The large-scale cuts and freezes proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party during deliberations over this year’s central government budget have caused government agencies to face unprecedented operational challenges.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics data showed that the freezes alone amount to NT$138.1 billion (US$4.21 billion) — about 4.6 percent of the total budget — which is nearly nine times higher than the average NT$14 billion freeze of the past three years.
Such excessive freezes are no longer in the realm of fiscal oversight — rather, they are more akin to indirect budget cuts meant to slash the basic operating funds of government agencies.
The budget freezes target specific agencies and projects, demonstrating clear political motive. The Control Yuan’s operating expenses were frozen by 96 percent, the Office of the President’s operating expenses were frozen by 73 percent and the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee’s budget was slashed by 90 percent. In addition, travel expenses to China were uniformly cut by 80 percent, expenses for overseas travel and educational training were reduced by 60 percent and media policy and business promotion expenses were cut by 60 percent.
The cuts and freezes are not adjustments based on specific agencies’ operational requirements, they are part of a tactic to prevent certain departments from performing their duties.
What is even more inconceivable is that the conditions for unfreezing most frozen budgets are excessively rigid and difficult to meet. Therefore, these “frozen” funds have effectively been cut. Some agencies’ frozen funds require that they be released only after completing specific legislative procedures or meeting highly uncertain conditions, which undoubtedly creates significant obstacles to administrative operations.
When the funds of government agencies are effectively cut, certain policies cannot be implemented. Therefore, the public is who would ultimately suffer. Whether it is public services, international exchanges or even basic administrative functions, all could face severe effects.
Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) said that such large-scale budget freezes have already transcended the scope of fiscal oversight, effectively weakening the operating capacity of the central government and posing a serious threat to the promotion and advancement of major national policies.
He said that budget deliberations should be conducted on a foundation of rationality and professionalism, not be used as a tool for political battles.
The large-scale budget freezes would have significant negative effects on government operations and the provision of public services. While budget oversight is undoubtedly important, excessive budget intervention that jeopardizes the normal operations of administrative departments not only affects government efficiency, but also harms the rights and interests of the public.
Fiscal deliberations must return to the ideals of professionalism and rationality to ensure the effective operation of government agencies. Only in that way can the original purpose of budget planning — to serve the nation and its citizens — be realized, rather than becoming nothing more than a means of political manipulation.
Edwin Yang is an associate professor at the College of International Studies and Social Sciences of National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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