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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS