The Taipei City Government has published the Taipei Dome safety inspection report, proposing that the structure be demolished. The Farglory Group (遠雄集團), responsible for the project, has rejected these suggestions out of hand. The controversy surrounding the Taipei Dome has turned into a big headache for the city government as there is a high probability of the debacle escalating into a vicious circle of drawn-out negotiations and lawsuits. This whole affair highlights several misconceptions and concerns surrounding the build-operate-transfer (BOT) model.
Nowadays, there are increasing expectations on the government to undertake construction projects and provide more services. This, together with limited funds, has meant that outsourcing public construction projects to the private sector has become popular. Consequently, the Statute for Encouragement of Private Participation in Transportation Infrastructure Projects (獎勵民間參與交通建設條例) and the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (促進民間參與公共建設法) were enacted in 1994 and 2000 respectively.
There are many ways in which the private sector can take part in public construction projects, but the BOT model has proven to be the most common. In this model, private institutions invest in the building and operation of the infrastructure project, and upon expiration of the operation period, transfer the ownership of the infrastructure project to the government. Since the government can accomplish its objective of serving the public without spending any money, while collecting rent and commission from the contractors during its operation, the BOT model seems to have a lot of benefits.
Nonetheless, there is always a big discrepancy between the ideal and the reality, and the Taipei Dome project, which could end up costing tens of billions of New Taiwan dollars, is one such example of this.
Without a big enough incentive, the Dome is unlikely to attract much corporate investment. The Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects stipulates that the government should aid the contractors in financing and give them tax benefits. In addition, under Article 15 of the act, if the land required for the infrastructure project is government-owned, rentals may be extended on favorable terms.
If the land required for the infrastructure project is privately-owned, then according to Article 16, the authority in charge may then expropriate such land for the constructor to use. Hence it is delusional to believe that as long as it is a BOT project, the government does not need to spend any public money.
Take the Taipei Dome for example: Previous city governments exempted the contractor from having to pay commission, and even let the contractor do whatever it wanted on the site. As a result, the development, which was intended to be a sports park for public use, was turned into a profit-oriented mall.
Since the construction of the Dome has progressed this far, even though it is overwhelmingly problematic — and its defects could seriously endanger public safety — to annul the contract would surely result in long-term lawsuits, which might leave the Dome in ruins.
The government has no choice but to resort to offering improvement proposals to force the contractor to return to the negotiating table instead of seeing the contractor rashly annulling or terminating the contract. Otherwise, the city government will continue to find itself hijacked by the contractor, and the beautiful dream of creating a domed sports park through the BOT model is certain to remain nothing more than a dream.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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