2024-09-29
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
on the 27th, kuomintang representative weng xiaoling raised the issue of taiwan authorities spending a lot of money on publicity but with ineffective results when questioning zhuo rongtai, the head of taiwan's administrative agency, and revealed that fliggy video took 36 million (nt$, the same below) from the judiciary. bid, but the results were not significant. however, weng xiaoling's statement was denied by the administrative agency and the industry. weng xiaoling once again posted a counterattack on the social platform on the 29th, and even revealed that part of fliggy video’s original video list on youtube suddenly disappeared.
weng xiaoling said on the 29th that she did not expect that after she revealed the incident of fliggy video, some of the original video list of fliggy video on youtube suddenly disappeared. it was probably hidden first. the judiciary issued a press release on the 28th, saying that she had made a mistake and clarifying that "the amount of the bid for fliggy video company to undertake the production of promotional videos for the judiciary reached nt$36 million, which is not true." see this press release from the judiciary , she highly doubted that the judiciary had watched the video of her questioning? did she say that the judiciary gave fliggy 36 million yuan in publicity funds? did she say that the promotional video on "workers' voluntary contribution to pension" was produced by the judiciary?
weng xiaoling emphasized that the focus of her story is that the taiwan authorities spend money on publicity, and they have to see how effective the publicity is. for example, the effect of the promotional video produced by fliggy company is disastrous. what the judiciary should clarify is that the promotional video it commissioned from fliggy was effective, not that it was played so few times as she saw. the judiciary should explain that it has spent a lot of money on publicity in the past, what the effectiveness of the publicity was, and please use data to convince her and the taiwanese people that the money was worth the money.
weng xiaoling said that she will require the judiciary to provide reports on the use of all media promotion funds in the past four years, including business promotion types, contracted media vendors, funding proportions and other data. the 2025 budget review of the judiciary will be based on these data superior. since the judiciary has named taiwan’s labor authorities, please also ask the labor authorities to explain why the above-mentioned “workers’ voluntary contribution of pension” promotional video has such a low play count!
straits herald reporter in taiwan lin jingxian