In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) on May 4 announced that the Cabinet would expand its financial relief program with a NT$10,000 grant for eligible applicants. On the first application day, long lines formed outside district and township offices, and since many applicants did not qualify for the grant, disorder broke out, exposing flaws in the government’s policymaking and implementation.
The first problem is the lack of a bottom-up approach with local government participation. Many democratic countries have long since abandoned one-way, top-down thinking, and instead emphasize bottom-up administrative participation.
Taiwan’s highly successful pandemic prevention can be partially attributed to local governments’ proactive responses and advanced deployment.
Despite the central government’s claim that it and local governments are of one mind, the subsidy program was rushed without participation from local governments, which instead became “errand boys” to implement the policy.
Local governments are responsible for implementing the program on the front line, as they better understand their constituents’ needs. The central government should have coordinated with them when formulating the grant program, and it should have launched it only when complementary measures were in place to avoid public complaints.
The central government invites mayors and deputy mayors of Taiwan’s six municipalities to the Executive Yuan’s weekly meeting, and Su should have allowed them to participate on this issue. He was able, but unwilling to do so.
Second, there is a lack of “customer-oriented communication” about the policy. Su used flower sellers and people who advertise in the street as an example of those who would benefit, saying that all people whose income is affected by the pandemic could apply for the grant. Then the public — the external customers — swarmed district and township offices nationwide.
Unfortunately, like the public, civil servants also learned about the program from the news and were unable to explain it to applicants.
Third, there was a lack of empathy in the implementation of the program, as the government failed to streamline administration to simplify the process for applicants. Although Minister Without Portfolio Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫) on May 6 proposed a few steps to simplify the application process, public anger had already spread to the central government.
New Taipei Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) was praised for telling the city’s district offices to promptly simplify the application process and pledging to take full responsibility for his decision, while Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) criticized the central government for creating unnecessary problems.
For years, I have promoted “e-government” solutions. The Ministry of Finance, which has access to household income data, has long provided taxpayers with online services for calculating tax filings, so why does it still require people in need to prepare documents and fill out one form after another?
It has been more than 100 days since COVID-19 broke out in Taiwan, and the government has switched from easing restrictions to saving the economy.
The central government should learn from the relief-related commotion. On the basis of participation, communication and empathy, it should cooperate closely with local governments to ensure that its policies benefit those who need it in the next phase of their relief work.
Jack Lee is a professor in National Open University’s public administration department.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several