The longstanding debate on city and county upgrades reached a climax last Tuesday night when the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) held a hasty meeting to handle seven upgrade applications from around the nation.
The committee unanimously passed applications for mergers and upgrading of Taichung City and County and Kaohsiung City and County, as well as the upgrading of Taipei County. The committee heatedly debated an application for the merger and upgrading of Tainan City and County, and was unable to reach a consensus, though that application was finally approved yesterday.
The opaque and slapdash process of review and the political motivations underlying the project have acted to suppress opponents of the entire merger-upgrade agenda, which is very worrying.
Taiwan is relatively small, but its administrative structure is complex, making it impossible for many areas of the country to bring their special characteristics and strong points into play. This complexity also makes it harder to link areas that have economic and social commonalities.
These fragmentary divisions have long affected Taiwan’s competitiveness and most Taiwanese agreed that something had to be done. Many have therefore welcomed the merging and upgrading of city and counties — especially those who are the beneficiaries of the changes.
However, reforms should have been based on the input of people with expertise and non-partisan experience, as well as on the practical challenges facing different localities. Then there is the national interest to consider.
The government’s approach, however, required cities and counties to submit reports explaining why they should be allowed to upgrade — in short, an essay-writing contest — while mayors and county commissioners had to review board meetings as if they were mounting a defense for a thesis.
“Reviewing” and immediately deciding on seven merger/upgrade applications in a day was breathtaking in its amateurishness, and fuels suspicions that the decisions were made in advance. Even before the review board meeting was held, media reports correctly predicted the outcome.
The main source of conflict for this round of mergers and upgrades is the perception that matters of profound administrative importance have been subjected to the crudest political manipulation to serve the interests of incumbents.
There are two problems that follow on from this.
The first was echoed by Taiwan Solidarity Union Chairman Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) when he said the upgrades were a scheme by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to pave the way for reelection in 2012. A merged Taipei City and County and a merged Taichung City and County would become stronger pan-blue camp electorates, while the pan-green camp would be able to gain power in the merged Kaohsiung and Tainan municipalities, setting up richer territories for pork-barrel politics at the next presidential election.
Mindful of the electoral importance of Taipei County, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) thinks it can kill two birds with one stone by postponing the election for Taipei County commissioner via the upgrade to stall for time in regaining lost ground in this electorate.
A combined Kaohsiung City and County, meanwhile, would be a pan-green stronghold and the pan-blue camp would have little hope of gaining power there. The KMT government did not hesitate to approve their upgrade and merger application, however, because it expects a disorganized Democratic Progressive Party to be more vulnerable to infighting over local elections.
The second problem is that the mergers and upgrades will result in the postponement of mayoral and county commissioner elections. In a democracy, the terms of democratically elected leaders and public representatives are a contract between candidates and voters that should not be broken for cynical ends.
There is a legal defense of this point. On Sept. 4, 1999, the National Assembly modified the Constitution to increase its power and extend the terms of office of its members by two years and 42 days and the terms of office of legislators by five months.
The Council of Grand Justices, however, in Constitutional Interpretation No. 499, struck down the amendment, concluding: “Given the principle of sovereignty of and by the people, the powers and their limits granted to an elected public representative shall be directly derived from the delegation of the people. Therefore, the appropriateness of a democracy through representation lies in whether its public representatives execute their powers in accordance with those that were bestowed upon them and abide by their contracts with their electorate. One of the most critical aspects of this agreement is that, unless there is any proper reason for doing otherwise, an election must be held prior to the expiration of the term or there shall no longer be representation.”
A much earlier constitutional interpretation, No. 261, stated: “Regular elections held at stipulated times reflect the will of the public and pave the way to the thorough execution of constitutional democracy.” Legitimate cause for postponing an election is laid out by Constitutional Interpretation No. 31, which states: “In the case of national emergencies, no election for the next term of public representatives can be conducted.”
Upgrading and merging administrative structures do not constitute a national emergency.
Postponing the year-end elections of mayors and county commissioners will extend their terms as well as those of city and county councilors, a situation that clearly violates the word and the spirit of the Constitution.
Upgrades and mergers are closely linked to the well-being of the public. The issue should be guided by logic and expertise in order to bring out the best in each area while keeping the national interest in mind.
Government manipulation of this issue is turning the division of Taiwan’s administrative areas into a pointless new political battleground. It will distort the distribution of national resources and make it impossible to extend the rights and opportunities of locals. It will also fail to strengthen the development and competitiveness of local industry.
Political disorder will grow, planting the seeds for destructive competition between localities for government funds. The situation is lamentable, contemptible and embarrassing.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS