In order to take care of military personnel and their dependents, in 1972 the Ministry of National Defense promulgated the Operational Guidelines for the Reconstruction of Old Villages for Military Personnel and their Dependents (國軍老舊眷村重建試辦期間作業要點). Households in veterans' villages that were located on state-owned land were given a 70 percent government subsidy for the purchase of new housing in the villages, thus giving these people practically free housing in Taipei and other areas.
However, giving military households free housing had no legal foundation and violated Article 7 of the National Property Act (國有財產法), which says "The revenue and disposition of national property shall be handled in accordance with budgetary procedures; revenue should be given to the national treasury."
In the end, the Control Yuan was forced to correct the situation so that military households in the suburbs would receive more public support. In 1996, the Act Governing the Reconstruction of Old Villages for Military Personnel and their Dependents (
However, the Council of Grand Justices Interpretation No. 485 from 1999 which dealt with the act and its enforcement rules states: "In light of limited state resources, the legislation of social policies have to consider the following factors to make appropriate allocation of welfare resources: the economic and financial conditions of the state, the principle of resource utilization, and should also try to attend to the equity between beneficiaries and other people. The legislation should also consider the finances of the beneficiaries, income, costs for family support as well as the need for welfare and then regulate accordingly. It is forbidden to base the consideration of special treatment only on the specific position or status of the beneficiaries ... The legislative body should therefore revise any part of the above-mentioned act not in accord with the intent of this interpretation."
Not only has the Legislative Yuan failed to make a comprehensive revision, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chu Feng-chih (朱鳳芝) and other pan-blue legislators have recently insisted on amending Article 3 of the act in the name of ethnic integration. They want to expand the act to include 320,000 veterans with dependents but no housing, when in fact their benefits are already far better than those of farmers and workers.
If the amendment is passed, those veterans will be given a subsidy equivalent to 80 percent of a NT$4 million (US$125,000) house, or NT$3.2 million. This will impose a heavy financial burden on the government, somewhere in the region of NT$1.024 trillion.
Ever since the KMT government fled to Taiwan in 1949, local farmers and workers have suffered far worse living conditions than veterans and their dependents. On top of that, common people have to pay taxes and still do not enjoy housing subsidies.
If they really believe in and want ethnic integration, the first thing to do is abolish the Act Governing the Reconstruction of Old Villages for Military Personnel and their Dependents. In order not to add to the nation's already heavy financial burden, the government should stop paying out the multi-million dollar one-time subsidy to veteran households in order to alleviate the burden on all citizens, and instead use that money to offer loans to any ethnic group.
Only by eradicating a system that provides direct access to the national treasury for people from certain ethnic groups or with specific backgrounds can there be true ethnic integration.
T. Leveler is a Taiwanese civil servant and a part-time lecturer at a local university.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing