A few days ago, I was invited to deliver a lecture at a symposium on the rule of law, land and trade at the University of Hong Kong.
The topic was the evolution of Taiwan’s land system, how to implement the rule of law and property rights and how to promote market transactions.
While there are many aspects of Taiwan’s land system that China could learn from, a look at the US also shows that there is room for improvement in the Taiwanese system and how it is handled by government agencies.
One example is the transparency of government data.
Taiwanese government agencies regularly produce descriptive statistical reports by year and administrative area, which should be applauded. However, there are no explanations as to how the data can be useful to government policy implementation and academic research.
Due to my area of research, I see thousands of similar reports, but 99 percent of the data does not provide sufficient information.
Each individual and each researcher will, of course, be concerned with different aspects, and government agencies cannot create tens of thousands of descriptive statistical reports. However, there is a very simple solution to this problem — make the raw data public.
Taiwan’s actual real-estate transaction prices seem to be the only raw government data made available to the public in a systematized way.
If the government did not use this approach, and instead only announced monthly average housing transaction prices and average land areas per region, it would have a negative effect on the goal of keeping a lid on housing prices and preventing a housing bubble from forming.
Fortunately, the authorities are releasing data so that real-estate brokers, researchers, developers and others can obtain the data they need.
This is not a new innovation.
New York City has been issuing data concerning real-estate transactions on the city government’s Web site for more than a decade, including prices, sellers, buyers and sizes.
New York’s system is more advanced than Taiwan’s. In Taiwan, to obtain the data you must make an application and pay a fee to obtain a data CD, while in New York, Excel spreadsheets are posted on the Internet where anyone can download them.
At the time when Taiwan’s real-estate transactions system was implemented, other government agencies were hard at work producing descriptive statistical reports used by a limited number of people.
Why? Publishing raw data will not only save the government time and money, it will also give all potential users access to more information.
Someone might say that making information public will violate the privacy of individuals, but reconciling transparency and privacy would not be difficult.
The removal of each party’s name and other information to identify them in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Act (個人資料保護法) could easily be achieved with software to automate the removal.
Raw government data with all names and ID numbers removed would still be of greater benefit than one-dimensional descriptive statistical reports.
Making public the government information after removing privacy data will promote democracy and accountability.
If Taiwan, just like China, did not make all court decisions public, how would non-governmental legal reformers be able to monitor the quality of judicial decisionmaking?
Making raw data available would allow civic society to help catch the small number of bad apples in government agencies and highlight policy loopholes. On top of this, it would not cost the government a single cent. Some US researchers rely on government raw data to reveal partisan policy.
As government agencies continue to expand and as data can be obtained for next to nothing, relying on the traditional government model, in which the higher levels monitor subordinate levels, is no longer sufficient.
Allowing the public to monitor the government with the help of this information is the way to further improve Taiwanese democracy and the rule of law.
Chang Yun-chien is an associate research professor in the Institutum Iurisprudentiae at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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