Anyone who has followed the progress of the Taipei Twin Towers project near the Taipei Railway Station could not help but be surprised when the Taipei City Department of Rapid Transit Systems (DORTS) announced on Friday that the priority developer — a multinational consortium led by Taipei Gateway International Development — was disqualified from the NT$70 billion to NT$80 billion (US$2.39 billion to US$2.73 billion) project because it did not provide a NT$1.89 billion performance bond by the deadline.
The announcement was made just nine hours after city government officials said they had received a fax that showed the consortium had wired US$100 million to a designated bank account for DORTS by midnight on Thursday. However, Taipei Fubon Bank told DORTS officials on Friday morning that the money had not been transferred.
If the multinational group was using false documents to make DORTS think it is financially capable of undertaking the project, it would be shameful, and the authorities must determine if this is the case.
However, it is even more shameful for Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) and the Taipei City Government, which have both strongly defended the integrity of the bidding process for more than three months since the consortium won the bid on Oct. 28 last year amid doubts raised by city councilors and the media regarding the consortium’s financial strength, its shareholder structure and the fairness and transparency of the bidding process.
“The winner of the auction was not solely determined by bidding price, the applicants’ financial situations; construction and design skills were also taken into consideration,” DORTS Commissioner Richard Chen (陳椿亮) said in a Dec. 14 press conference amid questions about the city government’s evaluation committee for the project, after 16 of the committee’s 17 members gave the consortium a top rating.
However, Chen said on Friday: “Since the consortium has failed to pay the performance bond by the deadline, we will move on to discuss the contract with the second-priority bidder [BES Engineering Corp] … Whether the consortium had financial difficulty paying the bond is not our concern.”
Is the issue really so simple? Does Chen plan to put the issue behind him so quickly? Why is the city government still covering up for the consortium?
If this is an attempt by the city government to push the project forward on sound financial footing — it has failed to find a winning bidder four times since 2006 — then the public will applaud its actions. However, this appears to be one more incident of mismanagement by Hau’s administration.
Considering how the city government handled the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project, it seems that the government is still lacking professional judgement in planning major infrastructure projects. It also continues to ignore criticism and advice to fix the problems created by its mismanagement.
“The bidding process has proved to be a farce,” Democratic Progressive Party Taipei City Councilor Wang Shi-chien (王世堅) said on Friday.
“Delaying the deal has squandered public resources, while also causing the city government to lose even more credibility among the public,” Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Angela Ying (應曉薇) said on Friday.
These remarks should be made directly to Hau and demands should be made that the mayor must shoulder his administrative responsibility and take disciplinary action.
Once the city government has taken disciplinary action, and won back the trust of Taipei citizens, the next step would be for it to revise the bidding process, restructure the evaluation committee, make the bidding more fair and transparent, and promptly negotiate with BES Engineering Corp over the contract. The project needs to progress, but must be executed with care.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath