Following the Dec. 18 referendums, one of the hottest political issues has become whether Hsinchu City and Hsinchu County should be merged, and whether more special municipalities should be created.
There are opinions on both sides, and each has its own point.
However, a question seems to be missing in the overall discussion: Should Taiwan consider relocating its capital, or at least consider setting up secondary capitals?
The idea of relocating the capital has been advocated repeatedly by politicians such as former Taichung mayor Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) and former Changhua County commissioner Cho Po-yuan (卓伯源), but the Executive Yuan did not plan to relocate the capital when some administrative areas were merged and updated in 2010, and the issue has been delayed to this day.
The relocation of capitals has happened elsewhere. China, for example, proposed in April 2017 to form the “Xiongan New Area.” About 120km from Beijing and 110km from Tianjin, the Xiongnu New Area was officially positioned as a development hub for the “non-core functions” of the Chinese capital. Another good example is the relocation of Myanmar’s capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw in November 2005.
Just like the idea of having several special municipalities, the idea of relocating the capital aims to balance Taiwan’s regional development, and keep the system running if the central government is paralyzed if a major disaster hits.
Taiwan is relatively small and narrow. After years of public transportation development, the west of Taiwan has become a “daily living circle.” That being so, the overcentralization of most political and economic agencies in a single city is unfavorable to its long-term development.
Since Taiwan is a maritime country, relocating the capital to a city with a port and an airport, such as Taichung or Kaohsiung, would achieve the goal of strengthening maritime affairs, as well as promoting international business, making the government’s related policies clearer.
Relocating the capital could also lead to population mobility among civil servants and their families, which could balance regional development and boost local economies. Becoming a secondary capital would also be a shot in the arm for any of the six special municipalities.
There are several models for relocating the capital, such as moving all of the government agencies to another city, or separating some ministries to multiple cities that serve as alternative capitals. All options are open for discussion.
The only related situation in Taiwan was the establishment of the Cabinet’s Ocean Affairs Council in Kaohsiung’s Cianjhen District (前鎮). Such experience is valuable and worthy of review by the central government.
Moreover, multiple capitals could be functionally integrated with the Cabinet’s Northern, Central and Southern Taiwan Joint Services Centers, so as to provide specific services based on different ministries or government functions. By doing so, Taiwan could take a path that is different from other countries when moving its capital.
Due to Taiwan’s relatively small size, the overemphasis on the north over the south has caused a predicament regarding development. Originally, the purpose of establishing several special municipalities was to balance regional development and national land planning.
While the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are thinking about whether to increase the number of special municipalities, it is time to start thinking about relocating the capital.
Liu Chao-lung is an associate professor at National Changhua University of Education’s Department of Public Affairs and Civic Education.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS