Hsinchu and Chiayi counties have reportedly proposed a merger with Hsinchu and Chiayi cities, but the cities’ mayors are opposed to the idea. Possible reasons for the suggested mergers could be that both counties lack fiscal resources and many issues involving both cities and the counties are difficult to resolve. The counties want a merger to be able to share fiscal resources and enhance flexibility in utilization of resources.
However, merger proposals are but political slogans, or perhaps empty promises, that should not be taken seriously. Taking them seriously requires careful planning, for four main reasons.
First, such mergers are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. The main purpose should be to raise organizational efficiency or competitiveness. However, these are general concepts; concrete and detailed planning is needed lest they become mere formalities.
Unless a detailed and persuasive report is submitted showing that competitiveness would be improved, the report is made available to the general public and residents are allowed to participate in the debate, a merger might erode instead of enhance a city’s competitiveness.
Second, there is a risk of conflict within the administrative organization. Excessive stress on city-county mergers from the top down might result in a merger for merger’s sake, leading to reorganizations in which civil servants in the city or county governments feel they have been taken advantage of or come under pressure from a dominant culture.
These are problems that occurred when Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung cities and counties were merged. One way of dealing with this would be for governments to exchange personnel to learn from each other.
Third, administration could become even more centralized. Democracy stresses separation of powers and local governance, but city-county mergers could result in more centralized administrations, as population concentration in urban areas increase as budget funds are invested in urban construction to the detriment of disadvantaged or remote areas.
Fourth, city-county mergers differ from company mergers. The main concerns in business mergers are cost and profit, benchmarks that are easily evaluated. City-county mergers are more complicated; in addition to more flexible use of resources, consideration must also be given to diverse political interests and values, and the vitalization, flexibility, effectiveness and efficiency of the administrative organization, as well as many other issues. Whether these issues can be resolved by a city-county merger must be taken into consideration.
A city-county merger is a big issue that goes beyond political concerns. It would perhaps be better if cooperation preceded merger, because there is only a thin line between a city and a county, and many overlapping issues must be resolved through cooperation.
Perhaps the central government could provide incentives for cooperation between cities and counties. Think of a city-county merger as a wedding, with cooperation representing love. If cooperation is impossible, it could lead to an unhappy marriage.
Perhaps a platform or committee for cooperation composed of representatives from the central and local governments, experts and academics, or a mutual fund, could first be established, while at the same time also encourage cooperation between city and county officials, non-governmental organizations and community residents.
When all issues have been resolved and a good cooperative environment has been established, proceeding with a merger would follow naturally.
Yang Yung-nane is a political science professor at National Cheng Kung University.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing