Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: 民進黨立法院黨團/Facebook
OF THE THREE LAWS passed by the KMT last week, the least discussed has been changes to budgetary provisions between the central and local governments. The KMT push for changing budgetary provisions brings together several recurring threads in Taiwanese politics in the past few years.
The KMT currently claims that the new provisions will change the allocation of a 70% to 30% split between the central and local governments to a 60% to 40% split. But the DPP has asserted that because the central government subsidizes many local programs, the split in funding between the central and local governments is already around 60% to 40%.
The KMT would be attempting to benefit local governments that are under pan-Blue control. The KMT has always performed more strongly at the local level electorally, due to clientelist and patronage networks that go back to the authoritarian period.
Yet it has been a refrain of the KMT since the COVID-19 pandemic that the central government does not provide enough for local governments. In the course of the pandemic, the KMT accused the central government of failing to provide enough for local governments, whether that was in terms of funding, distribution of vaccines, masks, and other medical supplies, or failing to provide information to local governments in a timely manner. Indeed, the pandemic saw competition between local and central governments regarding COVID-19 policy, so as to pin blame on the opposing party, and to appear more proactive in efforts to mitigate the pandemic.
It may not be surprising, then, to see the KMT justify a grab for funding from the central government in the name of lacking resources. The KMT likely would be able to benefit its local patronage networks using such funding as well, much as was the aim of a wide-ranging infrastructure bill for Taiwan’s eastern coast that was proposed by the KMT earlier this year–though the KMT eventually also backed away from this bill, which was seen as primarily benefiting and strengthening the power of KMT caucus leader Fu Kun-chi.
Photo credit: 民進黨立法院黨團/Facebook
The KMT’s actions have generally been aimed at stripping away powers from the branches of government it does not control. The legislative powers sought by the KMT earlier this year were intended to remove powers from the executive and judicial branches of government and arrogate them to the legislature. Likewise, as legislation passed last week was aimed at freezing the Constitutional Court, this was a move aimed at curbing the power of the judiciary to make rulings that could impede KMT-passed laws. When the KMT repeatedly blocked the national budget several months ago, this, too, was a move aimed at expanding the power of the legislature over the budget, when drawing up the budget has historically been the right of the executive branch of government.
Still, the Taiwanese public generally enjoys its quasi-welfare state. If government services suffer as a result of such a fiscal reorganizing between the central and local governments and the public perceives the KMT as to blame, the KMT would likely be punished by the voter electorate in the next election.
As such, one has seen the DPP in past days seeking to highlight what government programs would see a hit from the budget reallocation. Initial framing focused on that defense programs would be affected, again reflective of how the DPP has sought to lean into cross-strait issues to criticize the DPP.
Nevertheless, the DPP has now sought to highlight that all manners of programs would be affected, ranging from funds for cancer prevention screenings, subsidies for electric buses, childcare, water resources, and education, as well as for promoting international exchanges.
It is to be seen whether the public will perceive the KMT’s actions as having led to the deterioration of government services. The public may not always distinguish between the central government and local government, but one notes that the KMT will also need to step up services for local governments using extra funding to win over the public if that is how it hopes to win over the voter electorate in subsequent elections. In this sense, one expects the contention between local and central governments that has long characterized Taiwanese politics to continue.