The public auction of the state-owned land in Taipei's Xinyi District, the site of a former army club under the Ministry of National Defense, has excited much controversy. But the perspectives and assumptions expressed during the ensuing debate have suffered from blind spots.
The first assumption is that the central government has only two choices on what it can do with public land: sell it or lease it for business use. The second is that the government will have performed its duty as long as it maximizes its revenue from the land deal, and prevents financial groups from enriching themselves in the process. And the third is that only the central government has any say in the disposal of state-owned land.
If Taiwan, which claims to be a democracy, really intends to pursue sustainable development, people need to take a hard look at these assumptions.
First of all, regulations governing the utilization and control of urban land are based on the Urban Planning Law (
This is because the functions and significance of plots of land differ. State-owned land should not merely be a commodity from which businesses can profit, nor a source of money to be managed by the National Property Bureau's property management committee.
The government's responsibil-ity in the planning and managing of state-owned land is complicated, and involves many issues. The source of the controversy over the management of state-owned land is the establishment of the national property management committee to relieve the government's financial crisis. It also underlines the government's negligence in fulfilling its responsibility to the nation and the people.
According to the principle outlined in the Second Item of Article 50 and Article 52 of the Urban Planning Law, state-owned land should first be used to construct public facilities. What's more, with regard to the number of parks and other green spaces, Taiwan still trails far behind most advanced nations in the world. There are also many problems related to land reserved for the construction of public facilities which need to be solved. The government should not seek to increase its revenue at the expense of the national property.
Control of the use of land should rest primarily with local governments and communities. But what we are seeing is the central government attempting to lord it over incompetent local governments and leaving communities little option but to bow to central government demands.
What are the solutions to these problems?
First, the government should come to value the varied use and significance of such land. The central government should cease its policy of auctioning public land. Local governments should stop playing a passive role in this matter, and attempt to get a clear picture of how land within a particular township or county is being used. They should also map out a strategy of how to make use of the land and implement the plan through urban development.
Second, communities should team up to better understand the arrangement of local public facilities, determine the location of usable state-owned land and come up with their own plan on how to use that land. They should ask local governments to transform these lots into public facilities, and work to reject any disposal that fails to comply with democratic procedures.
These are the proactive measures the nation should adopt.
Hung K. Wong is a professor at National Taiwan University's Institute of Building and Planning.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Daniel Cheng
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