Let Taiwan's Voice Be Heard! What is Stan Doing in Finland? Overseas Taiwanese Support Shen Po-yang!

Blogger Stan discussed in a livestream the governance ability and academic controversy of Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an, overseas Taiwanese support for Shen Boyang, the pros and cons of Canada becoming a quasi‑member of the European Union, and related views on Taiwan and the international political situation.

Video link:

Full text:

Hey, the “Hard News” program is the best, I’m Jay, welcome to watch. I hope everyone is doing well, I hope everyone is happy, happy, happy, happy, happy, happy. Today we will have a good chat about various big and small events happening at home and abroad recently. I also hope everyone is fine and has a wonderful Sunday. We broadcast “Hard News” once a week; the timing is not fixed, it’s relatively casual, but we chat with everyone via livestream for about an hour. Because I have been extremely busy lately, just returned from a trip to Israel, then went to Berlin for several conferences—so busy! There are too many things to handle, I haven’t even had time to edit videos, but I am working step by step, uploading each video.

Taiwan‑EU relations and Taiwan‑US relations must never be broken; they really need to keep developing and progressing, so let’s work together toward that goal. Many events related to Taiwan‑US and Taiwan‑EU relations will be held this year. I think the Asia‑Europe summit is very important, and we also held several large Taiwan‑related meetings in Berlin. In fact, I feel European countries and Taiwan are gradually reaching a consensus. This consensus may eventually evolve into some policy—like a “One China” policy, right? I believe that looking to the future, we should all work together to promote a “One Taiwan” policy. That is our common goal. Today, I want to talk about the mayor of Taipei, who is Chiang Wan‑an. We will also discuss some recent topics being debated in Europe; I plan to make a video about this—actually I have already filmed it, just haven’t edited it yet. Uh, this article is about the possibility of Canada joining the EU and why I think it is not a good thing. In the end, both the EU and Canada would suffer losses, and the United States would be displeased. Today we will discuss this topic. Good night, Taiwan!

The theme of my livestream today is “Taipei’s Pretentious Mayor”. I am referring to the incumbent mayor Chiang Wan‑an. I have always told everyone that I think Taipei has not had a normal mayor in the past 30 years. From Ma Ying‑jeou to Hau Lung‑bin to Ko Wen‑je, this is the worst; the situation really cannot get any worse. I thought Ko Wen‑je had already failed, but Chiang Wan‑an is even more incompetent; he does worse. Because at least during Ko Wen‑je’s tenure, cockroaches didn’t swarm everywhere, rats didn’t run around, and outsiders could still appear normally on Taiwanese talk‑show programs. In fact, now Taiwanese media discourse is dominated by Chiang Wan‑an’s statements. I have never seen any mayor as obsessed with his own appearance and image packaging as he is. Every time I return to Taiwan, I see Chiang Wan‑an’s photos on the Taipei MRT, which makes me a bit nauseous. Even Ko Wen‑je never did that. Chiang Wan‑an always puts on a show—wearing a safety helmet to look cool, or acting cool wherever he goes—I think he is essentially like a child. He has no real achievements, and he even cuts down trees. What angers me most is the tree‑cutting, because Taipei now looks nothing like a capital city.

If you are in Taiwan, and you have the opportunity, I strongly recommend that audiences in Taipei visit other cities in Taiwan. Go to Tainan, go to Kaohsiung, go to Taichung. Taichung is currently governed by the Kuomintang, but the planning in these cities is much better than in Taipei. The environment is better, the greenery is better managed, and the transportation is more convenient. Meanwhile, Taipei feels increasingly old. So, in the past, people migrated from central and southern Taiwan to the north. Everyone used to go north to work in Taipei, but now Taipei residents are moving to work in central and southern regions because the living environment there is indeed better. This situation has been going on for 30 years; how many 30-year cycles does one person have? I think if each of us could live three 30-year cycles, that would be truly remarkable, a very long life indeed. Few people can have three 30-year cycles in their lives, but the first 30 years of your life are occupied by a completely incompetent Taipei City Government, and I think that's a real shame. Furthermore, Taipei lacks any significant infrastructure for hosting major international events—Ke Wen-je messed up the Universiade, and now Chiang Wan-an is going to tear down something that was originally fine; his island-wide issue has messed everything up. I think ever since Ke Wen-je started demolishing pedestrian overpasses—the one near my house was demolished. The traffic situation there is a bit complicated, right? The line of sight for passing vehicles is obstructed, so there are frequent traffic accidents and pedestrian collisions. I used to walk home over that bridge often, but Ke Wen-je demolished it. This has made my living environment very inconvenient. It has made our community more dangerous, the Ke Wen-je community, and now the Chiang Wan-an community as well; they are neither dealing with stray animals nor with rats, they are doing nothing—these incompetent mayors are cutting down trees instead.

Regarding the tree cutting, I think Taipei is the worst city in terms of greenery. Except for the area around Zhongshan District—the streets near Nanjing East Road, that area near the old bunker? Is that Dunhua North Road? Yes, Dunhua North Road still has some green trees, but other places have become... He likes to call Taiwan a "pot," doesn't he? Pot, pot, pot, pot. I really think he wants to turn Taiwan into a hot pot. Because, well, personally, I absolutely hate hot pot. I think hot pot is the most unpalatable thing; you just throw mediocre meat and mediocre ingredients into a pot of boiling water, cook them, and then eat them. Then you have to add a lot of sauces and other things, simply because the ingredients are not good. Chiang Wan-an said that Taipei is like a pot. He said Taipei is like a pot, meaning he wants to turn Taipei into a hot pot. Because Taipei itself is a basin. Every summer, the most unbearable city in Taiwan is also Taipei, because Taipei is very hot. Basically, this problem is curable. There are ways to solve this environment, so what are the solutions? Greenery. You need to provide more green spaces for citizens. Build more parks, more places where they can rest. Where they can relax, and trees, trees, trees—trees are not easy to grow. So, those trees that have grown with great difficulty in Taipei City. You want to cut them all down. And then install those super ugly, completely useless things, is this intentionally making Taipei hotter? Is this intentionally making Taipei more embarrassing? Is the purpose of this to drive all Taipei citizens away? I am extremely disgusted by the act of cutting down trees. If the trees are in good condition, why cut them down? In the summer, they provide shade, so it's not so hot under the trees. But you insist on pruning them. Replacing them with those ugly things, I feel that Taipei has not progressed in thirty years; on the contrary, the situation has deteriorated. The urban landscape, the infrastructure, and the entire atmosphere and feel of the city are getting worse. The situation has not improved. The situation has not improved. Living in Taipei really feels like being in a pressure cooker, like being in a hot pot.

Moreover, as I have been saying recently, he used his privileges to send his child back to the United States for study. Great, great, he can both use Taiwan's study quota and go back to continue learning. I think everyone would gladly accept that, but not everyone is the mayor of Taipei, nor does everyone have the surname Jiang, so they cannot abuse privileges. However, his surname does not matter, because I think his work over the past four years has been terrible, and we could spend a few hours complaining about him. He is a complete failure as a mayor. Next, I want to talk about the self‑inflation I mentioned earlier, because besides narcissism and packaging, he even went abroad. He thought that by presenting himself as Taiwanese, he could continue to deceive Americans. But it turned out his English level was not good enough. I don’t know how this person became a lawyer in the United States. I really don’t know, because you don’t even understand the most basic concepts, such as cross‑strait communication. You could call it “cross‑border trade” or something—my point is, even if you don’t know the term “cross‑strait,” it doesn’t matter. You can simply say “communication between Taiwan and mainland China,” it’s not difficult. Or, if you don’t want to use the word “China,” just say “between Taiwan and the mainland.” You can use the word “mainland,” and that should be fine. Then refer to the Twin Cities Forum as the “Twin Cities Forum.” There is no such thing as a “Twin Cities Forum.” The Twin Cities refer to Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota; that is the real meaning of “Twin Cities.” Taipei and Shanghai are definitely not sister cities; they are separated by the ocean and are far apart.

Generally, a Taiwanese person who is fluent in English and has lived abroad for many years might forget some Chinese words, but they will not encounter simple Chinese vocabulary problems; they will first think of more complex English terms. For example, a term like “political correctness”—they might first think of “political correctness,” then later the corresponding Chinese word. But for some basics, you know what? Honestly, I don’t understand this; they speak Chinese but act as if their English is good, when in fact their English is not. They use English for very simple words and Chinese for complex ones. In fact, after living abroad for a while, you can gauge a person’s English level by how they use “Chinglish.” If they express simple words in English, it suggests their English may not be very strong. However, if they keep speaking Chinese and suddenly, out of habit of speaking English, can’t find a word, they will switch to English. Right, exactly. That person’s English is indeed better, perhaps because they haven’t used Chinese for a long time and can’t recall certain words. Then after they finish eating, they’ll say, “You know, I tell you, Taipei is like a hot pot, have you tried it?” “Have you had hot pot in Taiwan?” Ha! You think about how future India‑China relations should develop? Ah, hot pot—they can answer any question with hot pot. Answer quickly. You know what’s going on, right? He is like the University of Pennsylvania. Correct? It’s the University of Pennsylvania. The University of Pennsylvania is a very good school. The University of Pennsylvania is indeed a great school; he later attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He earned a JD, a law professional degree. JD. Although his campaign material lists a JD, it is actually just packaging. Because in Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, a JD is equivalent to a master’s degree. It is a master’s degree. I think it is necessary to explain what kind of qualification this actually is. Calling it a “doctorate” is a bit exaggerated—it inflates his credentials, especially in Taiwan, where a JD really should not be called a doctorate.

Because generally, a doctorate means making an academic contribution, writing an original dissertation, and passing a rigorous defense. It is an extremely complex journey that you cannot complete in three years. Like my own doctorate, it took several years. It is hard work. The dissertation is the key part—you must conduct substantive research in a specific field and achieve breakthrough progress. That is a true doctorate. Overseas, people with a doctorate or JD who engage in academic research are called doctors. No one calls a JD a “doctor”; that would be misleading. It is purely a professional degree. So why is it called a JD? Actually, let me tell you, before the 1960s, the JD was called a Bachelor of Laws. Even today, the UK still uses LLB or BA Law degrees. Yes, Oxford and Cambridge seem to use the Bachelor of Laws. It is called a Bachelor of Laws. Australia also seems to use the LLB. It is a degree exclusive to lawyers, but in the United States the situation is more complex. Before 1960, the US also used the LLB, the Bachelor of Laws.

But in the United States, you have to get another bachelor’s degree first—which means you spend four years getting a bachelor of arts degree, and then you spend three years going to law school. So, they felt it was meaningless to award another bachelor’s degree to a person after they already had one. And for that reason, they renamed the degree to Juris Doctor (JD). But in reality, after you get a JD degree, you cannot teach if you have not done any original research. You cannot be an assistant professor, nor do you have any credentials to prove that you have made any contribution to academia. If you really want to do research, you might pursue a JSD, or something similar, or after you finish your JD, or after you complete your JD, you do your own research and publish it in journals, do peer reviews, and other people in academia will evaluate your work. Only when they believe that you have made a real contribution to the field can you enter academia. A JD is basically a professional degree, but in Taiwan, we encountered a translation fallacy, a misunderstanding in translation.

Although the Ministry of Education says that JD is a master’s level degree, it is closer to, though not exactly equivalent to, a master’s degree in Taiwan, but it is unfair to call it a doctoral degree, and it is unfair to those who truly hold doctoral degrees. Those who do research and contribute to academia hold professional degrees. Because in Taiwan, lawyers do not need a doctoral degree to practice; it is just a title. Look at the word “doctor”—not every “doctor” holds a doctoral degree. Right, “physician”? This medical doctor is famous; many people pursue a medical doctor degree. In Taiwan, an MD is an undergraduate degree, not a doctoral degree. So “doctor” does not necessarily equate to “doctor of philosophy.” The doctoral degree, the real doctoral degree, or JSD, Juris Doctor—that is a direct translation. Medical doctor degree? Then, what is a medical doctor degree called? Either a doctoral degree. Or a doctoral degree in the field of medical science—there is a degree called DSM, not DSM: Doctor of Science in Medicine. “Doctor of Medicine”—that is where the distinction lies. So, to be a real doctor, you have to look at whether you have done research, whether you have made contributions to academia.

Although the Ministry of Education currently translates it as “Juris Doctor,” I tell you, it is dishonest. What does that mean? Because if you call yourself a doctor, people will misunderstand you. In Taiwan, the term “doctor” usually refers to people who engage in academic research. In all campaign materials, campaign documents, or on the website of the Taipei City or the Legislative Yuan, “JD” must be placed in parentheses. If you write “Juris Doctor,” you must put “JD” in parentheses so that people can know what degree it is. Otherwise, after people listen to you, they might think you are at the same level as Shen Po-yang, but you are not; in terms of academic research, you have not reached Shen Po-yang’s level. Because you have not done any investigative research at all. Because you are not a doctor at all. Shen Po-yang is a real doctor; he pursued a doctoral degree, majoring in criminology, and published papers. Tsai Ing-wen is also a real doctor; she studied in the UK. How many lawsuits did Peng Wen-cheng lose back then when he spread rumors? How many lawsuits did Peng Wen-cheng lose? Spreading rumors is useless. Tsai Ing-wen still has solid credentials;

her thesis can also be read. So, why did Chiang Wan-an call himself a doctor during his campaign? Actually, his degree is a law degree; it is a professional qualification, a profession, a specialty. No one questions Chiang Wan-an’s JD background. He has a legal background, although he passed the exam on his third try, I don’t want to criticize that; everyone’s exam preparation and ability are different. Some people took 11 years to pass the exam, some people find the exam very difficult, but in the end, they passed the bar exam. Su Jiang passed after three attempts; he is an American lawyer, indeed an American lawyer, but he holds American legal qualifications. But calling oneself a doctor is a very misleading and dishonest act. Because in the United States, lawyers who hold a JD degree do not call themselves doctors. They have their own titles; if you pass the exam, you are a “lawyer.” That is, once you pass the bar exam, you are called “esquire,” for example, “John Smith, Esq.” The last part, “Mr.,” means he is a practicing lawyer.

So Chiang Kai-shek should be called a “gentleman,” not a “doctor.” Why do I say this? Because everyone likes to compare Chiang Wan-an with Shen Boyang. They should never be mentioned together. One is a professional lawyer, while the other has actually contributed to academia, having served as a professor and conducted scholarly research. So they are different, yet you call him a doctor as if he really practices medicine, which he does not. He does not conduct academic research at all. Therefore, do not mislead others. Do not mislead; if you are a lawyer, you are a lawyer. Although I really dislike that self‑promoting, arrogant American white lawyer Ross Feingold, at least he calls himself an American lawyer; he never claimed to have a doctorate. He does not always claim to be a doctor, so he is actually more honest than Chiang Wan-an. A lawyer is a lawyer—you passed the exam, you are a lawyer, but packaging yourself as a doctor is another matter. The situation is different. Okay, let me look at the comments and then continue, alright? Let’s see, let’s take a look. You’re not bad, go to church on the weekend, God will call your name, you know.

Oh, it’s already afternoon; I already went earlier this morning. What’s up? I attended the morning mass. Do you think Taipei voters would vote based on skin color? No, they won’t; they’ll look at competence, right? That’s true because I think in some parts of Taipei… if you run for a trash can because the trash can is blue… it might even get elected. I think Taipei’s blue‑camp supporters should back me because my wall is blue, my watch is blue too— that Japanese Seiko watch, I really love it, my dad gave it to me while he was still alive. My god, yes, since our wall is blue, you can support the “News Hardcore” organization. Good evening, good evening, their English is terrible. They all vote for the Democratic Party, uh. I think he does not meet the standard of an American lawyer; no matter how badly he performs, he still does not meet that standard. Because he is not a defense attorney, that is one thing, but you still have to study, still have to pass the exam. I don’t even know how Chiang Wan-an graduated. I don’t know. I used to mock Huang Kuo‑chang’s broken English, but now I think his English is actually quite good.

Huang Kuo‑chang did write a paper; he holds a Doctor of Law degree. Even the worst version of Huang Kuo‑chang is more substantive than Chiang Wan-an. It’s so funny. Yes. Who is that? So it can’t even be counted as a master’s degree? Haha, how pitiful. I can’t say, because I told you I can’t say, because someone said his degree was fake—he does not have a fake degree, it is a Doctor of Law degree, he indeed has a Doctor of Law degree. You are qualified to take the U.S. bar exam, but law and medical professions are different; they are not the same as general social sciences or natural sciences. In natural sciences, after a bachelor’s you can pursue a master’s, such as a Master of Science (MSc), and in social sciences you can pursue a Master of Arts (MA). Afterwards, you continue to a doctorate. Whether you study natural or social sciences, it is called a doctorate; you should pursue a doctorate. Lawyers and doctors are different. The medical path first requires a Doctor of Medicine degree. In Taiwan, MD is translated as “Bachelor of Medicine,” even though in English it stands for “Doctor of Medicine.”

But in Taiwan it is translated as a medical degree. Because you have not done the related research, you still have to take the medical licensing exam and complete internships. This, this… I’m not very clear… because this is not my field, I don’t really understand. Then, if you are truly interested in clinical trials or academic research, you might pursue another doctorate or a PhD; it depends on the country and the university, and the awarded degrees vary. The existence of the U.S. JD also has historical reasons. It was originally called a Bachelor of Laws (LLB); that was just a bachelor’s degree, a law degree. It later changed because originally you had to first obtain a bachelor’s degree, then enter law school to study the profession, so now it is called a Juris Doctor (JD). But this “D” is not an academic research doctorate; it is not. It is a professional degree. This roughly corresponds to a master’s degree. You cannot truly compare them because the paths are different—you cannot say one is inferior or superior; they are just different routes—but you can roughly compare it to a master’s, although it is certainly not at the doctoral level.

This is absolutely not, absolutely not the level of a doctoral degree, and I think, especially in Taiwan, academic issues are very sensitive. Correct? People always check papers, always accuse you of how much you plagiarized, whether you falsified data, or whether you violated ethics, right? Everyone in the blue team and the green team is involved in these things, and then suddenly someone says,

And now, Taipei has a very good choice. This is Shen Baoyang. Whether it is his academic contributions, his civil defense work, or his concern for Taiwan's future. I believe that his past experience and his campaign platform can win more supporters; he is a good choice, and, we should use the TPP slogan and try a new candidate. Taipei has been rotten for 31 years. Taipei City has been corrupt for 31 years. Just change to someone who can get things done. Just get any ordinary person to be the mayor of Taipei. So, I think it is worthwhile to hire a lawyer who is capable, not arrogant, but has a real doctorate. With substance. Yes, I think that's it. What we worry about most is election fraud, turning victory into defeat, but I don't think it's that serious. Of course, voting blocs and some behind-the-scenes operations will certainly exist to some extent. But if we have enough people on our side, they cannot suppress the results. We just need to make the wave of support for Shen Baoyang unstoppable. Oh, that sounds good. Sounds good, an unstoppable wave. Right?

How do you stop this from happening? You can't. Right? Shen Baoyang will be your mayor. Even Hsu Chiao-hsin in Xinyi District was not recalled, so we know that district is very complicated. Difficulty does not mean we should not do it. Moderate difficulty is fine; no challenge is easy. There are no easy challenges, so everyone needs to work hard. It all depends on everyone's efforts. Although Hsu Chiao-hsin's recall was not successful, she did pass the first and second stages of review, right? She was also very close to being recalled. Hey, Obsidian, thank you very much for your donation. She was very close to being recalled, almost recalled. Last time, I think we should not focus on individual districts. I think there are some problems with the large-scale recall strategy. If the recall work was more precise, perhaps it could have targeted those who won by a narrow margin at the time, like Yeh Yuan-chih or Hsu Chiao-hsin; even for Niu Hsu-ting or people in Taoyuan, there were indeed opportunities; in fact, they all had potential. But too many people came at the same time, and in the end, they all "fell asleep." Therefore, most of the territory was lost, which made the KMT very nervous.

Hey, they brought people from the north, center, and south in tour buses from all directions—you know? They brought those voting machines—those people who only know how to shout slogans—to Taipei. They even mobilized Vietnamese people and foreign laborers to go to Ketagalan Boulevard to advance their agenda. Furthermore, if you look at the recall results, you will find that in many districts, the "yes" votes actually exceeded the "no" votes. The problem is that not enough people voted, so the bill could not pass. The number of votes in favor of recall was higher than the number of votes against recall, but because the turnout was not high enough, the recall failed. This just proves that there was a problem with the overall strategy. But even with these strategic issues, the Taiwanese people's specific dissatisfaction with the "blue-white camp" is actually quite serious. This is what I have been talking about. I mentioned this yesterday in the "Democracy Non-Photo" X chat room. We are also the DPP, this camp that loves Taiwan. Where we failed is that we lack recognition. We don't have much media resources. So, we should pay more attention to this area. Of course, traditional media is controlled by the blue-white camp, so they can suppress news or silence people—force reporters to shut up. So, we must use new media and various methods to make our voices heard. Therefore, "hard news" is very important; everyone must support "hard news."

The lessons learned from this election. I feel, you know? The current election situation in Taipei, Taiwan, is like this: an unstoppable trend is brewing. I hope it is an unstoppable force. On the other hand, there is the unqualified "blue" current. So, are you going to vote for this unqualified current? Are you going to vote for the so-called "B" current? I hope everyone will not join the "blue" current, but join the "yellow" current, which is reasonable. Right? Stop the "B" current; if Taipei continues to maintain the "B" type of water flow, no one will want to live in Taipei. If Taipei continues on this "B" road, it will be very bad. Right? Another topic I want to discuss with you today—I will release a related video later—is that Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau recently went to the EU to attend a meeting. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that Canada will become a "candidate member." This means becoming a candidate member, but no one knows what this candidate membership actually represents. Maybe it's just shaking hands, taking pictures, and saying we are good friends, and that's it.

The European Union currently faces many challenges. I think Brexit is a disaster for the EU, the British made the wrong choice, but I also feel that, to some extent, it is the EU's own problem. Fundamentally, Brexit was caused by the Germans. On one hand, it is the result of Germany and its policies; on the other hand, it is the result of Russia's information warfare actions. Although it is unfortunate and regrettable, Brexit does not mean that Canada should join the EU, because I believe that Canada joining the EU would be of no benefit to either the EU or Canada. Basically, they take photos there and claim that their relationship is good just to provoke Trump. But Trump is also clever; Trump simply says he will see what their intentions are. If your goal is to provoke the United States, then I will raise your tariffs. I will raise your tariffs; if that is good for everyone. If that is good for everyone, then you can play by yourselves, I will not intervene. You must consider Canada's exports to the EU... the EU as a whole is Canada's second‑largest trading partner, accounting for 8% of its total sales.

Do you know what the United States' percentage is? 70%. Compare 70% with 8%. Due to Justin Trudeau's left‑leaning ideology and some other strange reasons, he is very averse to and dislikes the United States. Canadian resentment toward Trump has actually led Canada to start a trade war with the United States, but the problem is that just because your relationship with the United States is poor does not mean Europe is your solution. First, I will explain why this is detrimental to Canada, and then why it is detrimental to the EU. Canada’s energy sector is also very developed. Canada’s timber industry is also very developed. If you bind yourself to the EU, the bureaucracy—the regulations and restrictions—will become unbearable and could even drive you into bankruptcy. To fight for an 8% market share, you would have to self‑impose limits, sacrificing your energy and timber industries, right? I don’t think things will get to that point, of course not, because Canada borders the United States geographically; joining the EU—think about it, if you join the EU you must join the single market. What is the single market? Your tariffs and all other policies must align with the EU, which would create a hard border on tariffs with the United States.

Regulatory oversight: the United States accounts for a large portion of Canada’s imported goods. If you directly block American goods and adopt EU standards, your own goods will also have difficulty entering the United States. It’s like lifting a stone to smash your own foot, causing your domestic economy to collapse. That is the problem Canada faces, with no benefit. Apart from praising shared values, I think that since both countries are NATO members and Canada is a Five Eyes member, why does Canada still need to join the EU? I think the cons outweigh the pros, and there is no real benefit for the EU either.

First, EU farmers are currently in a difficult situation, barely able to make a living. I mean, they protest every day because the same regulations are completely destroying them. Because the EU initially wanted to support Ukraine, they had to import massive amounts of Ukrainian grain, to the point that even Polish farmers protested. They overturned trucks on the ground to protest Ukrainian cargo, because your agricultural products are relatively competitive compared to EU products, and EU farmers simply cannot survive. Canadian agriculture is also quite advanced; the amount of beef, pork and other livestock products entering Europe would exceed Europe’s capacity, and European farmers could not cope with that. That is one thing, the EU gets no benefit and it would also trigger drug smuggling and fentanyl issues. The EU has many drug problems, but Canada’s drug problem is even worse than the EU’s. Crime rates remain unchanged, then the next issue is Canada’s moral standards—they practice euthanasia, which many Catholic countries cannot accept. They have a euthanasia policy, which I strongly oppose. They use coercive means to force people to end their own lives, and the situation is that bad.

Then there is a key issue I think everyone should listen to very seriously, because Canada’s relationship with China is very close. Canada intends to give the United States a lesson, and it also hopes to draw closer to the Chinese Communist Party through the EU, because the United States is currently restricting them and constantly urging them not to get too close to China. But the EU’s control over the CCP is weaker, so Canada believes that if it stands with the EU, it can get closer to China. In addition, Canada now allows Chinese electric cars into its market, which, to some extent, will be a way to evade tariffs in the future, simply by routing through Canada. They will legally become Canadian‑manufactured cars and then enter the EU market.

Furthermore, as a Polish person, I strongly oppose this because I do not want to anger Trump; I highly value the relationship between Poland and the United States. Do we really want a useless teammate like Mississippi? I don’t want that. I would rather keep the Poland‑United States relationship very strong; I don’t want it to be otherwise. Because the Germans messed things up, the Poland‑United States relationship was affected, and that’s basically it. But from Trump’s perspective, it depends on whether you are friendly or trying to go against the United States. If you go against the United States, you will be hit by the iron fist of tariffs. But if you are friendly and willing to trade, then we might consider it.

Honestly, nobody believed that the United States would get Greenland, but they recently reached a reconciliation with Denmark. Trump didn't actually get Greenland, but the United States will now have a greater say in the security of the island. I think that's the key, and they'll probably ban anyone from settling there other than Americans. This is actually a big deal, this is exactly what the United States wanted, and the real winners are the Greenlanders, who have been exploited and abused by the Danes. With the protection of the United States, the Nordic region will be safer, the Arctic will be safer, and the CCP will not be able to use Russia to project its influence into North America. The Greenlanders will also be safer, and the Danes will abuse them to a lesser extent, so in that regard, I congratulate Greenland and Trump. Some of his policies are actually executed quite well, they are very well made.

The EU has made climate change so absurd and unbearable, it's terrible. Germany's economy has been in recession for two years, it's terrible, it's just terrible. All of this must be reversed, these climate fascists must go, they must go. This climate cult and these climate fascists must be eliminated. We need beautiful, clean energy, we need coal. We need nuclear energy, we need coal, we need oil and gas. We need normal energy, not this carbon-neutral nonsense, it's ridiculous. They've driven away all the capable entrepreneurs, and now all the innovative Europeans have gone to the United States. Those who are willing to work hard, push forward, and take risks are in the United States. Meanwhile, the EU has accepted a large number of illegal immigrants whose values do not align with European values, which is a disgrace, and the EU needs major reforms. First, they must drastically cut and eliminate these regulatory and climate policies. These socialist policies must be abolished, immigration must be strictly controlled, and it must be strictly managed. We only welcome professionals who are willing to contribute. If you just want to come and collect welfare, don't come, get lost.

It's ridiculous, Taiwan's own leftists are the biggest joke, they always criticize the European right-wingers, saying, oh, they're anti-immigrant, it's terrible, it's awful. The most anti-immigrant place is Taiwan, look at how many illegal immigrants there are in Taiwan. If they really had such people, they would definitely fight back. How many refugees have they actually accepted? Zero. Taiwan has no refugees, Taiwan doesn't even have a refugee law, not even a refugee law, but the people there are criticizing Europe's stance on immigration. They have the strictest, most stringent laws in all of Asia. Except for mainland China, Taiwan's laws are the most exclusive to all other ethnic groups. People from any other country, whether it's Poland, Germany, the UK, the US, Vietnam, or Japan, are required to give up their nationality, and the regulations are extremely strict. It's also very difficult to get permanent residency, it's almost impossible. But for Chinese people, none of this matters. Why can't Americans or Poles bring their families, their parents, to live with them in Taiwan, but Chinese people can? Taiwan's policies seem to be self-destructive. Taiwan opens its doors and says, oh, come in! Welcome, welcome! Come quickly, come quickly, come quickly! Oh, you can even bring your family, wash your nationality, you don't even need to give up your nationality, just deregister your household registration. But for harmless Americans, Poles, or Japanese, oh, you have to give up this, give up that, can't bring your family, can't do this, can't do that. Why? Then they'll say, oh, Europe is different. Where is the difference you're talking about? Why don't you open your doors first? Be consistent. Before you criticize the European right-wing for wanting to restrict immigration, why don't you first become more open to immigration yourself? If you can't do it, don't criticize. If you can't do it, don't criticize the most restrictive country in restricting immigration, while sitting there and attacking the United States because Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants. You deport all illegal immigrants, and Taiwan even has the tragic case of the Kurds, who are truly persecuted people, but are ultimately deported. Truly persecuted people are expelled, it's simply absurd.

But I think Europe has reached the point where it needs to return to the center. Close to the center. If you are too generous to outsiders, they will eventually bully you. Oh, and those people who come to Taiwan for diplomatic relations—I know what kind of scum they are. Many people are like that. They get government-funded free trips to Europe. Yes. They might not achieve much in life, but they have the opportunity to study for free at top German institutions, so they all think Europe and the United States should open their doors. Their mentality is like those illegal immigrants: I want everything for free, I don't want to pay taxes, I want to use your resources and higher education, and then I want to enjoy the benefits—and these people are usually the ones who take up the spots, you know? Like the children of Jiang En. Exactly, so they think Europe and the United States should open their doors, while our own borders should be closed. You know, this is exactly the same as the CCP! These people have the same character; look at scum like Long Yingtai or Ou Xiaoling. They are all that kind of scum, the best of the worst, the worst of the best—they are that kind of person, and I know them best, right? Damn it! I am a taxpayer in Europe, and you have never paid a day's tax in your life, why should I pay taxes for you? And you? You worked hard your whole life in Taiwan, and now you come to Europe to take advantage? Are you kidding me! I was exploited by you in Taiwan, and now I have to pay you back in Europe? Dream on! Go to hell! No more thinking.

Thank you, Tai. It’s too spicy, I can’t eat it. This is why our show "Hard News" is so important; besides Stan, we have a Spicy Madam. Spicy Tai Tai, right? We are drinking Spicy Tai Tai wine. I think what he said expresses it very well and accurately. I think the most absurd thing is those people in Taiwan who support Palestine. If you want Europe to accept Palestinians, why don’t you first open your doors to Taiwan? You take them in yourself first. You better experience it yourself first before demanding Europe to open up. We have already accepted enough refugees; enough is enough. Whether they come from the Middle East, Ukraine, or anywhere else, it’s enough. Enough. If you support Palestine, you should open your borders and accept them—or better yet, let them live in your house. Good luck. That’s the fact. That’s it. Yeah, but if that person is a Hamas supporter, and they blow something up, then I can’t do anything. I can’t do anything. Is Madam Tai? Yes, she is Thai, but she is Tai Tai, right? That’s Madam, named Madam Tai Tai. The best of the worst, the worst of the best, the best of the worst. Uh, the DPP and the CCP, they really stem from the same root. Yes, they are parties from the same root. Okay, let me see everyone’s comments. You all like listening to Tai curse, right? But what’s wrong with what Tai said? What part of what Tai said is wrong? Nothing? The KMT are not CCP members; they are Americans who make money from China and sell out Taiwan.

Oh, that’s good. Correct. Americans who make money from the Chinese Communist Party and curse Taiwan. But some of them are Chinese, and they don’t even consider themselves Americans. Some people consider themselves Chinese, like Xiao Ling, who would say, “Poor me, a Chinese person,” and so on. Honestly, we Taiwanese have no way to deal with the Blue-White camp right now, we can only wait until 2028, or take them down in 2026. You use local to surround the central, establish yourselves in the local, and then take them down in the legislature. Use your democratic votes to eliminate those CCP collaborators. I think that’s the only way. Anyway, Huang Kuo-chang can’t fool people forever, right? His party is over, everything is over, the lights are really out. So, don’t be fooled anymore. Only support those who love Taiwan, only support the DPP… They are Americans, and the strangest thing is, they curse America. That’s right, they are like that Turkish guy Hasan Piker, who grew up in Turkey and abused his dog. He supported all the terrorist organizations, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all those weird organizations. He supported all these people and advocated for the destruction of America. Yes, he holds an American passport, yet he runs for office for everyone who wants to destroy America. He is the type of person who supports all sorts of extreme terrorists. You can eat less Huang Kuo-chang. But The Onion is terrible. Don’t forget, The Onion was the first party to have a Chinese person as a legislator in Taiwan. It’s terrible, it’s really terrible.

Although Li Zhenxiu was eventually asked to leave, he still served as a legislator for a month. This is a precedent. This is a precedent. Legal professionals fear precedents the most. Do you know? In the future, they will continue to support parties that are more Taiwan‑centric than the DPP. If it were Apple… well, I don’t think the DPP is that left‑leaning. And don’t label the DPP as left‑wing, because there are right‑wing individuals, people with traditional values, members of the Presbyterian Church, and various other groups within the DPP; there are also right‑wing elements. President Lai himself is actually a person with relatively traditional values. The DPP has both left‑wing and right‑wing members, but you have to look at what values the DPP upholds. It is not a social‑democratic or left‑wing party; it is a party centered on Taiwan’s sovereignty. Although the DPP contains a variety of people, if you dislike some left‑leaning DPP politicians, you should support the more right‑leaning figures. You can support those whose views align with yours. You can support only those who adhere to more traditional values. Because you do not have to rely on the KMT. After all, the KMT is also a socialist party. You also do not need the DPP; you must focus on policies and issues. On defense, their stance is quite right‑leaning; on tax cuts and support for small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises, their stance is also quite right‑leaning. You must examine the relevant policies. If you do not like some of their internal Taiwan policies, perhaps you also do not agree with their positions on gender issues. Please provide your feedback. Please provide your feedback. You only need to state what you support and what you do not support. You have your own representatives and legislators, so pressure them. They will make adjustments because they are also voter‑oriented. I believe DPP voters love Taiwan, that’s how it is. That’s how it is. Moreover, whatever a society needs, a party will naturally tend to develop in that direction. If you are right‑leaning, I know you care about automobile issues, so write to your congresspeople and legislators, telling them to open automobile imports. Then get some friends to write together. As more people participate, the louder the voice, the more they will listen. That’s it. Exactly. I do think the DPP will change, transform, adjust. I think Taiwan should develop in the direction of Japan. I hope the DPP can achieve a one‑party dominance in Taiwan, then let internal factions fight each other. As long as the KMT exists, the DPP must stay in power, seize as much power as possible, and maximize its influence. As I said, maximizing means following Japan’s path—they should become an organization similar to Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party. Hmm. Correct. Then, once the risk of Taiwan being invaded is reduced, perhaps we will have a multiparty or two‑party system, where another party also loves Taiwan, but perhaps more traditional or less traditional—that just depends. Regarding this, it is not the parliament but social issues in national governance, with many different viewpoints and opinions. The DPP has left‑leaning and right‑leaning tendencies within; I think Taiwan’s future may develop into a party similar to the LDP, to maximize its use. To maximize its use. Taiwan’s local opposition parties are too small; I think they lack sufficient support, so we now focus on the DPP first. Then we will see how to adjust. Yes, we will see how they adjust. I can’t stand topics like transgender issues, net‑zero emissions, electric vehicles, and green energy. The DPP currently has no concrete policies on transgender or gender‑reassignment issues; at present, it is only a non‑discrimination principle. They also do not promote things like changing gender markers on legal documents; the DPP itself opposes that. Another more left‑leaning measure the DPP has taken is allowing same‑sex marriage, but I feel same‑sex marriage no longer puts much pressure on society. I mean, because social security should already exist; regardless of who you are with, I think it is a matter of consenting adults and should be handled voluntarily by both parties. From a human‑rights perspective, I think we should not deprive them of their rights, so I do not see this as a problem.

So, this is the standard practice; I don't see any policies about gender reassignment. I don't see the DPP in Taiwan advocating for these things. It's okay, it's okay; they are actually quite supportive of traditional values, and as for net-zero carbon emissions, I don't think it's really being implemented either. Aren't they buying more liquefied natural gas from the US now? Wind power hasn't stopped, and they're also considering nuclear power; things have adjusted. The previous green energy policies are also being phased out. President Lai is also more inclined towards pragmatism; he's not an anti-nuclear advocate either. Yes, that's also an adjustment. You see, I told you, if we analyze each issue one by one, we'll find that things have changed. There are no regulations mandating electric vehicles right now, and the push for green energy issues is not strong enough. It has disappeared; they have moved much closer to the center. I think after Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP has changed a lot in the past two or three years, they have become more pragmatic. They follow the instructions from the US, so when the US changes direction, they will adjust accordingly. It's good to follow the US. It's more focused on practicality, more focused on reality. I prefer a pragmatic rather than an idealistic approach. If green energy or ESG needs to be mentioned, then mention it and explain the reasons. I think that's fine. Ah. Yes. Regarding the disclosure by Trump in the US that the Ministry of Economic Affairs funded think tanks. Mm-hmm. I think Taiwan actually cooperates with many different think tanks. Taiwan does not only cooperate with liberal think tanks; it also applies to conservatives. There is actually no choice because you don't know who the next US president will be, so it's understandable. They cooperate with organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, and they also have very good relationships with training institutions and traditional foundations. In fact, Taiwan's voice is everywhere, so I don't think there's anything to be afraid of. There's no need to worry about electric vehicles reducing employment opportunities; if that's the case, then those policies should be abolished. I think the DPP will never compromise on the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty, and sovereignty is absolutely not to be compromised. As for other aspects, they should be open to public opinion. That's how things are. That's it. Yes. Correct. Garbage industry—the electric vehicle industry is simply a garbage industry. I am against electric vehicles. Correct? I like traditional cars; I like diesel cars. Even though diesel prices are expensive now. Yes. All right, that's all for today's live broadcast. I know everyone might be dissatisfied with the government, but when it comes to elections, we still have to vote for those who love Taiwan. I think you can make all sorts of demands; that's perfectly fine. I believe they understand the full picture and are willing to cooperate. And you must remember, this is happening in the US. I interviewed Bi-khim Hsiao, the representative of the DPP in the US, and you can listen to that interview—she mentioned that some people are trying to cause trouble for Taiwan, such as the CCP or people associated with certain political parties. They portray Taiwan as woke in front of American conservatives, but this is completely wrong. This is just setting the narrative because Taiwan has actually maintained, and will continue to maintain, close ties with conservatives there, and these ties will only become stronger, closer, and better in the future. Don't forget, what is behind the Democratic Progressive Party? It's a cross, it's a cross; why is there a cross? Because its core is still traditional, so, please rest assured, please rest assured. Don't be misled by the word progressive; their progressivism just means making society better, not progressive in the American sense. All right, I'll stop here, thank you all for watching, please support Yang Liu, be sure to support Yang Liu, don't support Bu Lu. All right, we'll end here today.