The Taipei City Government’s plan to negotiate conditions with Farglory Group to dissolve the contract for the Taipei Dome project and seek a third party to take over the construction is a trade-off — albeit a reckless, perhaps ill-conceived one — made without the city taking all possible consequences into account.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) administration imposed a strict set of safety standards on Farglory and demanded that the complex’s evacuation readiness meet the requirements of the city’s evacuation simulations, which were conducted using a scenario where all five buildings in the complex — including the Dome, a department store, a movie theater, a hotel and an office building — were at full capacity.
This means that any third party would have to follow the city’s demand that Farglory reduce the space taken up by commercial facilities surrounding the Dome to facilitate evacuation.
With the structures of all five buildings completed or near completion, the first problem a third party would face is demolishing facilities and devising new uses for the vacated areas — with both tasks requiring a lot of money.
Therefore, it would be virtually impossible for the city government to transfer the project without making compromises.
To attract interest, the city government would have to provide incentives, which could mean that its new contract would be even more disadvantageous to the city than the contract with Farglory. For example, the life of the contract could be extended from 50 years to 70 years, so that the third party would be better able to offset the costs of construction.
In addition, there would be no guarantee that the city government would not be required to pay compensation to Farglory.
Skeptics of the plan to transfer the project have raised legitimate questions over its viability, saying that the city government would probably struggle to find a new contractor, because the sheer floorspace of the project would drive up the rent for people who want to use it, and there are already plenty of department stores and theaters nearby.
Questions were also raised over the city’s apparent reluctance to take legal action against Farglory, despite its strong criticism of the company over alleged breaches of contract — which included allowing construction to fall seriously behind schedule and deviating from the approved plan in 79 areas, even though it is likely to win a lawsuit.
Long-time Dome opponent Arthur Yo (游藝) interprets the city’s reluctance to go to court with the group as Ko being worried that the length of time the lawsuit would take would hurt his chances of re-election.
Yo’s analysis holds water, as according to recent surveys the Dome debacle was one of the major causes of Ko’s slide in approval ratings, and Ko is obviously feeling the pressure.
Ko had said that he is worried about lawyers’ fees that would be generated from a legal battle with Farglory, but the cost would pale next to the compensation the city might have to pay to Farglory, which by some news outlets’ estimates would exceed NT$10 billion (US$309.93 million).
Ko’s remark that entering negotiations with Farglory to terminate the contract would be an easy way out of his predicament was surprising. With so many uncertainties lying ahead, it would not be easy at all.
On all fronts, dissolving the contract by negotiating terms with Farglory is a risky endeavor and would be a Pyrrhic victory for Ko even if it were possible.
If he wants to win praise, he should be tough and terminate the contract via legal channels. He might find that Taipei residents are more reasonable than he thinks.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers