After forcing through a set of contentious legislative reforms last month, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party are pushing amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法), setting up a new battleground with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The opposition parties said the amendments aim to increase the proportion of tax revenue allocated to local governments and help standardize how the funds are distributed. However, the DPP views the bills as an effort to chip away at the central government’s fiscal powers, which could weaken national finances and adversely affect national defense, social welfare and major infrastructure budgets.
The Ministry of Finance calculated that the central government would need to release an additional NT$577.7 billion (US$17.84 billion) to local governments a year under the KMT’s amendment. Coupled with general subsidies of NT$212.1 billion, tax revenue allocation of NT$422.7 billion and program-linked subsidies of NT$233.4 billion, the central government would need to provide local governments a total of NT$1.45 trillion a year, almost half of the central government’s total annual revenue, the ministry said.
The Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures was last amended in 1999, meaning it has not been updated in 25 years, even though the nation has gone through three peaceful transfers of power between rival parties, as well as changes in the political landscape of local counties and cities.
A fair and reasonable distribution of national revenue between different levels of government is a highly technical issue, financially and politically. With huge staff and administrative resources, the Executive Yuan has an advantage in drafting and designing fiscal amendments more carefully and thoughtfully than the Legislative Yuan, which has a relatively limited capacity for bill research. Indeed, the Executive Yuan presented several amendments to the act between 2002 and 2012 under various premiers, but those bills failed to pass legislative reviews.
The act has not been revised for a quarter century, because it has never been a simple financial issue. It is complex and political. The factors at play have included disagreements on fund allocation between special municipalities, cities, counties and the central government, power struggles between the central and local governments, and legislative committees stalling reviews due to elections.
Whether the central government has room to increase financial support for local governments depends on how much revenue it receives. The biggest issue the nation’s finances face is the ever-growing government expenditures, of which about 70 percent goes to wages and pensions for civil servants. Moreover, zero-sum competition between cities and counties has posed an insurmountable obstacle to mitigating the financial challenges local governments face.
The key to addressing the core problems of the amendments — such as how to make the distribution of tax revenue more fair and reasonable, how to push for fiscal autonomy for local governments along with higher fiscal discipline, and how to solve the imbalance of regional development without favoring specific counties and cities — depends on thorough discussion and negotiation among political parties to turn the zero-sum game into a win-win situation.
The ruling and opposition parties must find wisdom and vision while balancing their political considerations and financial skills to deal with resource allocation.
The opposition parties’ use of their combined legislative majority to undercut the central government’s fiscal power might not result in fair revenue distribution, but might instead waste financial resources, given a lack of discipline among local governments.
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
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
RSS