Since taking over as mayor of Taipei, Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) has been reviewing the city government’s collaborative construction projects such as the Taipei Dome, Taipei New Horizon, Q Square, the Syntrend Creative Park and the MeHAS complex.
Shocked at what he has discovered, Ko says he feels as though he has run up against “fraud syndicates,” while the terms of the contracts are like paying reparations and ceding territory. Companies that have been able to set up such partnerships with the Taipei City Government are pretty much limited to a handful of big corporations such as Farglory Group, Fubon Financial Holdings, Radium Life Tech and Hon Hai.
Many of these partnerships are based on the Act for the Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (促進民間參與公共建設法), but what the law calls “private institutions” have come to be seen as “fraud syndicates” — how have the mighty fallen. These collaborative projects are all done in the name of private participation or public-private partnerships, but the public has not thought seriously enough about what counts as “private institutions.”
Most research about state and society divides democracies into three sectors — government, business and civil society, and the public good pursued by a democratic society should be determined through communication, consultation and decisions involving all three sectors.
For a long time, Taiwan has had an authoritarian form of government, with close ties to corporations helping them to make super-normal profits. Its policy vision consists of a narrow cost-benefit analysis that engenders an alliance of political and business interests.
This kind of government has scant regard for the needs of society or for values such as justice, human rights and environmental sustainability. Eventually this must lead to a crisis of political legitimacy such as what erupted last year.
The popular participation that people hoped for following the end of martial law in 1987 was that the government could be aware of society’s needs and work more closely with it. In fact, the government’s idea of private institutions has been limited to businesses and corporations, which have come to usurp the role of society. This charade has become all the more obvious in the wake of the global tide of neoliberalism.
Governments have used the pretexts of privatization, build-operate-transfer projects and so on to shrug off unwanted responsibilities, with the result being that corporations have swallowed up many areas of public life, while important national resources have become their exclusive domains.
Worse still, the government’s advocacy of neoliberalism did not bring an end to the original authoritarian system. On the contrary, its dispossession of disadvantaged groups has gone from bad to worse, as exemplified by widespread expropriation of farmland and government orders to stop irrigating land.
Ironically, the old authoritarianism remains alongside neoliberalism, while public policy unfairly treats different social classes in different ways.
Ko deserves praise for investigating malpractice, but as he calls for transparent government and renegotiating contracts with corporations, hopefully he can change the existing system to include newly emerged social forces, giving them a formal, legally defined status.
This would create a tripartite mechanism for making policy, and fix the arbitrary nature and inadequacies of the kind of closed-door committees that have decided policy up until now, instead of using genuine popular participation to build a better future for Taiwan.
Hsu Shih-jung is a professor of land economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS