The storm of controversy surrounding the Taipei Dome project continues to spread, with public opinion, the media and social networking sites unanimously calling it a scandal.
The public has finally woken up to the fact that, from the very beginning, this was an illegal development project: a stitch-up between the government and the private sector, helped along the way by politicians. It is thus a great pity that during the course of the recent negotiations between the Taipei City Government and the contractor, Farglory Land Development Co, the issue of tree protection was pushed to one side.
In support of the Songshan Tree Protection Volunteer Union, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said: “If there is no need to move the trees, why is a set of standard operating procedures required to rationalize it?”
This is about values, and is not something that can be substituted with engineering solutions, he said. “If we don’t allow trees to be trees, how can we call ourselves a civilized city?”
By early 2008, information about irregularities in connection with the Taipei Dome project had already been submitted to then-Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), and in the following year, the Control Yuan issued a correction. However, within the context of repeated contract violations by Farglory, Hau chose to turn a blind eye.
On top of this, a large number of the officials protecting the company within Taipei City Government were up to their necks in work shielding the firm — the reason for the present calamitous state of affairs. With the project now seriously delayed, Farglory has again violated the terms of its contract. How should Ko react?
The Taipei City government’s recent approach in dealing with the Taipei Dome project and related build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects has been to pursue financial penalties and exercise contractual rights to fight for so-called “citizen’s rights,” while neglecting the more fundamental issue of the public interest.
Built in the wrong location, once in operation the Taipei Dome will greatly affect traffic, the environment and public safety. For example, due to the public-private collaborative structure of the project, there has been an explosion in commercial facilities occupying areas originally designated as emergency dispersal points.
Furthermore, the commercial aspect of the development dwarfs the sporting side, in contravention of the area’s designation as a cultural and recreational zone within the Taipei municipal strategic plan. Demanding financial penalties and exercising contractual rights cannot replace these vital areas of public interest.
The tender process for the Taipei Dome project contained a hidden upper limit for modified information, which violates regulations of the Government Procurement Act (政府採購法) and the Promotion of Private Participation in Construction Projects Act (促進民間參與公共建設法). At the end of last year, it was confirmed that Farglory had violated the contract.
The 2017 Universiade organizing committee then publicly made it known that the existing Taipei Gymnasium could be used as a substitute for the opening and closing ceremonies, and that everything was in place except for one last crucial element.
Hopefully Ko will avoid following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Hau, and instead refuse to continue to safeguard the private interests of Farglory.
Ko should imitate the action of the tiger, stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, tear up the BOT contract and tear down that egg-shaped monstrosity.
Arthur Yo is director of policy at the Songshan Tree Protection Volunteer Union.
Translated by Edward Jones
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS