The core factors in local government operations are people, power and money. Most local leaders, especially in cities and counties where the pan-blue camp managed to regain power in the Dec. 3 elections -- such as Taipei, Ilan, Changhua and Nantou counties and Chiayi City -- are in for a serious dose of the "blues."
First of all, there is the issue of personnel. The amendment to Article 56 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) extends the personnel-appointing powers of county commissioners and city mayors, in line with the trend toward greater local autonomy. The officials can use this law to fire, transfer or demote the bureaucrats in local government positions. Such people are replaced with campaign workers, factional leaders and others as a reward for their election help. Therefore, the first problem facing commissioners and mayors is dissatisfaction from local bureaucrats who may lose their jobs. Seventeen pan-blue county commissioners and mayors will be faced with the difficult issue of personnel adjustments and new staff appointments, while only six pan-green camp leaders will be faced with that problem.
Second, there will be controversies regarding the extent of local authority. In many cases, the authority and duties of local officials overlap with that of the central government. Since the pan-blue camp already holds Taipei City, its actually controls 18 regions on the nation's political map.
This is a reversal of fortunes for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) because in the past, the DPP relied on using local governments to rein in the central government. Now, however, the governing DPP will intensify its monitoring of the pan-blue coalition, which could mean the end of the partnership between the central and local governments. The effect of that would be that the central government ends equal distribution of resources to pan-blue led local governments, and instead increases resources sent to the seven pan-green counties and cities in the south, thereby creating a political crisis.
It is not just the government's subsidies to the pan-blue camp at the county and city level that will be squeezed. Another finance issue, the Ministry of Finance's plan to find a reasonable way of redistributing tax funds, is certain to be halted. When that happens, local pan-blue leaders will not be able to accomplish anything, no matter how adept they are, and that will add to the blue camp's worries. The special 6 percent tax quota kept by the central government provides an excellent way to support the green cities and counties in the south, thus redrawing the map to favor the south at the north's expense.
Finally there is the issue of how cities and counties handle debt. If pan-blue local leaders are unable to resolve debt issues, all their big talk of building local infrastructure -- such as the extension of Taipei City's MRT system -- will be but pipe dreams. Both the Local Government Act and the Budget Act (預算法) say that if local governments plan to increase expenditures, they must first find corresponding sources of income. The subsidies and tax fund allotments on which the pan-blue camp's local leaders are most reliant may be drastically reduced. If they cannot find resources controlled by the local government itself and quickly pay off debts, the pan-blue camp's problems will be gradually transferred to county and city residents.
For city and county residents, the worries of pan-blue local government leaders mean that days of hardship are coming. By contrast, although the central government did not make a promise that "satisfaction is guaranteed with green rule," this may still come true in the areas which remain under pan-green camp control.
Chen Chao-chien is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Affairs at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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