The Cabinet reshuffle has caused controversy over whether the central government’s general budget proposal for next year should be withdrawn.
The legislature reached a consensus between the ruling and opposition parties that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) majority suggest the new Cabinet withdraw the proposal and rewrite it. The Cabinet respected the suggestion and duly retracted the proposal.
Since the budget had not been reviewed, withdrawing the proposal is responsible politics, but in practice it is almost impossible to rewrite an entire budget in two weeks. The Cabinet’s decision was thus probably nothing more than a formality.
There are precedents for a budget withdrawal following the resignation of a Cabinet.
In October 2000, premier Tang Fei (唐飛) resigned because he did not agree with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s policy of suspending construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The legislature had begun deliberating over a budget for the following fiscal year, but since this was unprecedented, the legislature asked the Cabinet to withdraw the proposal and reexamine the fiscal budget and attendant policies before resubmitting the package for review.
When he was appointed premier, Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) told reporters that if the fiscal budget request needed amending, it could either be rejected by the legislature or withdrawn by the Cabinet. It is clear that Wu did his homework and remembered the earlier resolution.
However, can this proposed budget be rewritten? The answer is “no,” because it is too time-consuming to draw up anew.
Government departments must submit their budgets to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics as early as April.
This year, for example, the final budget proposal was not submitted to the legislature until the middle of last month despite the fact that the premier had been briefed on a proposal on June 22.
This is because it took a long time to compile and review budget requests from the various departments. Thus, even if there are only minor changes to be made, the entire budget will have to be rewritten to reflect this.
The new budget proposal must be submitted to the legislature by the end of this month at the latest. That only leaves two weeks. How will the Cabinet have time to discuss changes to the proposal with each department?
Because of these constraints, the so-called budget rewrite will wind up being a reprint with the name of former premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) changed to Wu Den-yih.
If we were to look at the differences between the versions of the budgets proposed by Tang and his successor, Chang Chun-hsiung (張俊雄), we would find that, apart from changes to explanatory wording, the numbers remain the same.
It was politically necessary for the budget to be withdrawn and rewritten after the Cabinet reshuffle to satisfy the appearance of responsible politics, but, in plain language, it is just another show.
The Cabinet ought to inform the public that any rewrite of the budget proposal will be nominal.
In addition, the Cabinet should re-examine the budget while it is under legislative review, and if it discovers that cuts should be made, it should suggest that legislators make a proposal to that effect rather than backing the proposal at all costs.
Jan Shou-jung is a former legislative assistant.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS