The government has divided Taiwan’s local government framework into six special municipalities and 16 counties and county-level cities. This model, which puts great emphasis on the six special municipalities, does not work very well. The resulting inequality in resource allocation, as well as the differences between urban and rural areas, are obvious and have far-reaching effects.
The government is set to allocate 65 percent of the centrally funded tax revenues to the six special municipalities, while the 16 counties and county-level cities have to share the remaining 35 percent.
Among the six special municipalities, Taipei takes the largest share with NT$39.64 billion (US$1.2 billion), exceeding New Taipei City, Kaohsiung and Taichung — which all have larger populations than Taipei — by NT$10.5 billion, NT$11.6 billion and NT$15.4 billion respectively. In Taipei, this amounts to a budget of NT$14,600 per resident, at least twice the amount that other cities receive.
For Lienchiang County, which has a little more than 10,000 residents, the budget amounts to about NT$30,000 per capita; for Penghu County, with about 100,000 residents, the budget is NT$17,900 per capita; and Taitung County is to receive NT$15,200 per capita. Taipei with its NT$14,600 per capita comes in at fourth place.
The outlying islands, with their lower populations and lower level of development, receive higher amounts per resident, but counties like Changhua, Yilan and Hsinchu, which are all experiencing fiscal difficulties, only receive about NT$6,000 per capita.
Allocating higher budgets to the six special municipalities becomes the icing on the cake, as these municipalities have larger populations and more funds at their disposal, while the cities and counties that experience fiscal difficulties get less money than they need. This contradicts the original purpose of allocating centrally funded tax revenues to cities and counties.
To allocate these funds more effectively, the government must pay more attention to the distribution of planned subsidies, and let counties and cities submit subsidy plans. The central government should then allocate subsidies based on national and local needs, environmental requirements, and cultural and social development, so that cities and counties that need it the most can receive more money.
Former Miaoli County commissioner Liu Cheng-hung’s (劉政鴻) wasteful finances put the county in such a difficult situation that it was unable to pay salaries and teetered on the brink of default. The central government’s distribution of tax revenues must emphasize the obligation to avoid a “Liu Cheng-hung effect” and promote sound local fiscal discipline. This is necessary to stop government heads from using the revenues as their private funds or to prevent them ignoring their local budgetary responsibilities, and to assure that expenditures do not exceed revenues. They must strive to increase local government revenues and refrain from asking the central government for funds.
The central government’s allocation of tax revenues is an important tool to redistribute resources among local governments. For the six special municipalities and the local county and county-level city systems to take shape, the central government must take a long-term approach and use the funds to guide local development.
The funds should not be used to ensure that the special municipalities remain large. The government should focus on the “small is beautiful” concept and use these funds to encourage the development of well-managed cities, each focusing on creating its own unique features. These are the considerations that should be on the government’s mind when distributing tax revenues and amending the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法).
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS