On Monday, the Ministry of Justice announced that it had seized 30 pieces of Taipei City Government property in order to force the city to pay NT$10.8 billion in insurance subsidies it owes the Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI). In response, the city government called on blue-camp politicians to demand a public debate over the subsidy issue with the central government. The city government has turned this simple legal dispute into a political issue.
The dispute over the insurance subsidies involves not only Taipei but also Kaohsiung. The former has sensationalized the whole matter as a case of the central government attempting to "beat Ma" [Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
The Taipei City Government's main contention is that it's unreasonable for a city of 2.63 million people to pay insurance subsidies for 3.58 million people. Looking at the figures alone, there is clearly room for discussion. But this calculation method is a copy of the labor insurance subsidies, as the city government is responsible for paying insurance subsidies for employees of companies based in Taipei -- whether the employees themselves are registered in Taipei or not. This is the current state of the law and has long been an administrative custom. Even a constitutional interpretation of the law from the Council of Grand Justices may not favor the city government. Despite thus having no legal basis for its refusal, the city government still won't pay its debt. No wonder BNHI officials complain that it's an issue of will, not of law.
The controversy is rooted in the 1999 legislation that transferred the power to levy business taxes from local governments to the central government. This redressed the iniquitous situation in which companies with headquarters registered in Taipei but with factories in other areas would pay business taxes to the Taipei City Government while the pollution created by their factories would affect other regions. This adjustment to the tax system was not carried over to the way national labor and health insurance were calculated. With the tax levy at the local level considerably reduced, it seems unfair that the special municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung have been singled out to carry the burden of labor and health insurance for their residents when all other localities are fully subsidized by the central government.
When the Law Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures was amended, Ma led pan-blue legislators in a move to reject the Cabinet's version. The problem that the city government is facing today has its roots in the amendments that Ma forced through at that time. If Ma believes this is an important issue that needs urgent attention, he should again make use of the pan-blue majority in the legislature and make the necessary amendments. But even if he is able to successfully push them through, the Taipei and Kaohsiung city governments should still pay the money that they currently owe and should not repudiate their liability for the debt. If they do so, this will only worsen the finances of the national health system and create pressure that may result in an increase in premiums.
Yet Taipei is not only reneging on its debts; it is also blaming others. That the Ministry of Justice has seized property to demand payment also seems inappropriate, especially as the property seized includes schools, airports, MRT stations and hospitals.
The central government should not allow the Taipei city government and the BNHI to get into a heated debate over national health insurance premiums. Instead, it should take on the role of a mediator to find a solution that adjusts the tax structure and changes the calculation of premiums to be paid by special municipalities.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS