Over the first three years after the Kobe earthquake, the Japanese government had already spent 4.7 trillion yen (around NT$1.5 trillion) on relief and reconstruction. Given this as a guide, if we do not make a serious effort to supervise and manage the reconstruction operations that will be needed in light of the 921 quake, the country may be facing bankruptcy within the next few years.
The downsizing of the provincial government has left a deficit of NT$810 billion to the central government, which also has a total deficit of NT$2.2 trillion itself. If we add up all the deficits, it becomes clear that whoever wins the presidential election in March will immediately be sucked into a financial black hole. The 921 earthquake will be the catalyst that sparks the next century's political disaster.
In view of this, we cannot help questioning if the recent disaster relief and subsidy measures proposed by the government conform to social fairness and justice.
First, the criteria for compensation given by the government to all the people killed or injured in the quake are the same. Such a policy will trigger a tremendous financial burden for the government. Also, the unexpected legacy can cause problems in cases where an entire family was killed and the surviving heirs either dispute the amount or cannot agree on an equitable division of the funds.
Japan's subsidy regulations, which can serve as a model for us, stipulate that compensation for those killed who were principle wage-earners and supported the family should be twice the amount that for others. Also, the right to claim compensation on behalf of those killed in the quake is limited.
Second, children orphaned by the quake have drawn a great deal of attention. A considerable amount of money has been collected from all circles, as have subsidies from the government. Therefore, adoption of the orphans is definitely not a simple question of charity. It involves two questions -- who will supervise and manage the money that is given to the orphans? Who should take the responsibility to ensure that the orphans will receive safe and reliable care? The government should give serious consideration to all the possible problems with its plan in order to circumvent those who may have illegal intentions.
Third, the Executive Yuan has stipulated that owners of houses assessed as "collapsed or partially collapsed" will be given a monthly rent subsidy of NT$3,000 if they actually lived in the houses before the quake and refuse to move to temporary shelters, government housing, or barracks. The rent subsidy will be issued once a year. There are two questions relating to such a policy.
1. Only home owners who actually resided in the assessed collapsed building prior to the quake will receive the rent subsidies. Therefore, landlords and renters of collapsed houses will be unable to receive subsidies.
2. The rent subsidies are issued once a year without considering that those who receive the subsidies may purchase a house or accept a settlement arrangement within the year. Such a measure saves time but wastes money.
Fourth, subsidies for owners of collapsed and partially collapsed houses are NT$200,000 and NT$100,000. The people who are qualified to receive the subsidies are "those who have completed household registration prior to the quake and actually reside in the houses." In other words, the subsidies apply to residents, not owners. This is as confused a measure as the rent subsidies that apply to house owners and not to tenants. Logically speaking, the subsidies for collapsed houses should go to the owners and the rent subsidies should go to the people who actually reside in the houses. I do not understand why the Executive Yuan wishes to do the exact opposite. Besides, subsidies are the same for all houses, regardless of size, and regardless of how many families were living in the house before the quake. This appears to be unfair and unjust.
Fifth, according to the regulations of the Executive Yuan, the government will give NT$200,000 in compensation for collapsed buildings and NT$100,000 for partially collapsed ones. Although the central government has stipulated the criteria for distribution of funds, it authorizes borough leaders to certify which buildings should be designated as "collapsed." The professional certifications issued by civil engineers who are entrusted by county and city governments to assess the buildings are invalid when applying for compensation. Is this reasonable? There is no explanation other than the KMT is trying to please the borough leaders in order to buy votes for the Lien-Siew ticket.
Finally, the Ministry of Finance initially requested financial institutions to shoulder all mortgages of the disaster victims. Due to objections from the financial sector, the application process and eligibility are still under negotiation. Basically, this is a credit and liability issue under the Civil Code. It is unreasonable for the government to force banks to shoulder the losses. It is also unfair to quake victims who have no mortgages or relatively small ones. It is especially inappropriate for taxpayers and the financial sector. Such a policy would result in banks around the island suffering a loss of NT$50 billion, and then it will be the clients of the banks who will be forced to shoulder the loss. This loss would also lead to an adjustment of deposit and loan rates, precipitating the potential for a financial crisis which could trigger a "national disaster." The government's responsibility is to carry out post-disaster relief. The pre-quake public debt should be dealt with in its own right.
The government should do its utmost to take care of those who suffered in the earthquake. But relief efforts and disasters must have cause-and-effect relationships. The level of subsidies should depend on the government's capability to assist in such a way as to conform to social fairness and justice. If the government sacrifices the common interest of all taxpayers to satiate a small group of victims, the damage will be inestimable.
Annette Lu is the commissioner of Taoyuan County.
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS