Even compared with the five other special municipalities under direct Executive Yuan governance, the advantages enjoyed by Taipei are exceptional. Unlike New Taipei City — which was created by elevating the former Taipei County to special municipality level — and Taoyuan, Taichung, Tainan and Kaohsiung, which were all created by combining the cities with the counties, Taipei is all urban, without rural areas.
New Taipei City envelops both Taipei and provincial-level Keelung, making it something of an administrative wonder.
The population of Taipei is not the biggest of the Cabinet-governed cities, nor is it the largest in terms of area, but it is still the nation’s capital, with the largest budget and the best infrastructure.
While Taipei is more like one of Tokyo’s districts, such as well-known Ginza, Shinjuku and the other 21 districts. New Taipei City is like the cities within Tokyo, such as Hachioji, Narita and Tama, and the other 23 cities.
Taipei and New Taipei City were made into two Cabinet-governed cities as a result of political infighting and competition.
Tokyo’s districts and cities have local autonomy, unlike the townships that used to exist in what is now Taiwan’s special municipalities that have been converted to districts: They have no autonomy and district administrators are appointed by the government.
The populations of some of the districts in New Taipei City are bigger than some counties or provincial-level cities, so there seems to be a certain level of political backsliding or even disorder.
It is also a bit odd that there would still be such a thing as a provincial-level city, as the provincial government has been abolished.
The elevation to special municipality was mainly the result of a grab for funds allocated by the central government. If local government leaders are a bit like old feudal lords, then this is even more true of special municipality mayors.
Narrow departmentalism overrides concerns for regional balance, and counties and cities with large populations made a grab for money without any concern for the other counties and cities that were unable to get an administrative upgrade.
However, what has happened to the remote areas of these counties after their elevation and after they got their hands on all that money and power? Does any other nation have cities with such large remote areas?
Disputes over national identity have become even more obvious within parties at the national and local levels, as was made abundantly clear in November’s nine-in-one elections.
Taipei has been called the “Kingdom of the Heavenly Dragon” — because of its long-standing image as a Chinese city — and “Chinese Taipei,” and because its status as the nation’s capital has meant that its infrastructure is prioritized — the MRT system is a good example — its mayors have looked down on the rest of Taiwan, although its development has not much to do with their contributions.
Other special municipalities do not build MRT systems or other facilities because they have to borrow money and will end up losing money. It is not strange that there is a backlash against the central government.
Balanced regional development is good for all Taiwanese, but politicians ruled by narrow departmentalism often seem to prey on local and class divisions.
There are too many people who think too highly of themselves and lack any concept of national unity and community. When the local government heads that reigned victorious in the elections took up their positions late last month, one of the new mayors put on quite a show. Before even knowing what it means to run a big city, these new government heads were already competing with each other.
A small nation should be more intent on community and shared development than other nations, but the six special municipalities rule a large majority of the nation’s population, and the lopsided development of Taipei is making Taiwan top-heavy.
Self-conceited Taipei thinks of itself as thriving, magnificent, wealthy and noble, and the other five special municipalities are not far behind.
However, what about all the other cities and counties? Are their residents lower, second-class citizens?
Rebuilding a nation and reshaping society requires a new vision. It is only by destroying the myth of the special municipality that Taiwanese will be able to bring a new vision to local governments.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers