Last week, as many people were paying attention to the government’s reaction to a controversial urban renewal project in Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林), few people noticed that another housing issue was in the making, albeit involving less confrontation, as the government was considering changes to its public housing policy, prompting many to ask whether it was capable of implementing an effective and feasible public housing policy.
On Thursday, Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) told the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee that the nation’s overall demand for social housing — about 190,000 households — was more than the government could afford. Because the government lacks the funds and the land for public housing projects in urban areas, amid a high nationwide rate of unoccupied apartment units, Lee told lawmakers the government would have to adjust its housing policies.
Based on Lee’s remarks, a new policy was announced encouraging lower-income people to “rent” suitable housing rather than “buy” low-cost units subsidized by the government. The government would prioritize the use of empty houses instead of the construction of new ones, while it would stop building public housing, including projects under the categories of “social housing,” “quality housing” and “modern housing.”
In short, the government will no longer provide public housing to balance the market’s supply and demand, but will continue to give incentives to the private sector to build low-cost units. In the future, the government will simply play the role of “matchmaker” to help low-income households find suitable housing, Lee said.
Since 2010, the government has launched several public housing projects in urban areas and introduced a luxury tax, aiming to curb real-estate speculation and help low-income families deal with skyrocketing real-estate prices. However, no matter what the government’s housing programs are called and how they are built and sold, Lee’s remarks indicated that the government’s public housing initiative did not achieve its goals. It also raised suspicions that all policy initiatives regarding public housing over the past two years were nothing but government-led election campaign tools.
The public has many doubts and negative perceptions about public housing — which tend to focus on inferior construction and poor public safety. People living near public housing units or buildings also strenuously object to the policy. Therefore, if the government no longer plans to build public housing, its policy focus should be shifted to improving public infrastructure to provide faster and more convenient services to people living in suburban areas as well as expanding the scope of housing subsidies to low-income households.
Furthermore, the government should recognize that promoting balanced development between suburban and urban areas, as well as between southern and northern Taiwan, would be an effective way to discourage people from moving to urban areas, especially Taipei. The government needs to build a better public transportation network and promote local economic sectors to improve regional employment.
The government should use this opportunity to review the management mechanism for the nation’s public housing, because it currently lacks a centralized body to take overall responsibility for public housing.
For instance, both the “quality housing” and the “social housing” programs are under the management of the Ministry of the Interior, while the “modern housing” program is organized by the Council for Economic Planning and Development. Meanwhile, the Public Construction Commission is responsible for the youth housing program, and the Taipei City Government has its own public housing program. Without a centralized agency, the government will find it difficult to either integrate public resources or establish a comprehensive and effective strategy on public housing management.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
Tomorrow is the 78th anniversary of the 228 Incident. On Monday, at a meeting with the Overseas 2-28 Survivors Homecoming Group at the Presidential Office, President William Lai (賴清德) spoke of the importance of protecting the nation’s freedom and sovereignty. The 228 Incident is in the past, but the generational trauma exists in the present. The imperative to protect the nation’s sovereignty and liberty from Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aggression will remain for the foreseeable future. The chaos and budget cuts in the legislature threaten the endeavor. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have worked together to
RSS