What the recent disputes between Farglory Land Development Co (遠雄建設) and the Taipei City Government have exposed is not only the issue of safety, but also the complicated — and suspicious — connections between politicians and businesses.
Recently, Taipei and Farglory began exchanging verbal barbs over the Taipei Dome project being built by Farglory under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract.
On the surface, the debate centers on safety. According to a Taipei City Government simulation, it could take more than one hour to evacuate 140,000 people — the combined maximum capacity of the venue and the surrounding shopping centers — in case of an emergency.
Farglory responded by criticizing the city government’s results as problematic, arguing that, according to its own simulation, it would take only 27 minutes to evacuate 140,000 people and 10 minutes to evacuate 120,000 — in compliance with all legal requirements.
However, aside from the safety issues, the ostensibly suspicious relationships between politicians — namely President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) — and Farglory might need more public attention.
According to documents, video clips and voice recordings that have been revealed so far, top city officials serving in the city government when Ma was mayor seemed eager to defend Farglory’s interests over those of the city government during meetings behind closed doors.
Furthermore, the contract signed between the developer and the city government is also suspicious. According to the contract, Farglory is to “help” the city build and operate the Taipei Dome — and the attached commercial structures — for 50 years, before returning the complex to the city government.
What use will the buildings be in 50 years? When the city government takes back control of the complex, all it will be able to do is demolish it and build something else on the site. Moreover, according to the contract, the city government can get the rights to operate the complex earlier, but only if Farglory is losing money.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that there is something fishy about the arrangement. Imagine the city government suddenly realizes that it needs a large sporting venue in the middle of the city. It asks a private entity to build it, gets everything prepared for the firm and allows it to operate for 50 years. If the company is not turning a profit, the city is willing to step in and take back control of the complex. On top of all that, city officials defend the interests of the company when questions are raised during meetings about the project.
This is not the first fishy project related to the city government while Ma was mayor. In 2002, the Taipei City Government decided to allow Fubon Bank, a private entity, to merge with Taipei City Bank, which was funded by the city, had more capital and generated more profit than Fubon Bank, to form Taipei Fubon Bank.
While many at the time questioned the decision, it was later discovered that, prior to consenting to the merger, then-mayor Ma had been invited to a private guest house owned by then-Fubon chairman Tsai Ming-chung (蔡明忠) on several occasions. Although Ma denied involvement in any irregularities, he admitted that he had attended banquets at the guest house and apologized.
Besides the issue of safety at the Taipei Dome, the public and the judiciary should pay more attention to suspicious relationships between officials and businesses. The problems they engender might not only lead to the demolition of the sports venue, but also the entire government.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry