Although the local elections only took place last year, media and public attention has already moved on to next year’s presidential election. It seems that little attention has been given to whether the newly elected civil representatives are carrying out their duties properly, as outlined in Article 35 to 37 in the Local Government Act (地方制度法).
There has been little media coverage so far, let alone reviews or assessments of the representatives’ performances.
Recently, a local civil organization called Tainan City Council Watch (台南議會觀察聯盟) published a review report on the first meeting of the fourth session of the Tainan City Council. The review method relied on quantitative and qualitative research. Those who had uncovered major problems in proposals or achieved other feats received extra credit, while those who had a poor attendance rate or did not perform well during question-and-answer sessions had points deducted. The report commended the performance of 15 city councilors, while four were put on “probation,” requiring improvement.
From a local self-governance perspective, grassroots-level non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supervising local councils is a laudable milestone for regional democracy.
However, as local media have long been focused on events in Taipei, there has been little coverage about the report, whether in the press or digital media.
A “second democratic reform,” which focuses on decentralization, privatization of state enterprises and promoting civil political participation to address Taiwan’s stalled political reform, was the key recommendation proposed by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in his final years.
As decentralization was a main theme in the recommendation, Lee had called on the central government to empower local governments with more authority regarding personnel, education and finance because, judging by government efficiency and national finances at the time, the central government would be incapable of dealing with various tasks in a diverse society.
The idea echoed the famous saying that “all politics is local.” Establishing a well-founded and sustainable local democratic system or a fundamental degree of autonomy is tantamount to achieving a healthy, vibrant central democratic system.
Strangely, several incumbent Taipei councilors, who were hoping to gain an edge over others in next year’s legislative elections with publicity and media attention, started criticizing Kaohsiung’s Cianjhen Fishing Port renovation project, Tainan’s Shalun Smart Green Energy Science City and the Pingtung Baseball Field, which all fell beyond their jurisdiction. This kind of meddling, busybody behavior should be condemned in any city council, and would not be tolerated if there had been a Taipei City Council Watch.
The public should give more attention to NGOs such as Tainan City Council Watch, so that similar organizations can be established across Taiwan, thereby realizing a minimum level of decentralization. Their presence would serve as a supervisory rating system, providing local citizens with an impartial performance assessment of city or county councilors.
In this way, the local elections might finally shake off the pomposity that political campaigns bring, and instead introduce rational public discussion and debate.
Lo Cheng-chung is a professor and director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Rita Wang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS