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.
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
Beijing’s approval of a controversial mega-dam in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River — which flows from Tibet — has ignited widespread debate over its strategic and environmental implications. The project exacerbates the complexities of India-China relations, and underscores Beijing’s push for hydropower dominance and potential weaponization of water against India. India and China are caught in a protracted territorial dispute along the Line of Actual Control. The approval of a dam on a transboundary river adds another layer to an already strained bilateral relationship, making dialogue and trust-building even more challenging, especially given that the two Asian
RSS