This month, academics at a forum on climate change criticized the lack of national planning for land use over the past half century, which has resulted in ineffective national land management. Wise words indeed. But if the Cabinet really wants national planning for land use, it must stop the implementation of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “three cities, 15 counties” campaign promise to integrate Taichung City and Taichung County, Taipei City and Taipei County and Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County, giving them all special municipality status.
Ma’s credibility has suffered after breaking a series of election promises, including his “633” platform and goal of boosting the stock market beyond 10,000 points. To save his reputation, he is now preparing to fulfill the “three municipalities” promise, which he copied from former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
Both Ma and Chen made the promise during their election campaigns. Although Ma is copying Chen, he would outshine Chen if he succeeded where Chen failed and would shake off his reputation for breaking promises.
Implementing this plan would, however, spell disaster.
A municipality holds provincial status — a step above county level — and the number and ranks of its government officials and its budget are much larger. For example, Taipei and Kaohsiung receive more than NT$50,000 per resident each year from the central government, while Taipei County, a relatively rich county, is allocated less than NT$22,000 per resident.
The expenditures of Taipei City, which has a population of 2.5 million, totaled NT$130.6 billion (US$3.92 billion) last year. For Taipei County, with a population of 3.75 million, the figure was NT$82.3 billion.
By this standard, the annual budget for Taipei County would surge to NT$150 billion after the administrative change.
No wonder Taipei County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) shed a tear when he heard Taichung City and Taichung County would be integrated first.
If Ma implements his promise, the population of the three metropolises will be 12 million, or 53 percent of the country’s population.
Today, the combined annual expenditure of local governments totals NT$731.7 billion. If the integration plan is carried out, the annual spending of the three main cities alone would reach NT$601.7 billion.
If the government’s budget remains unchanged, the other half of the population will be left with less than 20 percent of the budget for local governments.
If the budgets of other cities and counties are unchanged, the budget for the three main cities would exacerbate the gap between urban and rural areas and the polarization of society into lower and upper classes with a dwindling middle class.
To keep the budgets of other cities and counties unchanged, the government would have to add hundreds of billions in funds annually.
In addition, the mayor of the enlarged Taipei City would be too powerful. It seems likely that the nation’s population will continue to concentrate in urban areas, but if the biggest administrative region exceeds one-sixth of the nation’s population, it may be difficult to solve conflicts with the central government.
After the integration of Taipei County, the population of Taipei City would be 6.75 million, or 37.4 percent of the country’s population. The city’s annual financial costs would reach NT$341.5 billion, or 46.7 percent of local government expenditures. Tax revenues would be NT$709.8 billion, or 46.7 percent of national tax revenue.
By that time, Taipei would control half of the nation’s real strength — reminiscent of Russia under the Soviet Union.
In the past, national land planning has been too fragmented, with Taiwan Province making up most of Taiwan and special municipalities and provincial municipalities being divided into urban and rural townships. This complicated national land planning and regional development.
These problems should have been resolved by combining small cities and counties and putting special and provincial municipalities and counties at the same level. Unfortunately, the government and the opposition were too busy wrangling for power when amending the Constitution to address such matters.
It has been suggested that as the importance of big cities has increased, the state should promote them. Four metropolises in China — Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing — have been turned into special municipalities. Taiwan should learn from this example, some say.
But the area, population size and density of the whole of Taiwan are not much different from those of Beijing, Tianjin or Shanghai, and the county is not half as large as Chongqing. After the completion of the high-speed rail and the east-west expressways, Taiwan will be similar to a major Chinese metropolis. Copying China would not benefit regional development.
Although Ma fears breaking more promises and is struggling to improve his image, it would be better to break this promise to avoid the dire consequences.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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.
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
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
RSS