With strong support from lawmakers, the Legislative Yuan has passed the regulations governing expenditure payments to local elected representatives and overhead subsidies to village and borough chiefs (地方民代費用支給及村里長專務補助費補助條例). The new regulations are supposed to meet public expectations in standard-izing the wages and benefits of government employees. However, proposed in haste during the runup to the presidential election, the regulations obviously contain many political considerations, so their appropriateness and legitimacy have come into question.
First of all, the so-called "standards" in the regulations are in fact itemized ceilings based on the standards of Taipei City, which are much coveted by representatives in counties and former provincial municipalities. The rules provide no concrete, objective basis as to the actual content of the items. They are instead left to the representatives themselves to decide, with no operational standards for implementation.
On the one hand, the regulations stipulate a NT$45,000 ceiling on overhead subsidies for village and borough chiefs; and on the other, it says local governments should raise the necessary funds themselves. If local governments had sufficient financial resources, they would long ago have followed Taipei City's lead in establishing the NT$45,000 standard. Why should they wait for a law to this effect to be made? In fact, the regulations are unrealistic and feed on illusions.
That the county and township authorities were seriously short of independent financial resources was the only reason why an extremely unfair "one country, two systems" phenomenon exists at the local government level. Now, by generously raising the subsidy to NT$45,000, the Executive Yuan has obviously used a law to increase the financial burdens on local governments. Therefore, the central government should also have increased funding to support this increase. But the draft bill prohibits the "application to higher authorities for subsidies."
This not only goes against the legal obligations of the Executive Yuan, but may also violate the Law Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (
Since elected local representatives hold non-salaried positions, they require subsidies to ensure that they can perform their duties properly. This is also the purpose of Articles 52 and 61 of the Local Autonomy Law (
Given the hollowness of the regulations, their implementation will have to depend heavily on the "conscience" and "self-restraint" of local representatives. As a result, these regulations -- which throw the problems back onto the same local governments -- are worse than no regulations at all. In future, no matter what the local elected bodies do, they will inevitably come under criticism once again. This kind of deliberate blurring of the issue will cause much damage to local representatives and tense up relations.
To solve a problem, one should find the cause. The clause prohibiting local governments from asking higher-level authorities for subsidies is not legally binding in the first place, as it is only part of an explication of the regulations. The Executive Yuan must still draw up special budgets in accordance with the provisions in the Law Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures, and share the financial burden on local governments that the new regulations they have created.
Liu Wen-shih is director of the Office of Legislation at the Taipei County Government.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with