Four new special municipalities came into being on Saturday. This change was preceded by several county commissioners in predominantely agricultural areas complaining about a shortage of funds.
However, the pre-existing special municipalities — Taipei City and the former Kaohsiung City — were long favored over other counties and cities because of flaws in the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the Public Debt Act (公債法). If this approach does not change, having five special municipalities will mean that the problematic differences between urban and rural areas will replace the wealth gap as the key issues between counties and cities.
Left unremedied, this situation will have a massive impact on Taiwan’s overall development.
The central government’s favored treatment of special municipalities has created big differences between urban and rural areas, in particular because the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures exaggerates the situation.
In the past, Taipei and Kao-hsiung shared 47 percent of the central government’s allocations to local governments, while the remaining 53 percent was divided between 23 counties and cities.
That is why, for example, Taipei City had NT$15 billion (US$506 million) to spend on the Taipei International Flora Expo, while other counties and cities have to walk door to door with hat in hand to borrow money for salaries.
Now the five special municipalities will receive 71 percent of the government’s local government allocations, while the remaining 17 counties and cities will have to fight for a share of the rest.
This means that the areas that were not upgraded will be quickly demoted to second class, and the competition between them for fiscal resources will continue to intensify.
The Ministry of Finance has responded to the creation of the new municipalities by proposing an amendment to the Public Debt Act, but the amendment remains focused on the special municipalities.
The limit on their debt issue is set at 250 percent of their annual budget, almost three times more than the 70 percent allowance for each of the other counties and cities. Is this fair?
For example, New Taipei City (新北市, the proposed English name of the upgraded Taipei County) can issue NT$210 billion in debt, while Yilan, Yunlin, Chiayi and Pingtung counties are only allowed to issue NT$6 billion.
So the rich will become richer while the poor become poorer, and the poor counties never will be able to turn things around.
The rushed creation of the new municipalities was not designed based on an overall view of national land planning needs or the needs for a comprehensive redrawing of administrative districts.
It was based on political considerations that have failed to provide any solution to the many existing problems relating to local autonomy and has only created more questions.
The change does not reform government levels, administrative areas are not redrawn, the wealth differences between urban and rural areas have not been addressed, and no solutions have been provided to deal with the problems in the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures and the Public Debt Act.
If the central government does not face these problems head-on and provide pragmatic solutions, a healthy local autonomy system will never see the light of day.
Lee Chun-yi is a former presidential advisor.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS