Minister of Education Cheng Jei-cheng (鄭瑞城) grabbed attention when he recently worried that the Ministry of Education might not be able to spend all of its budget. This shows how preposterous our budget policies are. Common sense tells us that to be able to plan a budget, expenditures should be determined before allotting the budget. Only then can it be decided what the appropriate amount is for each item and which projects are more important. Township governments are familiar with this process because they need to follow it when requesting funds from the national, city or county government to build infrastructure such as parks and stadiums.
However, the truth is that the central government works in the opposite way — it first receives money and then decides how to spend it. Small wonder that Cheng worries about not being able to spend all his funding. The NT$500 billion (US$14.67 billion), four-year special budget to increase infrastructure spending is a classic example of this backward planning. This program is exactly the same as the previous plan for increasing domestic consumption.
Such counterintuitive planning does not work. Nationwide, roads are always being repaired, but never fixed. In addition, political infighting has long meant that northern Taiwan is emphasized over the south. The main point is that these plans fail to deliver the promised growth.
The government has seized the economic crisis to justify using the national treasury like an ATM and issuing debt for the NT$500 billion infrastructure budget, since it must take extreme measures to save the economy during the worst global recession in a century.
The problem is that while the Cabinet asked the Council for Economic Planning and Development to report on Friday how the NT$500 billion would be spent, the council and the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics said last Tuesday that they had yet to receive the budget plans from the ministries. When questioned, the ministries said the budgets were still being worked out and their bosses had not even seen the plans.
A reasonable guess is that Cheng is worrying that his ministry will not be able to spend its budget because it has no idea what to do with the money.
Amazingly, by midday on Tuesday, just a few hours before the council was to hold its budget meeting, two days before the Cabinet’s deadline and two weeks before the legislature’s budget review, nobody knew how this much-anticipated budget would be spent.
Experience shows that the end result will be a rush job of rash policies. How can anyone expect this money to be spent where it is most needed or that it will boost the economy?
It is not the first time the government has planned something like the special budget to expand domestic demand or the NT$500 billion infrastructure budget. Who knows how many projects actually developed from past government plans to save the economy? These grandiose plans were also announced before ministries had worked out the details. While news of the policies made headlines, weeks later the details revealed that they were just repackaged versions of old policies.
Both the public and industry are suffering while a paralyzed government plays with slogans, unable to come up with any substantive policies. All we get is news about purported policies, which ensures that reporters still have jobs, but does little for anyone else.
Most shocking is that the president boasts of his satisfaction with his government and its policy planning capabilities.
Li To-Tzu is an assistant in the legislature.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS