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.
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