With a typhoon lashing the nation over the long Mid-Autumn Festival weekend, the demolition of a building owned by Taipei resident Luo Chin-kuang (羅進光), like countless others before it, has already faded from memory — except from Luo’s.
However, Luo’s story is a typical one about the rights of the minority pitted against a majority. It also provides Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) administration with a perfect study of how to make sure that an urban renewal project remains within legal boundaries — which was not the way the city government handled Luo’s situation.
At first, the demolition of Luo’s building seemed like the lawless act of a big developer, bullying an average citizen, but that is not entirely true. His building was on a plot of land that had been zoned for urban renewal, one where the 79 other landowners favored the project. Luo was the sole holdout.
Luo’s steadfast opposition to the project has its roots in his devotion to feng shui; he believes that demolishing his house would bring Taiwan bad luck. The other landowners said their neighborhood was a “slum” and the development project would breathe life into the area.
The dramatic divide between Luo and the others reportedly led to dozens of negotiations that spanned more than two years before the denouement on Friday last week.
The law clearly speaks in favor of the project’s supporters, who together hold more than 80 percent of the land and property rights to the site, thereby meeting the legal requirement to submit a renewal plan to the city government.
However, under Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例), contractor Pacific Construction Co’s seemingly sudden decision to demolish Luo’s building appears to contravene the law. The company did not ask the Taipei City Government to intervene after Luo failed to tear down or relocate his building within 30 days of the project’s announcement.
Luo’s talks of the arcane might have created a distance between him and the media, as well as activists campaigning for land justice. However, if he had received enough public attention, his case could have easily evolved into a second Dapu (大埔) incident, with the Taipei City Government taking the role of the big bad wolf that was previously played by the Miaoli County Government.
Miaoli authorities in July last year demolished four houses on land the county had expropriated for an expansion of the Jhunan Science Park. Although the project had the support of 98 percent of landowners, four families were holdouts, and their resistance led to protests by activists and a lawsuit — which the four won.
Demolishing homes is always going to be a controversial issue. It cannot be divided into simple percentages, which hardly represents the actuality, especially when a large number of stakeholders are involved, as with the central government-led land expropriation for the Aerotropolis project in Taoyuan.
However, it would be going overboard to sacrifice the interests of the majority for the rights of the minority in every case. Urban renewal projects call for due public debate over their legitimacy and, if necessary, change in legislature to ensure that disputes stemming from them are settled as fairly as possible.
The Taipei City Government’s refusal to comment on the legality of Pacific Construction’s actions — beyond saying that the firm had a permit for the demolition — could be detrimental to the city’s urban renewal projects, because of the bad example that it sets. Other developers and construction firms might be tempted to copy Pacific Construction’s tactics.
Ko’s administration, which has always trumpeted transparency, has waded into dangerous waters by not rebuking or punishing Pacific Construction.
To deter potential copycats, it should take action against the firm’s disregard for legal procedures.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
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