On Wednesday last week, a deadly fire consumed all or part of the third, fourth and fifth floors of a building in New Taipei City’s Jhonghe District (中和).
All three floors were divided into studio apartments, with the fourth and fifth floors containing 12 and 13 respectively. The fifth floor was an illegally built rooftop extension that was divided using wooden partitions. The fire started on the fourth floor and spread within a few minutes, killing nine people and injuring two.
New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) said the police and fire departments of the city government and its predecessor, the Taipei County Government, have carried out countless household safety inspections over the past 10 years, but there is a legal loophole regarding “existing illegal structures” built before 2007.
Laws and regulations should be interpreted and implemented more strictly, Chu said.
The alleged arsonist and the landlord should be harshly punished under the law, but does the New Taipei City Government bear no legal responsibility?
How can it be that every time this kind of incident occurs, the government condemns the perpetrator, punishes the landlord and blames legal loopholes, but does not bear any legal responsibility?
Article 77-2 of the Building Act (建築法) and the Administrative Regulations on Indoor Decoration of Buildings (建築物室內裝修管理辦法) say that authorities have the right and duty to manage the interior decoration of buildings, while Article 77, Paragraph 2 of the act says that authorities have the right and duty to send personnel at any time to inspect the maintenance of structures and equipment related to public safety in buildings.
As for illegally built structures, Article 97-2 of the act and Article 11-1 of the Regulations for the Handling of Illegal Structures (違章建築處理辦法) say that when an illegal structure poses a threat to public safety, the local authorities responsible for managing buildings should draw up a plan for demolishing it and do so before a given deadline.
The building’s owners did not install fire prevention, escape and safety equipment or fire compartments, and did not use fire-resistant building materials, as required by law, leading to the deaths of nine people.
Did this happen because of legal loopholes or because of the city government’s failure to enforce the law? In view of the above legal requirements, the answer should be obvious.
This case highlights the effects that illegal structures have on public safety. The government should be more proactive in dealing with all of the nation’s illegal structures.
If, in the process of enforcing the law, government authorities are constrained by a lack of professional ability or personnel, they should entrust specialized tasks to architects’ associations and other professional bodies.
The cooperative efforts of government and private partners can ensure the safety of citizens’ living environments and prevent similar events from happening again.
Li Jen-hao is a lawyer, architect and an assistant professor at National Chiao Tung University’s Graduate Institute of Architecture.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS