Lawmakers on Monday said that plans to move the legislature to Taichung were still being considered, but experts have raised concerns about the logistics.
Such a move has been discussed since at least 2004. In 2012, Minister of Transportation and Communications Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) — who was a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator at the time — called for Taichung to be made the nation’s second capital.
Lin said that moving the Legislative Yuan would better balance national development and allow the land occupied by the legislature in Taipei to return to being a school, its original purpose.
Relocating a nation’s capital is not a new idea. Many countries do so to shed their colonial past, or to put administrative power closer to the public served.
Operating two capitals can introduce cost and security concerns, and the move would bring major logistical challenges.
Some lawmakers must be at the Legislative Yuan twice per week, and although Lin said that this would not be a problem with the High Speed Rail, the cost — which taxpayers would bear — would add up.
Lin also said that for government agencies, Taichung would be safer than Taipei, which is vulnerable to nuclear disasters, citing the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan.
Tokyo moved some government functions to Osaka following the incident, Lin said.
DPP Legislator Chen Ou-po (陳歐珀) agreed that the legislature might be safer outside Taipei, but gave a different reason, saying that the military could better protect the government if it were on the east coast, in Yilan County. Yilan would be safer than Taichung, which is directly across the Taiwan Strait from China and therefore more vulnerable to attack.
However, improvements in Chinese missile technology and China’s growing military presence in the South China Sea diminish the advantage of locating government facilities on the east coast.
Another consideration raised on Monday by professors Chen Ming-siang (陳銘祥) of Tamkang University and Peng Chin-peng (彭錦鵬) of National Taiwan University was that government officials from different agencies must regularly meet, so moving the Legislative Yuan would necessitate moving the Executive Yuan and possibly other government agencies.
Vice President William Lai (賴清德) in February 2018, when he was premier, said that he supported moving the legislative and executive branches to Taichung, while deputy legislative speaker Tsai Chi-chang (蔡其昌) said that it would solve issues of limited space and traffic congestion in Taipei.
Perhaps it mainly comes down to what a capital city means to Taiwanese. An article published by the BBC on Dec. 6, 2017, said that capital cities must be protected, must exert control and project unity, and must be seen as representative and accessible.
The legislative and executive branches are built on repurposed properties in a congested urban area, established when no consideration was given to space for protests or to the accessibility of institutions to the general public. They are in an area that is vulnerable to earthquakes, nuclear disasters and potentially volcanic eruptions.
However, if they were moved to Taichung, Taipei would likely no longer be seen as a center of control and unity.
It is not clear whether the relocation of the seat of power would help or hinder the development of a national consciousness in Taiwan, but given the uncertainty, the government should put it to a referendum and let Taiwanese choose.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent