At crucial moments, government officials and business owners like to issue threats and mislead the public. They say things like: “If we don’t build the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, there will be power shortages” and “If we don’t sign the service trade agreement, competitiveness will drop and we’ll all be finished.”
The Judicial Yuan announced Constitutional Interpretation No. 709 on April 26 last year. It ruled that parts of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) were unconstitutional and that those parts would “become null and void if they have not been amended within one year from the issuance of this Interpretation.” With the deadline already passed the issue has become urgent
Misleading statements have claimed the amendment has been delayed by the student protests and that this will affect NT$1.3 trillion (US$43 billion) in business opportunities, a delay might affect more than 1,000 urban renewal projects and the ruling that parts of the act are unconstitutional will cause market values to drop by NT$1 trillion.
The Ministry of the Interior on May 6 last year invited local governments to a conference to discuss response measures.
The first of these measures was that the summary applications of businesses that were filed after April 26 should be reviewed by an urban renewal review committee. Those involved in the application could request to attend the review committee and submit opinions. Applications filed prior to April 26 should be handled in accordance with the unamended law.
The second was that until the amendment, the business summary agreement rate should be handled according to the unamended law.
The third was that public hearings should be organized in accordance with the the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) for any urban renewal plans and property rights exchange plans that had not been on public exhibit prior to April 26. In cases where public exhibitions had been organized prior to April 26, public hearings should be organized according to the regulations in the unamended law.
Finally, business summaries, urban renewal business plans and property exchange rights plans approved after April 26 should be delivered to the respective rights holders. The method of delivery should be in accordance with the regulations in the Administrative Procedure Act.
These measures are a comprehensive response to Constitutional Interpretation No. 709.
As for the buffer period around the time for the amendment, the buffer clause agreed by the ruling and opposition parties clearly stipulates how the unamended and the amended law shall be applied.
There is no need to talk about “the delay of the amendment” in order to mislead the public and cause doubt about the necessity for the amendment. The only difference is the business summary agreement rate: The unamended law stipulates one-tenth, which will be increased to three-tenths or half after the amendment, but in practice, applicants will have exceeded these levels before submitting an application.
Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) should instruct interior ministry officials to stop making groundless statements and trying to shirk responsibility by temporarily stopping the acceptance and handling of business summary applications. This will only create public panic and confrontation between the Cabinet and the legislature.
What the general public wants is to overturn the Urban Renewal Act altogether and clarify concerns over land, residential and procedural justice — not just an amendment of the unconstitutional parts.
Shieh Jyh-cherng is a retired National Taiwan University professor.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with