Taipei County's elevation to special municipality status has created further controversy in the financial relationships between the central and local governments. To appease those bureaucrats in Taipei and Kaohsiung who will now have to share their special municipality funding with Taipei County, the Cabinet has resolved to provide a special subsidy to the two cities, giving NT$15.5 billion (US$467.5 million) to Taipei and NT$10 billion to Kaohsiung.
To keep the three special municipalities happy, the Cabinet has had to come up with another NT$25.5 billion.
Allotting more funds to one local government means taking funds from somewhere else.
The leaders of the other 22 counties and cities, who originally did not think this debate over funding had anything to do with them, have finally realized what is going on. Now they want to know whether they will be getting less as a result.
According to the Cabinet's distribution plan, the NT$25.5 billion will come from the general subsidies to city and county governments, and other sources. Of this, NT$11.7 billion would have been allotted to Taipei County before it was upgraded. But this means the central government must still come up with NT$13.8 billion.
But the central government has enough trouble keeping its own finances afloat, so aren't these alternative "sources of funding" a bit fanciful? Isn't this an indirect way of saying that money will have to come from the other counties and municipalities?
By law, the special municipalities share 43 percent of the centrally allocated tax revenues. Under the Cabinet's plan to provide additional subsidies, the three municipalities will get a greater ratio than they should. Otherwise, the NT$11.7 billion in funding that Taipei County would have received as a "normal" municipality should be given to the other 22 counties and cities.
Now regular municipalities may be forced to bail the central government and special municipalities out of their financial problems. This is nothing but heaping more abuse on the already weak local governments.
The special municipalities are more visible in the media, have stronger political influence, more vocal leaders and greater power to defend their interests.
The other counties and cities are much weaker. They have to accept what they are dealt. Although the passage of the General Local Tax Statute (地方稅法通則) in 2002 allowed cash-strapped local governments to raise taxes, only Taoyuan, Miaoli, Kaohsiung and Yunlin counties and Tainan City have done so.
The special municipalities have not been forced to cut spending or support their expenditures with their own taxes. They continue to be completely dependent on subsidies.
Residents of normal municipalities have it tough. They pay taxes just like people in the special municipalities, but they have to put up with inferior facilities. Sometimes they even have to pay additional local taxes.
I hope that the Cabinet will be fair as it tries to resolve the dispute with the special municipalities and not damage the interests of the normal municipalities.
Chiu Li-li is a Tainan City councilor.
Translated by Marc s
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past