Recently there have been renewed calls for the national government, or at least some part of it, to be relocated out of Taipei. Eight Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative nominees last month proposed moving the Legislative Yuan to Greater Taichung as part of their campaign platform for the elections in January. In the wake of Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster, there were demands that either the legislature or the entire government should be moved out of Taipei because of its proximity to Jinshan Nuclear Power Plant, in Shihmen District (石門), New Taipei City (新北市) and Guosheng Nuclear Power Plant, in Wanli (萬里), New Taipei City.
This is not the first time the issue has been raised, but few of the suggestions have ever appeared to be more than half-baked or vote-getting devices.
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) moved the Fisheries Agency and the Sports Affairs Council to then-Kaohsiung City in 2007 (the council later moved back to Taipei). In October 2006, two DPP legislators and a Taiwan Solidarity Union lawmaker — supported by 66 of their colleagues, including two from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — proposed moving the capital to central or southern Taiwan. In August 2005, then-vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) suggested moving the capital south or having a second capital in the south to reduce the nation’s economic development gap.
Most of the proponents of such administrative moves have cited the need for more balanced economic development. Many have listed examples of other nations that have moved or split their capitals, or are in the process of doing so. The problem is that such moves were rarely made to balance the development gap, Brazil and South Korea being two notable exceptions. In reality, the motivation was usually the need to find an “impartial” place to outweigh regional, ethnic or political rivalries.
Twelve countries have more than one “capital” — Benin, Bolivia, the Ivory Coast, Israel, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Netherlands, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland and Tanzania. In some, the administrative capital is in one city, the legislative and judicial in another (Bolivia) or the financial and cultural center differs from the seat of government (the Netherlands). Malaysia’s parliament is still in Kuala Lumpur, but the federal administration is in Putrajaya. South Africa has three capitals: the administration in Pretoria, the parliament in Cape Town and the judiciary in Bloemfontein.
Such divisions are largely due to a complex mixture of history and politics, or in the case of the Ivory Coast and Myanmar, the personal vanity of the rulers.
Proponents of a move complain about the Taipei-centric view of the central government: one that they feel would be altered if the capital were located elsewhere. However, these critics show their own bias, since the suggested sites for relocation are always in western Taiwan — either the Taichung or Kaohsiung areas. Few, if any, mention the east coast.
Moving the capital to Hualien or Taitung would certainly create a new mindset, if not help speed up the bureaucracy — after all, who wants to be stuck indoors when there are waves calling?
It’s not wrong to think about relocating some or all of the government — unless it is across the Taiwan Strait — but such a move requires careful planning, a lot of new infrastructure and a lot of money. It is not something that could happen in a few months or a year, or be done half-heartedly like Chen’s plan.
The South Koreans began planning for their move in 2004, but it will not be completed until 2030. So far, most of those calling for such a move in Taiwan appear far more shortsighted.
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