The candidates answered different levels of the problem
Shen Pao-yang focused on consistency, delay and whether cases receive attention only after media or political pressure. Chiang Wan-an answered with measures introduced after major cases. One asked why response speed differs; the other argued that urgent incidents are handled through task forces rather than routine meetings.
Problem frame
Shen Pao-yang
Unequal speedQuestioned whether some cases receive faster action because politicians or media intervene.Chiang Wan-an
System improvement after harmSaid every mistreatment case is the mayor’s responsibility and each case should drive reform.Measures
Shen Pao-yang
First 100 daysSuspend or revoke licences once facts are established and immediately support harmed children.Chiang Wan-an
Existing changesCited three-party joint visits and six visits a year after Kaikai; immediate suspension after a report in another kindergarten case; and unannounced inspections across a chain.Mayoral leadership
Shen Pao-yang
Routine governanceUsed attendance records for childcare and child-welfare meetings to question sustained oversight.Chiang Wan-an
Emergency task forcesSaid crises cannot wait for scheduled meetings and that he chaired four Kaikai task-force meetings.Frontline staff
Shen Pao-yang
Government as a backstopPromised support for social workers and childcare staff, without staffing, supervision or budget figures.Chiang Wan-an
Direct engagementCited meetings with families and early-education groups, without measurable workload or supervision targets.Criminal penalties
Shen Pao-yang
Supported childcare legislation and an Executive proposalDid not fully reconcile each disputed legislative vote during the debate.Chiang Wan-an
Favoured heavier penaltiesAttacked Shen’s voting record. Criminal sentencing is a national-law question, distinct from municipal reporting and protection.How the Kaikai case was used
Chiang treated Kaikai as the starting point for institutional changes. Shen used child-abuse cases to challenge whether one city applies two speeds of response. These answer different questions—what changed and whether every child receives the same timely response.
Stated measures, checkable indicators and what remains unanswered
Six questions still unanswered
Conclusion: measurable protection, not a contest of concern
Both candidates expressed concern. The useful comparison is whether they provide deadlines, a responsible official, escalation rules and accountability after failure. Kaikai must not be reduced to a debate example; the case should set the minimum standard against delay.
Sources: CNA on the child-abuse exchange, CNA on meetings and task-force management, and The Reporter’s debate review. Candidate claims are distinguished from independently verified facts.