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
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS