The appearance of the nation's cities will have significantly changed by this time next year. Many old houses are about to be demolished and turned into parking lots or complexes. The look of our streets will rapidly change, and land values may temporarily rise.
These problems are the result of a draft measure of the Ministry of Finance's National Property Bureau to regulate idle, rarely used and public property.
Since last year, the bureau has given a series of orders to unify the operation and management of national assets in order to strengthen land use and promote economic development. In response to the bureau's administrative orders, many government units nationwide hastily proposed various property development plans, so their property will not be taken over after the bureau's deadline.
As a result, many old buildings and plants with potential historic and humanist value were pulled down. Although people were informed about a few demolition projects through symbolic public hearings, they were unable to have a real say. Thus, the voices of the public were ignored. The history preserved in such architectural spaces was destroyed. People will no longer recognize their neighborhoods. This will spell the death of our urban and national history.
Although the bureau states that historic spots and buildings will not be included in the measure, it does not stipulate that the evaluation and approval of historic sites should proceed prior to the bureau's property takeover procedure. Consequently, many government units tore down old buildings recklessly in order to hasten construction plans. For example, numerous houses built during the Japanese colonial period were demolished and residents living on idle state-owned property were expelled.
The bureau's regulations mainly focus on the takeover of land for construction, especially land that can be sold immediately. Ridiculously, many public organizations and schools have assumed the sole responsibility for their profits or losses. After the government takes back their land without any compensation, they may face problems with future expansion. For those that are able to come up with development plans in a timely manner, their new buildings may be hardly used once they are completed.
The bureau also demands that all government agencies move out from residential and commercial districts. This will narrow our land use in urban areas, not to mention that these agencies have to spend more to construct new buildings. Obviously, the government's purpose of the takeover is merely an attempt to obtain and sell land, so as to enrich the national treasury.
A nation's land and property are owned by its people. The government should use it to promote public welfare. But it should never, as the bureau is doing, take over national property, on the one hand, while disposing or selling it, on the other. I'm not opposed to taking back idle public land. But I strongly object to the demolition of historic buildings due to the government's flawed takeover mechanism. I also object to the government's sale of national assets once they are taken over.
The government could set up public rental units -- rather than selling its assets -- in order to ease its financial difficulties. But before that, an evaluation mechanism for historic buildings has to be established that includes public participation in national property planning. Otherwise, a temporary economic illusion will destroy the nation's urban history.
Chang Li-pen is a student of the Graduate School for Social Transformation Studies at Shih Hsin University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations