Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lost the presidential election last year, the losing vice presidential candidate and former premier Su Tseng-chang has shunned the limelight, rarely accepting media interviews.

But now that the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou is planning to redraw Taiwan's administrative borders – elevating four areas to the status of "special municipalities" with greater clout and funding – Su is no longer holding back. In an exclusive interview with CommonWealth Magazine, he has strongly criticized the redistricting plans as severely flawed.

Many people think that Su is so upset because the upgrading of Taipei County to a special municipality will thwart his plans to run for Taipei County magistrate to pave the way for a presidential bid in 2012. (County magistrate elections in Taipei County, as well as in Kaohsiung County, Taichung County and Taichung City, originally scheduled for December this year, were postponed for one year due to the planned redistricting.)

In his interview with CommonWealth Magazine, Su did not hide his political ambitions. Asked if he would consider running as a candidate in future elections, he said, "As long as I get an opportunity to do something... If the only way to get it done is by gaining a post, then of course I will."

With the passage of revisions to the Local Government Act earlier in April, a Pandora's box seems to have been opened and a myriad of problems are just about to explode.

The public does not yet understand how this major policy will affect the lives of the island's 23 million people. And despite being the largest opposition party, the DPP has so far failed to propose a forceful agenda of its own and to effectively monitor this new policy.

A seasoned politician, Su has served as provincial assemblyman and as county magistrate of Taiwan's southernmost and northernmost counties (Pingdong and Taipei). How does the former premier, who is well versed in interior affairs, evaluate the new policy?

Following are highlights from the interview.

---

Q: Raising the competitiveness of regions and cities is a worldwide trend. But you are publicly criticizing the Ma administration's redistricting policy. What are the key points of your criticism?

A: This issue can't be dealt with in a perfunctory manner, because it will affect Taiwan's development for the next 50 or 100 years. I'm looking at this issue from the perspective of national land planning and national competitiveness.

In Taiwan the gap between urban and rural areas is getting bigger, not only in terms of infrastructure, but also in terms of human development. Two weeks ago the results of the basic competency test for junior high school students were announced. Nationwide, 40 students received the maximum score for the same test paper. Fourteen of them were from Taipei City, two from Kaohsiung City, two from Taipei County, and one from Pingdong County. But in many counties not a single student achieved a top score. Are children that much different from birth on?

If you are born into a poor family, that's fate. But the government should be just. Because there is such a big gap in fiscal resources, there is also a gap in teacher quotas (1.8 teachers per class in Taipei City compared to 1.5 teachers per class in other counties and cities), as well as teaching facilities. A top score in the basic competency test is the outcome, but behind it is a longstanding unfairness.

A Puzzle Haphazardly Pieced Together

I believe that this is an opportunity to comprehensively solve these problems, to make organic adjustments.

This is particularly the case since nationwide the population centers and regional characteristics of Taiwan have already emerged. In my opinion the delineation of administrative areas in the Act should follow the five population centers of northern Taiwan, the Taoyuan-Hsinchu-Miaoli region, central Taiwan, southern Taiwan, and the Kaohsiung-Pingdong region, to prevent a distinction between counties that are merged or elevated in status first and those that come later.

The current approach seems like piecing together a puzzle. Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County are merged, but Pingdong County is left out. It doesn't form a complete whole. Sanmin Township in Kaohsiung County is a very remote place, much farther away from Kaohsiung City than many towns and villages in Pingdong County. The communities of Ruifang and Gongliao in Taipei County are oriented toward Keelung City. The local editions of major newspapers there are all Keelung editions.

From the perspective of national land planning, the complementary functions of population centers, and the equality of our citizens, we should consider and solve the problems of fragmented administrative areas, fiscal constraints, and organization of administrative levels at one stroke. Of course, it's impossible to reach the stars in a single leap. But we should avoid being concerned exclusively with whether one party benefits or wins. It would be excellent if the Ma administration could do that, because they control an absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan.

Fair Allocation of Fiscal Resources

Q: How should fiscal resources be allocated to help narrow the gap between poor counties and rich cities?

A: In the past Taiwan's fiscal resources were split between two administrative levels – the special municipalities directly under the central government were on one level, while all the other local governments were on the other one. The two special municipalities (Taipei and Kaohsiung cities) received 43 percent, whereas the remaining 23 counties and cities shared 39 percent of fiscal resources. As a result, the cities became richer and the counties became poorer.

Those who want their status elevated now want to secure a certain status. If I belong to the first batch being elevated, I will get allocated more, while those in the latter batch will get the short end of the stick. Ideally, we should allocate resources based on a distribution formula instead of using status or administrative level.

We should use Japan as reference. Japan has four administrative categories - metropolis (to), circuit (do), urban prefectures (fu), and prefectures (ken). Forty-three of its 47 administrative areas are prefectures. Some of these 43 prefectures are very small. They don't get allocated fiscal resources according to status, but according to surface area, population, number of schools and students, length of railways, and even number of days with snowfall, because the more snow days a prefecture has, the more its functioning is curtailed and the more it needs to be looked after. This means that behind the formula there is the concept of fairness and the idea of narrowing the wealth gap.

The current plan will not only fail to narrow the gap, but will even widen it further. Those who fight for an elevated status, thinking that the ugly duckling will turn into a beautiful swan, might become disappointed, because our overall resources are limited.

DPP Fails to Set a Leading Agenda

Q: You have said that the ruling Kuomintang has failed to do a good job with regard to the decisionmaking process and complementary measures for the new policy. But despite being an opposition party, the DPP has neither proposed a comprehensive agenda nor monitored this process.

A: Well said! In the past the DPP rose to prominence because it always led public opinion on important issues. Whether it was direct presidential elections, the full election of the legislature, farmers' insurance, or social welfare, we always led on those issues. But nowadays the DPP is less of an opinion leader. And when it comes to leadership on this issue (administrative redistricting) the DPP is definitely weak.

Q: What would be the positive and negative effects to the political environment if we had four or even five metropolitan areas?

A: We should seize this opportunity to establish a two-tier system of central government and local governments, and clearly delineate their respective functions, powers and responsibilities. That would improve government efficiency and performance. Elections should be streamlined by holding them once every two years, alternately electing the central government and local governments. That way we should be able to sift the wheat from the chaff, no matter whether we elect people's representatives or (central) government officials. But right now no complementary measures exist, so I can't see any opportunity for that.

If everything is based on election calculations, it's like robbing Peter to pay for Paul. We shouldn't look at this issue from the perspective of a one-time election or position. If we create posts to accommodate certain people, big chaos is certain.

Q: You have described the elections for county magistrates and city mayors at the end of this year as second-class elections. Will the first-class elections – the ones for special municipality mayors next year –serve as an indicator for the presidential election in 2012?

A: The outcome of elections in populous counties and cities next year will directly affect the 2012 presidential election. I'm sure there will be such an effect. However, politics is not math – it's chemistry. One plus one does not necessarily make two. Man proposes, God disposes.

Willing to Take a Post to Fight for Justice

Q: The DPP is presently not guaranteed to win any campaign. Are you willing to run in an election?

A: By nature I am someone who does his best at practical endeavors. My ideal is to make Taiwan a better place. What I am striving for is fairness and justice. If the only way to get it done is by gaining a post, then of course I will. Without a post you can't get involved in government. But I think on a higher plane this does not mean thinking about that position every day. I don't think it's necessary. It's better to look at things from the perspective of the nation, the government, communities, culture.

So you ask me whether I will run for election. Run where? Run for what? I'll continue to look at things from the same perspective.

Q: Regardless of how the KMT performs, how can the DPP stop its decline and regain support?

A: Ma Ying-jeou's public support has been slipping, but the DPP has not gained. That's why I have been encouraging and urging the DPP to intensify its self-criticism. If we do nothing but lash out at the KMT, there's no point of even thinking about regaining control of the government. The people want to see whether we are capable of replacing the KMT and proposing better ways of dealing with problems.

As an opposition party, we need to fulfill our responsibilities. We have to propose a set of alternative policies, and we have to have people that can be trusted and live up to the public's expectations. We need to do some soul-searching to figure out whether the DPP has such people.

(Compiled by Yu-Jung Peng)

Translated from the Chinese by Susanne Ganz

---

Chinese Version: 不要變成一個台灣、兩個世界