New capital for Taiwan

[kidd]

Lately, there has been the talk in the congress regarding to the relocation of Taiwan's existing capital from Taipei to central-southern region of the island for various reasons (density, security, economic, practicality..etc). Which of the following would u pick (up to 3 choices) to be the future capital of Taiwan if indeed happened?

------------Some related news:

�都中�部 羅志明�申�都高雄三部曲
中央社 2006-10-17 19:03

(中央社記者王淑芬高雄�七日電)�野立委連署建議中央�都中�部，��團��盟高雄市長��人羅志明今天�申他的「�都高雄三部曲�，主張將勞委會�體委會等與高雄相關的部會率先��，等到軟硬體��套措施�熟，���行政��劃推動高雄縣市�併，整�相關資�，����都高雄的目的。




羅志明表示，政治�經濟中心分立已是時代潮�，兩年�他在立委�舉中就已將「�都高雄�分都先行�列為主�政見。

他說，�都茲事體大，短期內��都高雄有困難，所以他�劃「�都高雄三部曲�，�步實��都的目標。他指出，體委會約有三分之一的�員在左訓中心，��高雄並�困難；加上高雄市在爭�到二零零�世界�動大會之後，體委會移至高雄，還能夠直接�助世�會的籌辦，一舉多得。

還有，高雄是一個勞工都市，�部七縣市的勞工數�大於北部，勞委會��能照顧�部上百�的勞工，羅志明�為很符�真正的經濟效益。

羅志明表示，等上述部會��高雄之後�將高雄縣市�併，擴大港都腹地，將兩個城市的資��土地�人力�有計畫的整�，使高雄縣�為高雄市的衛星都市，打通兩地交通��形�機能更齊全�架構更具首都�模的生活圈，屆時��推動�都高雄的目的。

----------

首都���陳明文：嘉義縣是最佳�擇　�我其誰？
記者賴元煌�嘉縣報導 2006-10-17 23:21

嘉義縣長陳明文17日特別呼應70多�立委「�都中�部�構想，�出嘉義縣是��首都的最佳�擇。





陳明文說，嘉義縣�去是��西�部的邊陲地帶，長期以來備�冷�，�但沒有國家級�大建設�腳，甚至連樂�彩都跳�嘉義。因為發展無望，導致人�外移嚴�，工商�振，農�凋弊等種種�題。


陳明文指出，2000年政黨輪替之後，已扭轉�去��輕北的�公平�象，特別�視嘉義的建設發展，�管是五年五�億擴大公共建設，或是八年八百億治水特別�例，嘉義縣感�到中央建設嘉義的決心，特別是故宮�院�腳嘉義�2004國慶煙�在嘉義，以�2007國家燈會在嘉義的舉辦，更讓嘉義縣堂堂�入50年來最好的黃金時代，嘉義人�未來也開始有信心，準備打造一個新的嘉義。


陳明文表示，為了讓嘉義縣�新被看見，為了分散國家政經資�長期集中在�北所造�的風險，為了實���是主權�立國家的目標，特別呼應70多�立委「�都中�部�構想，�出新首都在嘉義縣的主張。


陳明文�為嘉義縣�為��新首都的競�者，有3個�件�常符�國家新都�求。第一，嘉義縣的土地�闊，產權單純清楚，為因應國家�都的需�，所有辦公大樓和行政中心所需的土地�以立��供，在時間和硬體建設的考�上，嘉義縣都是�本最低的�擇。


第二，嘉義縣西部濱海，�有高山，�於��中�部的中心�置，和�中和高雄等�；高�完工通車之後，到�北更是一個�時車程範�之內，地��件和���中，交通最為快速方便。


第三，嘉義縣治所在地，為��西部首例以文化�交通建設而形�之新興��，其緊鄰亞洲最大�模的長庚醫療專業�，�有國家級�物館故宮�部分院座�之優異�件，生活機能日趨完善，發展潛力無窮，是中央政府進�的第一�擇。


陳明文說，政府如��都中�部，�妨以美國和澳洲為�考。美國將首都�在�盛頓特�(DC)，而�是設在�約，主�的著眼點就在於政經分離，分散風險的考�。澳洲將首都�在�培拉，更是���以�考學習的�考模�。


他表示曾多次到�培拉去�訪，發�該特�雖然貴為首都，但有著相當鄉�的感覺，整個�域多山，綠化情形良好，四周還有一些鄉�與�鎮，和嘉義縣給人的感覺�常類似。


陳明文以堅定的語氣指出，嘉義縣是��首都的最佳�擇，這點是無庸置疑的。

------
2006.10.18　 中國時報
爭��都�中 議會��
馮惠宜/�中報導


日�中央政府釋出有��畫�都中�部，�正�開定期大會的�中市議會，�七日決議請�中市政府行文總統府�行政院，爭��都�中市。市長胡志強也表�爭�之�，他強調願���中部4縣市共�爭�，以帶動中部經濟發展。

一人一信 上書總統府


日�有70多�立委連署建議中央�都�中，在�中市議會�到廣大回響，國民黨�市議員楊正中昨天在定期大會中�臨時動議出臨時動議，�議由議員一人一信分別上書總統府�行政院�立法院建議大�中是最��的�都地點。

議員�分黨派 觀樂支�

多�議員發言支��都�中市，議員�為�中市�輸�北市，如能�都�中市必能帶動�中市�一波建設高峰，�黨派議員都��都�中市表示觀樂支�，最後決議請�中市政府�極爭�請中央�都�中市。

胡志強�但贊�，還表示�以無償�供用地，並願���中部4縣市一起�中央表��願。他指出，中部有224公頃的水湳機場用地，��功嶺�中興新�等腹地，都��中央�都用地，�中市是�都的最佳地點。

[Coyett]

I voted for Yunlin. No need for meeting rooms or assembly halls, they could play all day at Janfusun Fancyworld!

[duabi]

I prefer Taichung/Nantou(Greater Taichung).

I think Tainan used to be Taiwan's capital because Dutch first landed on Tainan and developed the place, so that's why Koxinga chose to conquer it and used it as his kingdom's capital.

Taipei became the capital later because Taipei was closer to Peking and Tokyo(Manchu and Japanese Empire's capital). Well, it was also developing fast because of tea trade and Tamshui and Keelong harbour.
Kaohsiung almost became Taiwan's capital in late Japanese era because Japanese wanted to make it a Japan Empire's South Capital to rule the whole SEA.
KMT came and used Taipei because Taipei had the infrastructures done by Japanese to hold the whole government it brought from China.

In 2006...We Taiwanese can finally "think about" which place is better for Taiwan and Taiwanese.

[pierre-laurent]

my choices are 1. taichung, 2. tainan, 3. kaohsiung

taichung is my first choice coz its 's geograpphically in the center of the country(it's good to balance the developpment) and its infrastructures, transportation and weather're kinda good

tainan coz it's both a city of cuture and the oldest city of the taiwan history.

kaohsiung coz it's the 2de largest city and its good infrastructures(with an international airport and a metro system soon)

[Echang03]

I voted for Taichung because I'm from Taichung XD

But how realistic is this actually? I doubt it'll ever happen. (but i hope it does)

[superchan7]

Personally I don't think the capital should be moved at the moment. The political situation needs to settle down and some infrastructure improvements need to be made before such an important change.

For now I think Taipei is the only city that can handle the duty of being the administrative nucleus.

[duabi]

Originally Posted by superchan7

Personally I don't think the capital should be moved at the moment. The political situation needs to settle down and some infrastructure improvements need to be made before such an important change.

For now I think Taipei is the only city that can handle the duty of being the administrative nucleus.

I think we need to "plan ahead"... I am tired of hearing "#$#$.. has to be done first... or #$@#$ has to settle down first". If we plan ahead, then we will know what infrastructure improvements needed, so we also don't have to waste money on some infrastructures we dont need.

Take Sungshan Airport for example, if If closing it down is good for Taipei in the long term, then we can decide what to do with the land or do other things to improve the city. If not closing it down is the choice, then we should better upgrade the airport or have other plans to get a good use of the airport. If we don't plan ahead now, we will be wasting time and money.

If we know there is a possibility that moving the capital is good for Taiwan in the long term, then the sooner we discuss it the ealier Taipei or Taiwan will become a better place. Therefore, I think we should at least discuss whether it is good to move the capital or not. It is not the most important thing now, but it is also not the least important thing. I think if Taiwan wants to be better, we have to treat everything important. Whether it is about sewage or about the capital.

[Bobbert]

There is no reason to change the capital, especially sense Taiwan's population will start to decline in a few years because of the incredibly low birthrate.

[superchan7]

Sure, it's always good to plan and look ahead, but given the current social situation, I'm convinced that trying to move the capital city is just going to create an enormous mess.

People are just going to stir up another blue/green rivalry over anything that can have political implications. Not to compare directly, but I could imagine what people might think if the US tried to move its capital to Texas.

[duabi]

Originally Posted by superchan7

Sure, it's always good to plan and look ahead, but given the current social situation, I'm convinced that trying to move the capital city is just going to create an enormous mess.

People are just going to stir up another blue/green rivalry over anything that can have political implications..

The idea of moving the capital is not about "blue or green"/"china or taiwan"/"unification or independence", so I don't think it will create a mess politically. This topic has been brought up a few times in the past few years, there were no major conflicts between blue or green camp. Actually, relatively most ppl either they are in blue or green camp believe that it may be better for Taiwan. The most popular place "so far" is Taichung Area.

Not to compare directly, but I could imagine what people might think if the US tried to move its capital to Texas.

I believe, most ppl will against it because US tried to move its capital to Texa without much thinking as you stated.
Are you assuming that ppl talk about moving the capital in Taiwan without much thinking? In this case, I will be the first one against it too. However, if it is through a thorough discussio, and we are sure it will do more good to Taiwan. why not?


ps.
Maybe you don't know that Taiwan's capital at the "provincial" level is in Nantou( part of the greater Taichung Area).

[C-Kompii]

If you were to ask just about any place besides Taipei whether they would want to be the capital, of course they would say yes, and give you plenty of reasons why they think that way. Our current capital already lack the recognition it deserves internationally, and for now it is still the most fitting. The examples of US, Australia, Canada, Brazil, and to a lesser extent China and India aren't exactly ideal for Taiwan since they are vastly larger countries.

Trying to Move the capital now will generate too many disputes, and its not like we don't have enough of that already

Cheers,

-G'day-

[kidd]

I think it's a great idea to move our capital to central Taiwan - Nantou (or Taichung) in particular is my pick not only for its location but also budgeting concerns as duabi had mentioned the money saving scheme of utilizing its exisiting provincial facilities.

In terms of national crisis, such as war (god forbid), the damage would be minimized in many ways. I just don't think that its a good idea to have all the main governmental facilities/bureaus cramped at highly populated Taipei.

Last but not least, as the above news mentioned, some of the main governmental braches, for instance, the Department of Labor should definately be located at places such as the labor intense Kaohsiung due to its funtionality.

[pierre-laurent]

Originally Posted by superchan7

Sure, it's always good to plan and look ahead, but given the current social situation, I'm convinced that trying to move the capital city is just going to create an enormous mess.

People are just going to stir up another blue/green rivalry over anything that can have political implications. Not to compare directly, but I could imagine what people might think if the US tried to move its capital to Texas.

then in your logic, tawan should stop doing whatever and commit suicid collectively... btw i think the economic captal or most developped city of a country is not necessarily its adminitrative capital. washington is not that large on a scale of a super power as usa, right?

[superchan7]

I don't know about strange things like "suicide." Is that what will happen if the capital stays in Taipei? I only felt that the other cities' infrastructure has yet to catch up with Taipei, therefore there is no better city suited to lead the entire Taiwan.

There are countries that have administrative capitals in smaller cities (USA, Australia, Vietnam). There are countries that have administrative capitals in their largest and most economically important cities (Japan, South Korea, Thailand, France, UK).

My point is not to follow one or the other, because things that work in other countries should not be assumed to work in mine or yours. The simple concept of "moving" a capital is something rarely done and involves difficult city planning and consideration of all social and economic effects on the country and its governance. One example of a failed effort to move an administrative capital is South Korea.

Given these logical observations, I came to the conclusion that in the current situation, trying to move the government out of Taipei can (and probably will) spark tension between followers of different political sides.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a certain political "side" propose this idea in the first place? It would certainly place them in a more favourable support base...

[pierre-laurent]

as you said, it will certainly not be easy to move the capital and each country is a particular case. of course to change in order to change has no sense, but i still think there will be advantages to move the capital especailly in order to balance the island's general infrastructure, urban and economical developpment. concentrating so many functions and budget in an unique area(taipei city), it's merely insane for whole nation (btw, now france also tries to decentralize its state orginisms without changing capital of course, but the idea is there all the same.). plus, this project harvests some support from both green and blue populations and politicians, so i think this problem shoudn't totally be analyzed as a new friction point beween bleue-green peoples. but on the other hand ,you're right, this matter should be discussssed again more by the public opinion. in the end, i really think taichung is able to become taiwan's new capital infrastructrally meaning.

[kidd]

Originally Posted by superchan7

I don't know about strange things like "suicide." Is that what will happen if the capital stays in Taipei? I only felt that the other cities' infrastructure has yet to catch up with Taipei, therefore there is no better city suited to lead the entire Taiwan.

haha, just a little misunderstanding there between u two, my friends. Perhaps some of us truely believe that in case 96/97 missle crisis were to re-occur due to whatsoever reason in the future. For the past few years, the PLA has reiterated the possibility of using 斬首計劃,'斬首'signifies presidential office and the taking down of Taipei. I guess in this case, it is suicidal to have Taipei as our capital in defence of Taiwan's democracy.

Leading TW wise, I believe we have Taipei as the financial district, Taichung as the high-tech district, Kaohsiung is the main exporting seaport capital...and many more ..depend on how one looks at. I honestly don't know what function does D.C. have other than administrative stufs in leading the USA.

Originally Posted by superchan7

There are countries that have administrative capitals in smaller cities (USA, Australia, Vietnam). There are countries that have administrative capitals in their largest and most economically important cities (Japan, South Korea, Thailand, France, UK).

My point is not to follow one or the other, because things that work in other countries should not be assumed to work in mine or yours. The simple concept of "moving" a capital is something rarely done and involves difficult city planning and consideration of all social and economic effects on the country and its governance. One example of a failed effort to move an administrative capital is South Korea.)

I think the effect would not be as detrimental. Afterall, greater Taichung (my pick) is only really an hour away from north or south by HST unlike USA or other nations. Remember, Taiwan is not a big island.

Originally Posted by superchan7

Given these logical observations, I came to the conclusion that in the current situation, trying to move the government out of Taipei can (and probably will) spark tension between followers of different political sides.

I beg to disagree on this one. Hence, many of us chose greater Taichung area which translate into almost 50/50 green and blue supporters. It actually brings more unity to taiwan imo.

Originally Posted by superchan7

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a certain political "side" propose this idea in the first place? It would certainly place them in a more favourable support base....

The idea was brought up long ago even before TSU proposed. In fact, as duabi mentioned that even KMT had chosen the provincial government facilities to be located at greater Taichung area - Nantou 中興新� for best control and accessibility both north and south.

Yeah, I agree that relocation of capital is a major concern to the entire Taiwanese. It is not be seen as just a political power shift as many sees it. The focus should be for a better and more efficient capital to better serve the general public.

A side note:

Growing up in the south, kaohsiung has been our role-model for decades. taipei really has little impact to our daily lifes let alone being the leader as the capital. Many of us believe that certain infrustures, kaohsiung actually surpasses taipei as the leader for the country and it's true these days! Hence the annual �部七縣市首長論壇 with Kaohsiung as our leader.

This creation of southern capital ideology and the seperation of politic belief was the direct result of the negelect by the KMT government outside of Taipei prior to 2000. I sincerelly hope that Taiwanese can be united. Hence, greater Taichung gets my vote! Ok, that's it!

Got to do some works, see u guys next week~ ^o^V

[kidd]

�中早期趣味故事

　　許多居民都�把�中視為��的歷��鎮。與中國歷�相較下，�中百年的歷��是一剎那罷了。仔細探究，其實�以發��中早期有趣的事情，在��的發展�上扮演著��的角色。

　　��在1885年清�的時代正��為中國的領土，�中也是在這個時期劃分出來。當時的總�劉銘傳指定�中為首都。1887年開始�中的�劃，包括建立八個城門。然而在1892年時，劉銘傳總�破產回到�北，使這項工程被中斷，�留下四個完整的城門。�幸地，���任總�決定留在�北，�北��為首都。

　　雖然經�這些轉變，但�中還是比�北早八個月，在1900年1月9日正��為��發展計劃中的第一個首都。更有趣的是，原先的計劃案裡�中與�京有直接的關�。1895年，掌控島上行政事物的日本殖民官員，曾經僱用英國�的男性�廉‧巴頓 (William Barton) 先生����許多城市進行調查。先�，巴頓設計��京的都市計劃案，隨後被�求進行�中的�劃。在計劃中包括今天的�中公園與中正路附近的市中心，為加強陽光的照射與確�公共衛生，所有�路都呈�45度角。

　　當時日本人���的�象是一個髒亂�到處都有疾病的地方。為了�引日本人來��居�，必須花心�設計一個舒�的地�，而�中的市中心就是特別�劃給所有日本殖民行政官員�教師�警察等日本人居�的。

　　直到1908年時，這些地方建設�到一定的程度，連日本的皇太�也蒞臨�中，�加�在的�中�車站開幕典禮以��觀�在�然頗負盛�的「望月涼亭�，之後還有�察‧尼克森(Richard Nixon)，包勃‧�普(Bob Hope)與瑪格麗特‧柴契爾 (Margaret Thatcher)等��人物蒞臨�中。

　　這個曾經一度�為��首都的城市，在�廉‧巴頓 (William Barton) 的精心�劃下�漸開始�榮�壯，至今已有103.3�的人�，�為亞洲第135大城市，世界第262大城市。

[argon007]

If I select, I would select Hsinchu for National Science Coucil and Ministry of Environment and Heath.
because there are Hsinchu Science Park and Hsinchu Biology and Medical Park (Taiwan University Hospital chupei subhospital). so it is suitable to move to Hsinchu for these two ministry.

[PuyoPiyo]

I voted for Kaohsiung just because I like that name. I know it is dumb but just that lol..

[kidd]

�都？ �中�嘉義�高雄都舉手

��新�網╱記者楊湘鈞�林河��羅嘉薇 2006-12-27 02:57

高�通車日期已是屈指�數，政壇「�都中�部�的呼�一時甚囂塵上。難�空間�命輻射所�，�能催化��政治權力中樞的移動，甚至鬆動�綠北�的政治�塊？

學者�為，�來北往更便利，將使民眾的�通更直接�更頻�，會改變��人民觀察政治的方�。「�論北�，若有大型政治活動，民眾�個高�就�去�加，��後��高�回家，�必考慮�宿�題。他們�政治的�解，����於媒體的二手傳播。��大政治系副教授江瑞祥說。

�大都計系教授姜�生�為，��相互接觸夠多�夠久，必然有益於消除�立，如此或有�能打破北��綠��水溪分界�閩客分居等傳統政治藩籬。

「若政治�真的因為高�而產生變化，較�能的發展是�部�北化。�江瑞祥進一步分�，接觸�北更多的�部人很容易被都市化，就��北被全�化一般。

近來熱烈討論的�都之議，背後�考就是利用高�來平衡�域發展差���低�部民眾與首都的�離感。�月底高��中站啟用典禮上，�中市長胡志強倡言「�都大�中�。很早就如此主張的��立委何�豪表示，中部腹地�闊，如果國會�最高行政機關�到中部，其他政府部門散居北部��部，�以讓��形�北�中��三大政經中心。民進黨立委蔡�榮�案�都中�部，很快爭�到跨黨派立委連署。

甫就任的高雄市長陳�支�首都��高雄，嘉義縣長陳明文也��人後：「嘉義在高�通車後，到�北��一個�時車程，當然有資格作新首都。�

姜�生贊�行政機構的地點分布�從功能性�考，例如原�民委員會，應該設在�離原�民�居最近的地方；農委會�經濟部工業局也沒必�設在�北。

�能哪天��人會發�，首都被打散或從�北�走了，而這一切轉變始於高�通車。