A Government In a State of Perpetual Emergency is a Government That Cannot Stand

A Government In a State of Perpetual Emergency is a Government That Cannot Stand
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 24, 2008

As part of its short-term effort to boost the economy, the Liu cabinet has been pursuing additional budget cuts since taking office. It has proposed an increase in the budget to stimulate domestic demand. It never expected to come under severe criticism. All its plans have undergone additions, deletions, and amendments. After exhaustive efforts, they passed a third reading in the Legislative Yuan. The July 18 floods inundated central and southern Taiwan. The Liu cabinet immediately changed its mind. It prepared to divert funds to stimulate domestic demand to flood control, unexpectedly poking a hornet's nest. Not only did the Green camp not support it, even the Blue camp blasted it, going so far as to call it "arguably in violation of the law."

Is the reallocation of funds for stimulating domestic demand to disaster relief and flood control illegal? According to the Executive Yuan it is in compliance with the Disaster Prevention and Relief Law. It is exempt from the requirments of the Budget Act. The Executive Yuan's interpretation is correct, but only on condition it is exempt from the Budget Act. First, the disaster has to be of a large enough magnitude. A disaster relief committee must then be formed. It must submit disaster relief plans. The plans must be reported to the Executive Yuan. The plans must be submitted to the Legislative Yuan. Second, in the event disaster relief funds allocated by all levels of government are insufficient to cover they needs arising from a disaster, the annual revenues and expenses may be adjusted, but only in response to special circumstances. Only then will it be exempt from the provisions of the Budget Act.

Based on the above, do the July 18 floods meet the requirements for an emergency response above and beyond those provided by the Disaster Prevention and Relief Law? The July 18 flood was the result of Typhoon Kalmaegi. Taiwan has typhoons every year, and never only one. Every year between July and September is typhoon season. Typhoon related disasters are to be expected. The only difference is the severity of the disasters. Therefore governments at all levels, from central to local, budget the necessary funds every year. These include subsidies for crop damage and revenue loss. The difference between the Liu cabinet and past cabinets is that it has relaxed the requirements for agricultural subsidies. Even if one fails to meet the requirements, one can still apply for the subsidies. President Ma wants the Executive Yuan to consider whether private floodgates can be included in the subsidies. No matter what, when it comes to disaster relief and disaster recovery governments at all levels must fulfill their respective duties and responsibilities. Whether they have "adequate funds" must be determined through Executive Yuan calculations. They must not divert funds from other budgets before first making calculations, or before the original budget has been exhausted.

Of course, flood control and disaster recovery are not equivalent and should not be spoken of in the same breath. Flood control is a major undertaking. Years ago James Soong was Governor of Taiwan. His first act in office was to provide an eight year, 50 billion dollar budget for Kaoping Creek flood control. The budget was billed as a dedicated, pioneering flood control effort, and caused quite a stir. By comparison the DPP government's special budget for Keelung River flood control, which cost 40 billion, isn't even worth mentioning. No matter what, one can imagine the scale of flood control projects. Tens of billions of dollars merely to tame a river or a creek. How many rivers and creeks in central and southern Taiwan does the Executive Yuan expect to tame with its 40 billion allocation? Premier Liu said that merely to purchase the land will cost 500 billion. Forty billion is not enough even for a single county.

Flood control projects are major undertakings. They are long-term projects. Building dikes, dredging, and when necessary, even making large-scale relocations. For example, the Yunlin coast is subject to long-term settlement. It is also a traditional low-lying waterway. During moderate rains it floods. During heavy rains it invariably leads to disaster. In the event of a record 100 year rainfall, no matter how high one makes the dikes, one cannot prevent a potential deluge. Years ago, James Soong allocated 4 billion to occupational retraining for farmers and fishermen. He dredged fish farm ponds to control floods and to prevent the intrusion of sea water. His plan was soon scrapped. It cost four billion back then. Today it would cost many times more. Do we want to do it? Would it be part of a long-term flood control plan? Clearly this is not merely a matter of diverting 40 billion dollars from the budget.

The Executive Yuan must face a number of challenges and problems. The typhoon season has begun. Typhoon Kalmaegi has gone, but who knows when the next typhoon will arrive? If heavy rains again lead to disaster, how much of the budget will remain? How much can be allocated? Before the onset of the next typhoon, what contingency plans will minimize potential disasters?

Amidst widespread skepticism, the Executive Yuan changed its spin. It stressed that only part of the budget will be devoted to stimulating domestic demand. However local governments faced with inadequate funds for disaster relief may apply. If that is the case, what will happen to the original half-year plan to stimulate domestic demand? Doesn't this validate the criticisms leveled by members of both the ruling and opposition camps, who said that this item in the budget was not needed? Also, according to the Disaster Prevention and Relief Law, when funding is inadequate to cover "adjusted annual income and expenditures," and the annual budget process is still in progress, any attempt to balance the budget should divert funds from the annual budget. The previous administration's eight year, 100 billion budget is still in effect. Many local governments haven't even had a chance to issue contracts. These were long ago included in the budget. Why can't we start with these? Why must we divert funds earmarked for the stimulation of domestic demand?

The Ma administration has been in office for two months. It must clean up the ungodly mess left by its predecessor. Its six-month emergency plan involves the stimulation of domestic demand. But six months have yet to pass, and it has already launched an emergency flood control plan and budget. How long does the Ma administration intend to remain in a state of emergency? Flood control is a long-term major infrastructure project. Flood control cannot respond to emergencies and cannot solve emergencies. A government in a perpetual state of emergency, is a government that cannot stand.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.07.24
只知短期應急 無法站穩馬步
中時社論

　為了短期應急，提振景氣，劉內閣才上任就追加減預算，並提出擴大內需預算案，沒想到程序上遭到嚴厲質疑，所有的計畫幾番增刪修改，費盡力氣好不容易在立法院完成三讀。七一八水災灌爆中南台，劉內閣立刻動念，準備挪用擴大內需預算治水，沒想到捅了個馬蜂窩，不但綠營不支持，連藍營都強烈批評，甚至直言「確實有違法爭議。」

　挪用擴大內需於救災治水，到底違了什麼法？行政院的說法是根據災害防救法，可以排除預算法的規定。行政院的說法沒錯，但排除預算法是有前提的，第一，那是災害得要重大到一定程度，必須成立救災委員會，提列救災計畫，計畫必須報院，還得送立法院；第二，各級政府編列的災害防救經費，如有不敷支應災害發生時之所需，視情形調整當年度收支移緩濟急，才得不受預算法的限制。

　從上述前提來看，七一八水災到不到這個排除預算法以應急的標準？七一八水災是因為卡玫基颱風而致，台灣年年有颱風，颱風還總不只一個，每年七到九月，就是颱風季節，遇颱成災幾成慣例，差別僅在災害輕重。所以，各級政府從中央到地方，每年無不編列相關預算，從農損到稅務補貼，劉內閣與往例不同的是，他把農損補貼放寬了，未達農損標準者，還是可以申請；馬總統則要行政院考量，民眾的排水閥是否也可列入補貼，但不論如何，就救災復原部分，各級政府各司其職，各負權責之後，到底是否「不敷支應」？還得行政院算盤撥完之後再說，總不能算盤還沒撥，原編列預算尚未用盡，即刻挪用其他預算吧。

　當然，治水不能和損害復原部分相提並論。治水，是一樁大工程，當年宋楚瑜擔任省長，上任第一件事就是編列了八年五百億預算，為的是整治高屏溪，這筆預算堪稱是專責治水預算之先河，當年造成大轟動；民進黨政府的基隆河整治特別預算案四百多億，都是後話了。但不論如何，可以想見治水工程之龐大，數百億元不過整治一條河、一條溪。如今行政院要挪用四百多億，想整治中南部多少溪河呢？劉揆自己都說，光是徵收用地就得五千億，四百多億一個縣市都不頂用。

　治水不但是樁大工程，還得是長期工程，建堤防、搞疏浚，甚至必要時還得考量是否進行大規模的遷移。舉例來說，雲林沿海長期地層下陷，又是地勢低窪的傳統水路，大雨都能淹水，豪雨焉能不成災？遑論遇到破百年的瞬時雨量，堤防建得再高，都擋不了龐然水勢。當年，宋楚瑜曾經以四十億經費規畫輔導農漁民轉業，直接將漁塭挖深，做為防止海水倒灌的「治洪區」，這個計畫隨著廢省而報廢，當年的四十億，即使今日再要做，所需經費勢必不只數倍之多，但要不要做呢？在不在長期治水防洪的規畫之內呢？這些顯然都不是挪用區區四百多億預算能為之事。

　行政院面對的挑戰和麻煩是：颱風季才開始，卡玫基走了，下一個颱風不知何時會來，萬一又是豪雨成災，還能挪用什麼預算？多少預算？在下一個颱風來臨前，有什麼應急的辦法，讓可能的災害降到最低？

　在各界一片質疑聲中，行政院稍為調整說法，強調不是所有的擴大內需預算都可挪用，而是供地方政府在災害防救經費不敷使用時才可申請，那原來用在擴大內需的半年計畫是不是就免談了？那這不坐實擴大內需預算推動時朝野的批評：沒編這個預算的必要！此外，照災害防救法規定，經費不敷支應時是「調整當年度收支」，年度預算仍在進行中，要勻支不也該從年度預算中挪移嗎？遑論前政府的八年一千多億預算，照正常也還在進行中，許多工程甚至地方政府都還未能發包，這些早列入計畫和預算的工程項目，不能先做嗎？非得挪用擴大內需預算才能做嗎？

　馬政府上任兩個月，面對一個百廢待舉的局面，擴大內需是應急的半年期計畫，半年猶未到，卻又要推出應急的治水計畫和預算，馬政府到底要應急到何時？治水，是長期的大工程，絕對應不了急更治不了急，一個只知應急的政府，是不可能站穩馬步的。