On Monday, the dispute between Taipei City Hall and the National Health Insurance Bureau over the government subsidy for national health insurance premiums took a a surprising new twist: the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in favor of Taipei City Hall. The dispute has stemmed from City Hall's refusal to pay the bureau NT$10.8 billion (US$325 million) of overdue insurance premiums on the grounds that the city should not be obligated to subsidize the insurance premiums of those individuals whose registered residence is outside the city.
The bureau's position, on the other hand, is that City Hall is obliged to subsidize those who are insured through employers located within the boundaries of Taipei City, regardless of where their household registration is.
The ruling on Monday came as a surprise because both of the two previous rulings entered by lower courts had found in favor of the bureau. At the time, many were disappointed with City Hall's decision to appeal those rulings, believing that Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Of course, Monday's ruling is far from the end of the feud. The National Health Insurance Bureau wasted no time in responding and has already indicated that it will file a request for a constitutional interpretation with the Council of Grand Justices to overturn Monday's ruling.
All eyes are now focused on this legal dispute, because the final outcome of this case will determine not only whether Taipei City Hall will need to pay the NT$10.8 billion in premiums to the bureau, but also whether the bureau will need to collect a substantial chunk of the outstanding premiums from other local governments.
If Monday's ruling is upheld by the Council of Grand Justices, it will bring chaos to the national health insurance scheme, and could lead to a serious financial crisis for both the central government and the National Health Insurance Bureau. It is no secret that the central government has been running at a serious financial deficit over the past few years. If it has to shoulder an even greater percentage of the subsidy, surely there will be serious ramifications for other social and welfare programs sponsored and financed by the central government. If the central government cannot pay the bureau, the nearly bankrupt bureau's ability to continue operating will be jeopardized.
It is noteworthy that Kaohsiung City -- like Taipei City, a special municipality -- has opted to take an entirely different approach in dealing with its large sum of outstanding premiums. Kaohsiung City Hall has chosen to sell off some of the real estate and land it owns in order to pay off the debt, as well as negotiate a five-year payment plan with the bureau. This is obviously a much more responsible way of dealing with the issue at hand -- especially when compared with Taipei.
Ultimately, no matter whether the city hall or the central government subsidies the premiums, the taxpayers of Taiwan will have to pick up the tab. So instead of passing this financial hot potato on to the central government or dragging its feet in making the payment, Kaohsiung City Hall has decided to tackle the problem head on, and in a mature manner.
Back in Taipei, it is widely believed that Ma has his heart set on running for the presidency in the 2008 election. One cannot help but wonder how he will deal with financial crises or problems if he gets elected. Shoving problems into the central government's lap will no longer be an option, since that would be political suicide.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS