The recent discussion about empty buildings highlights an underlying problem that contemporary Taiwanese democratic politics urgently needs to break away from -- the result of a longstanding misguided Taiwanese notion of development.
In the political struggle for influence, each camp has been making their best effort to come up with all kinds of big construction projects.
Take for example my hometown, Miaoli City. Houlung River (
In addition to these new bridges, Miaoli also built a domed "big egg" stadium a while back. This magnificent construction project is now only used a few days of every year, and it serves mostly to remind people of a certain former county commissioner's uncommon ability to obtain approval for big budgeted projects.
And the Saisiat Culture Hall built on the shore of Hsiangtien Lake (
This misguided notion about big construction projects has historical roots. The government led economic construction in the 1970s and 1980s, included several major infrastructure projects to boost the economy, such as the Ten Key Infrastructure Projects, the export processing zones and later, the science parks.
At a time when Taiwan was trying to find its place in the global economy, these projects were a promise of development, something the Taiwanese deeply wished for.
At a time when no one had cared for the long-standing needs of the Taiwanese public, the democratization and liberalization of Taiwan meant that these big construction projects were used by politicians as a quick way to voters' hearts. This strategy was developed to its fullest by People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Later on, this "wealth distribution" strategy was also applied by other politicians. This is the logic behind the construction of these grand, unused buildings.
Questioning the logic behind big construction projects does not mean we have given up looking toward the promise of a better life. On the contrary, pointing out this misconception is a way of saying that we need a more detailed development process.
Perhaps big construction projects no longer are a good strategy for bringing promises of a better future. Every region should have its own specific development plan in tune with the local situation and local special needs.
All these grand buildings standing empty might provide us with a good opportunity to take another look at the misconception behind these big construction projects.
Maybe it is a chance to rub our eyes and take a clearer look at our politicians. Or maybe it is a chance to take a square look at local development activities.
This notion is exceptionally significant when it comes to various kinds of cultural movements.
Government policies are only one part, and a very small part at that, while it is local nongovernmental community actions that will provide a foundation for and breathe life into cultural movements.
Liu Chieh-hsiu is a research fellow at the Institute of Health Policy and Management at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath