It has recently been suggested that certain branches of government should be moved from Taipei. The idea was put forward by Democratic Progressive Party mayors after the nation elected its first female president and relegated the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to the opposition.
Opponents say there might not be enough money to carry out such a plan and have expressed doubts over the potential benefits.
Proponents say that Taipei is located on numerous fault lines, close to a nuclear power plant and is too crowded and expensive; adding that the city’s traffic congestion and air quality constantly deteriorates, and the government offices intertwined with corporate headquarters result in plutocracy rather than democracy.
Following the triumph of Taiwan’s “democracy 2.0,” the public wishes to move forward with the revolution.
Twenty-first century capitalism has had many unwanted effects, among them is the M-shaped wealth distribution and the disappearing middle class. While capitalism can be credited as the champion of wealth creation, the same cannot be said about its ability to distribute wealth equally. It has been criticized for making rich people richer and poor people poorer.
Political corruption makes matters worse. The argument that supply-side economics would result in the trickling down of wealth to underprivileged people has failed to deliver on that promise, but on the contrary, made wealth disparity even worse.
The best economic model for attaining prosperity is not relying on the wealthiest top 10 percent or 20 percent, but on the innovation, hard work, and ingenuity of common people from every corner of society.
This was the key to Taiwan’s economic miracle in the 20th century.
In the US, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill, paved the way for a strong middle class and better wealth distribution.
Fair distribution of wealth can boost wealth creation, reduce the living expenses of poor people, ease their burden on society and provide economic and political stability.
Applying the same principle to regional disparity in wealth distribution, it is understood that moving the headquarters of certain government branches — especially the legislature and the judiciary — to central and southern cities would evenly distribute political influence and economic prosperity across the nation.
A centralized government, as a rule, would incur higher costs of operation, maintenance and expansion.
Trading the expensive government real estate in Taipei for inexpensive rural plots would allow the government to afford the construction of new and modern offices and disperse the concentrated crowd in a more comfortable setting to achieve a higher quality of service. The high speed rail as well as Internet connectivity, which allows video conferences, e-mails, online services and instant messages, would minimize the impact of distance between government branches.
The mingling of government personnel working in close proximity of each other has always been of great concern for advanced democracies. To keep the government clean, humble and honest, many states have moved government branches away from each other and from financial centers, bringing them closer to the public.
When Taiwan is rebooted to “democracy 2.0,” the operation manual needs be upgraded to a decentralized government both geographically and economically.
James Hsu is a member of North America Taiwanese Professors’ Association.
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