The Taipei City Government on Tuesday said it would proceed to fine people living illegally in a commercial zone in the city’s Neihu District (內湖), despite protests supported by several city councilors. The move appears to be an attempt to appease commercial operators seeking to move into the area near Miramar Entertainment Park, which was designated a commercial zone in 2003.
Residents who moved into the area following the rezoning said at Tuesday’s hearing they had been unaware that it was illegal to live there and that they had been paying property taxes since moving in.
There is no question that the city government is within its rights to fine or evict the residents, but doing so is likely to do more harm than good.
There is arguably a better way for Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has made housing issues a key part of his political platform, to appease the interests of developers as well as residents. After all, the residents went through proper channels to purchase their houses from developers, and the developers were granted permits by city officials.
If the residential buildings are demolished and replaced with businesses, it is questionable whether those would remain profitable, continue to operate in the area and pay property taxes to the city. Unlike Miramar, which is directly accessible by the city’s MRT system through Jiannan Road Station, the lots on Mingshui and Jingye roads where the residential buildings are located are far enough from the MRT system that they are less likely to draw foot traffic.
Traffic congestion in the area, which Comprehensive Planning Division head Huang Hui-ju (黃惠如) once attributed to mountains and the Keelung River limiting road construction, means that businesses in Neihu and northeastern Zhongshan District (中山) must be near the MRT system to thrive.
Conversely, if residents are permitted to stay, not only will they continue to pay property taxes, but they will also ensure a steady stream of patrons for already successful businesses in the area, such as Miramar.
A poll conducted two weeks ago by the Taiwan Competitiveness Forum showed Ko in the lead among candidates for next year’s Taipei mayoral elections. However, if Ko cannot maintain his popularity, his campaign might yet turn into an uphill battle, the forum said.
During his 2014 mayoral campaign, Ko pledged to build more than 20,000 public housing units within four years, and in the past few months he has pledged to make about 36,000 housing units in Taipei that have been vacant for more than a year available for public housing by offering incentives to landlords.
Two years ago, Ko complained of a lack of social housing in Taipei, saying that Seoul was doing a much better job.
Steep property prices and rents “are what young people living in Taipei loathe the most,” Ko said at the time, lambasting authorities for not doing more.
It seems counterintuitive for Ko to impose fines on or evict (indirectly through cutting off water and power supplies) 1,678 taxpaying residents who already have housing.
“Right now, the government only talks about resettlement, but not about how existing residency rights should be protected and whether people have just reasons for their demands,” Taiwan Association for Human Rights housing specialist Lin Yen-tung (林彥彤) said in October last year, criticizing the lack of a clear definition of housing rights in the law.
Ko is absolutely right that laws should not be applied selectively, but protecting the rights of some should not happen to the detriment of others. Finding a balanced solution that can address everyone’s needs would be in Ko’s best interest.
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
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with