I can understand why the various cities and counties are doing their utmost to achieve special-municipality status. I also see the logic behind President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) plan to reduce the north-south divide and stimulate development in central Taiwan. It is necessary, however, to contemplate the harmful influence that the deeply entrenched system of special municipalities has had on grassroots development -- it is also necessary to consider how to dispel the myths about special municipalities. Only when we do so will local government in Taiwan develop in a healthy manner.
Firstly, Taiwan has overlapping and redundant layers of government administration. This leads to a serious waste of national resources. Chronic administrative inefficiency has long been a target of public criticism. Moreover, the two special municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung already receive nearly half of all subsidies and resources allotted by the central government, limiting the scope for development enjoyed by the other cities and counties in direct proportion. Especially as the rural-urban divide has grown in Taiwan's post-industrial society, a "cluster effect" in the cities has increasingly resulted in the weak getting weaker and the poor poorer.
At the same time, the original purpose of the long and difficult battle to downsize the provincial government was precisely to make Taiwan's governmental structure less hierarchical by turning cities and counties into special municipalities, giving them the autonomy and the resources to solve their own problems. Since the downsizing, city and county governments have formed the basic units of local administration. This was the original objective of local autonomy as part of a return to constitutional government. If resources continue to be monopolized by the special municipalities, then government reforms aimed at realizing local autonomy will be carried out in vain.
Although local government in Taiwan has long enjoyed a degree of autonomy, it has always relied on handouts from the central or provincial government for its revenue. Under this system, any local subsidies must be itemized in accordance with the stipulations of the Law Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法).
In responding to demands from the local level, the central government has appeared increasingly at a loss and had no alternative but to go along with the streamlining of the provincial government and earmarking a portion of tax revenues -- such as revenue from the business tax -- for local use. But the various cities and counties have continued to plead poverty in the hope of receiving aid from central government. The various city mayors and county heads have each demonstrated their abilities to use their connections in central government to make direct appeals for funds. The special municipalities, by contrast, clearly suffer no such lack of funds.
In recent years, every time the dispute over how to allocate the central government's Tax Redistribution Fund (統籌分配款) has arisen, Taipei and Kaohsiung have each fought for their share with an extremely domineering attitude. This is because Taipei and Kaohsiung have legal safeguards entitling them to a larger share of the fund as special municipalities.
Re-evaluating the current system of local administration does not mean placing all cities, counties, and special municipalities uniformly on the same level. Rather, it means considering each city and county in a functionally equitable position in order to put an end to the Tax Redistribution Fund's current unfair practice of distinguishing between special municipalities and ordinary municipalities.
Under the premise that local development should be balanced, therefore, what we really need to consider are how Taiwan's administrative districts are delineated and how to allocate government revenues in a reasonable manner. There is no way this goal can be achieved by favoring the special municipalities or simply raising the status of particular cities or counties.
If the uneven development between rural and urban areas persists, or if even such relatively trivial items as water conservancy budgets are seen as matters for political wrangling between local and central government, more special municipalities will do nothing either to address current problems in local government or to promote Taiwan's overall development.
Wang Tuoh is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
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