Last week, as many people were paying attention to the government’s reaction to a controversial urban renewal project in Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林), few people noticed that another housing issue was in the making, albeit involving less confrontation, as the government was considering changes to its public housing policy, prompting many to ask whether it was capable of implementing an effective and feasible public housing policy.
On Thursday, Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) told the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee that the nation’s overall demand for social housing — about 190,000 households — was more than the government could afford. Because the government lacks the funds and the land for public housing projects in urban areas, amid a high nationwide rate of unoccupied apartment units, Lee told lawmakers the government would have to adjust its housing policies.
Based on Lee’s remarks, a new policy was announced encouraging lower-income people to “rent” suitable housing rather than “buy” low-cost units subsidized by the government. The government would prioritize the use of empty houses instead of the construction of new ones, while it would stop building public housing, including projects under the categories of “social housing,” “quality housing” and “modern housing.”
In short, the government will no longer provide public housing to balance the market’s supply and demand, but will continue to give incentives to the private sector to build low-cost units. In the future, the government will simply play the role of “matchmaker” to help low-income households find suitable housing, Lee said.
Since 2010, the government has launched several public housing projects in urban areas and introduced a luxury tax, aiming to curb real-estate speculation and help low-income families deal with skyrocketing real-estate prices. However, no matter what the government’s housing programs are called and how they are built and sold, Lee’s remarks indicated that the government’s public housing initiative did not achieve its goals. It also raised suspicions that all policy initiatives regarding public housing over the past two years were nothing but government-led election campaign tools.
The public has many doubts and negative perceptions about public housing — which tend to focus on inferior construction and poor public safety. People living near public housing units or buildings also strenuously object to the policy. Therefore, if the government no longer plans to build public housing, its policy focus should be shifted to improving public infrastructure to provide faster and more convenient services to people living in suburban areas as well as expanding the scope of housing subsidies to low-income households.
Furthermore, the government should recognize that promoting balanced development between suburban and urban areas, as well as between southern and northern Taiwan, would be an effective way to discourage people from moving to urban areas, especially Taipei. The government needs to build a better public transportation network and promote local economic sectors to improve regional employment.
The government should use this opportunity to review the management mechanism for the nation’s public housing, because it currently lacks a centralized body to take overall responsibility for public housing.
For instance, both the “quality housing” and the “social housing” programs are under the management of the Ministry of the Interior, while the “modern housing” program is organized by the Council for Economic Planning and Development. Meanwhile, the Public Construction Commission is responsible for the youth housing program, and the Taipei City Government has its own public housing program. Without a centralized agency, the government will find it difficult to either integrate public resources or establish a comprehensive and effective strategy on public housing management.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS