oil and be richer than Brunei, then why not just have Taipei hold an independence referendum later on? His remark was, on one hand, poking fun at Sean Lin, and on the other, it was comparing the city of Taipei to the hot topic at the time, the Scottish independence referendum, which is completely different from the idea of Taiwan independence. They are two completely different things. However, Chiang Wan-an connected these two statements together. In the first statement, he said that a quasi-colonial system requires a constitutional amendment. Who said that? The very next sentence that followed was the hope for Taipei to have an independence referendum. And who said that sentence? When you put these two sentences together, anyone watching on TV would immediately think, oh, so Shen Po-yang wants to push for a Taiwan independence referendum, right? This means that Chiang Wan-an was actually playing a word game. The first sentence doesn't count as him slandering Shen Po-yang, because Shen Po-yang did indeed say that. But the second sentence completely twisted the meaning of what Shen Po-yang said in that specific context. And isn't that exactly what the Taiwan Independence Faction means? Shen Po-yang is a Taiwan independence supporter, after all. Some friends might also think, isn't drafting a new constitution exactly what Shen Po-Yang advocates? This is also the position of the Taiwan independence faction, so how can one say that Shen Po-yang isn't a Taiwan independent supporter? Chen Wan-An didn't slander him, did he? Regarding this question, Shen Po-Yang responded in mid-October, saying, it wasn't that I changed, it was history. The implication is that the Republic of China, after full parliamentary re-elections and direct presidential elections, has actually changed its previous system and become a democratic one. So rewriting the rules is the constitutional drafting he advocates. That is correct. But is his advocacy for constitutional drafting driven by his support for Taiwan independence? It's not directly related. It's like, let's use an analogy. An employee at a company seriously suggests in a meeting that the company's rules were set by the boss decades ago, and since the company is growing so fast now, we should rewrite the rules. Then, a few days later, a department manager brags, if our department strikes gold, we'll be richer than the parent company. And then someone jokingly replies, well, your department might as well just secede then. As it turns out, these two sentences were edited together to make it sound like he said the company's rules should be overturned, and that he also wanted to secede, right? So putting these two sentences together makes it look like he's rebelling. Did you guys catch that? If you did, leave a comment and let me know. There's also the issue of the Twin City Forum. First, what is the Twin City Forum? It's an exchange event held annually, alternating between the cities of Taipei and Shanghai, and it's been going on for over 20 years. The KMT sees it as a window for maintaining cross-strait dialogue, while the DPP feels it's easily exploited by the CCP for united front work. Shen Poyang did indeed criticize the Twin City Forum, and back in April of this year, he even said that if elected, he would cancel it and replace it with an infinite city forum to facilitate exchanges with more international cities. If you were to clarify that it wasn't about cutting it off entirely. In an exclusive interview with Li Si-tan, he stated that it's not that exchanges are impossible. The key is that there must be no political preconditions and no concerns regarding national or information security. Regarding Cheng Wan-nan's attacks, Shen Po-yang's counter was quite sharp. He retorted to Cheng Wan-nan, asking if, with Chinese military aircraft harassing Taiwan today, the Twin City Forum should be reconsidered in light of these political preconditions. Who said that? That was said by Cheng Wan-nan in 2022. Well, that's a boomerang. When Cheng Wan-nan was running for mayor in 2022, he did indeed say that Chinese military aircraft not harassing Taiwan was a prerequisite for holding the Twin City Forum. So whether it's Cheng Wan-nan or Shen Po-yang, their positions on this point are actually consistent. But later, Chen Guannan changed his tune, and it even turned into a bit of a joke. On December 28, 2025, Chen Guannan made a quick trip to Shanghai to attend the Twin City Forum, saying that engagement is better than confrontation, and dialogue is better than hostility That same evening, he returned to Taipei, but the very next day, the People's Liberation Army began military exercises around Taiwan, and even conducted live fire drills on the 30th. At the time, officials directly stated that Chiang Wan-an was in the most awkward position. The CCP used military exercises as a souvenir for this twin-city forum. And there were other accusations, too many to list. In short, during the four rounds of cross-examination in this debate, Chiang Wan-an actually spent an entire round reading his opponent's posts from over a decade ago, one by one. Was he looking for an answer? No, he was looking for a label. He wanted to slap the label of Taiwan independence onto Shen Poyang. How Shen Poyang explains it doesn't matter. What he wanted was for the audience to feel, or even remember, the label that Shen Poyang is a pro-independence advocate. Now think about it. Who is it that's trying to label Shen Poyang as pro-Taiwan independence? So, by doing this, isn't Chiang Wan-an using Beijing's rhetoric to fight a Taipei election? Speaking of this, I'd like to ask you all, I don't have any negative assessment of Chiang Wan-an, but looking solely at the tactics used in this debate, from answering a different question than the one asked, to misattributing facts and shifting blame, and finally to creating negative Negative labels to slap onto his opponent. I feel that it really gives off a lot of the CCP style. I want to ask you all, do you think this is just normal debate sparring, or does it seem more like a deliberately crafted political attack? If you think it's a normal debate, type normal for me. If you think it's more of a deliberately crafted political attack, to build up his image in front of the screen, reply with attack. So I know I might not get the answer I'm looking for, but I want to ask one last thing. Since so many questions went unanswered, I'd like to ask Mayor Chiang if there's a chance we can schedule another debate. If you can't decide right now, we can add each other online later. And I also want to ask you, having seen this, who do you think won this debate? Tell me. Line is basically the Taiwanese equivalent of WeChat. Asking someone to add you online right there on the debate stage in front of all of Taiwan, that was quite a move. Shen Poyang said that during the commercial break, he heard Chiang Wan-an's voice was a bit hoarse, so he went over to check on his health. When the debate ended, he actually went up to him to try and add him online. As it turns out, according to reports, the two of them chatted about having many mutual friends, but in the end, they still didn't manage to add each other. So, whether we'll see another debate between them? The chances of that seem pretty slim right now. Actually, Shen Poyang had been calling for a debate since June or July. In August, he signed the debate agreement, and And then he waited for several months. On October 10th, the two of them ran into each other at a temple fair in Wanhua. At the time, the whole scene was really interesting. It was packed with people, and then, amidst the crowd, they were pushed toward each other and even shook hands. Shen Poyang handed over the debate invitation in person, but unfortunately, the gongs and drums were so loud on site that you couldn't hear a thing. Later, Shen Poyang said that he kept holding up four fingers, meaning at least four debates. As for Chiang Wan-an, he kept holding up one finger, implying that one debate would be enough. So why was it TVBS this time? At the time, several TV stations wanted to host it, but Chiang Wan-an had already accepted TVBS's invitation quite early on. Later, five media outlets—Liberty Times, FTV, TTV, CTV, and Next TV—jointly invited them for a second debate. Chiang Wan-an said that, according to President, we should just hold one. Many friends online say that TVBS is generally seen as having a pro-blue stance, which is why Chiang Wan-an agreed so readily. Well, as for that, you can draw your own conclusions. If you have more information, please feel free to share it with us all in the comments section. Also, watching the whole thing, I feel like debates in Taiwan are just like two well-behaved students taking an exam and answering questions, which is very different from the American style. The American style is quite wild and unrestrained. They won't stop unless the moderator calls them out three times. In the first debate between Trump and Biden in 2020, the two of them kept interrupting each other. Biden got frustrated and just blurted out, Will you shut up, man? Regardless, there's less than a month left until the voting on November 28th, and the show ahead is only going to get more exciting. So I have some good news to share with you all. I'm going to Taiwan. From late November to early December, I'll be in Taipei to observe the election on the ground, documenting it firsthand to bring you all my direct observations of the campaign. This is my first time going to Taiwan. I've been thinking about it for so long, but I just haven't been able to make the trip happen until now. Being able to come to Taiwan during such a unique election is truly exciting for me. I'm finally going to be able to meet up with my friends in Taiwan. However, there is one thing I'd like to ask of my friends in Taiwan. During my stay, I'd really like to connect and learn from some local political commentators, YouTubers, and opinion leaders. I'd love to find some time to sit down and have a good chat with those who share similar values, have been long-term observers of cross-strait relations, and are committed to safeguarding democracy and freedom. If you are such a creator, or commentator yourself, or if you have connections with such people, please, I ask that you contact me, or help introduce and refer me. My email address is thepinionforzhangguandian at gmail.com, thepinionforzhangguandian at gmail.com. So here, Zhenfei would like to thank you all in advance. Alright, that's all for today. Friends, if you haven't liked the video yet, please don't forget to hit that like button before you leave. New friends, welcome to subscribe to ZhenGuanDian. We will continue to follow the Taipei election, whether in our long-form or short-form videos, so be sure to subscribe. Please feel free to forward and share my videos with more friends so that more people can understand and see through this debate, the winners behind it, and the political maneuvering on the surface. Alright, that's all for today. Thanks for watching everyone, have a great weekend, and I'll see you all again tomorrow at the same time right here on ZhenGuanDian. Bye-bye!