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 conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS