The nation’s biggest headline-grabber over the past few days has been the head-to-head confrontation between Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and Hon Hai Group chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) over the controversy involving the Syntrend Creative Park project in the capital.
Amid accusations by media pundits that there might have been corruption involved in the bidding procedure for an underground parking lot won by a Hon Hai subsidiary, Gou spent more than NT$3 million (US$95,100) on newspaper advertisements on Monday demanding that the city government make public all documents related to the bid within 48 hours or it would cease construction on the site.
Ko responded by saying that the city government “is not a subsidiary of Hon Hai” and that it will “not buy into threats” from anyone.
Putting the controversy over the project aside for the moment, Gou’s sheer presumptuousness is beyond belief.
A successful entrepreneur, Gou has long been known for his brisk and fierce personality. He has on numerous occasions threatened to leave Taiwan because of dissatisfaction with the nation’s economic policies. However, the extent to which he felt he could simply “communicate” with the government by spending NT$3 million on an advertisement to demand things go his way is dumbfounding.
The incident has left many wondering about the relationship between big business and local governments. Is the way Gou conducts himself and issues threats a result of being spoiled by the administration of former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) and the central government, or because such tactics have worked for him in the past?
Many more might question the relationship between the rich and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, following media reports of how Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Bao-ji (陳保基) was “summoned” by food-scandal-plagued Ting Hsin International Group (頂新國際集團) for a meeting at the group’s headquarters at Taipei 101 over the issue of cross-strait agricultural trade; or Gou’s threat in June last year to stop paying taxes and move Hon Hai’s headquarters out of Taiwan if he did not get an explanation from the National Communications Commission as to why a subsidiary could not use 4G telecommunications equipment manufactured by China-based Huawei Technologies Co.
Hau, meanwhile, has described the many criticisms that Ko has directed at several projects that he initiated as “unbearable.” Hau said he has reached the limit of his patience and accused the new mayor of cherry-picking information to repeatedly discredit the previous administration.
The question is who is the one responsible for the public’s bad perceptions of the capital’s many development projects — such as the Taipei Dome, the Taipei Twin Towers project, the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park and the MeHAS City project.
As such, “unbearable” ought be the word that Taipei residents use in the face of low administrative efficiency, efficacy and lack of transparent information on government affairs.
In the past, due to a lack of information transparency, many Taipei residents have been kept in the dark on various city projects, whose terms and contracts might have been unreasonably and unfairly drafted.
Less than a month into his term, Ko has already rubbed several conglomerates the wrong way, including Hon Hai, Farglory Land Development Co and Fubon Land Development Co. As Ko locks horns with Gou and other big-name tycoons, he needs to know that he has the backing of the public in the battle for justice.
After all, any political party interacting too closely with big corporations brings the likelihood of corruption, and, Ko, being an independent, might for once be a politician unhindered by baggage, and capable of tackling the issues and looking after the public’s interests.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The National Day Preparation Committee on Tuesday unveiled the official logo for this year’s Double Ten National Day. The logo designs are getting worse with each passing year, and “ugly” is the only word that comes to mind. Let us begin with the colors. Deputy Minister of the Interior Wu Tang-an (吳堂安), secretary-general of the committee, said the subdued “Morandi color palette” was chosen for its calm tone to convey “steadiness and maturity.” In reality, it is more of a pale, grayish blue. Not only is it miles away from the colors of the national flag, it is also depressing.
RSS