The Taipei Dome was originally scheduled to begin trial operations in October.
However, the starting date has again been delayed after the building failed to pass a review by the Ministry of the Interior.
In response to the delay, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and Deputy Minister of the Interior Hua Ching-chun (花敬群) pointed fingers at each other, and Ko even proposed a public debate with Hua.
Soon after Ko was elected in 2014, he launched investigations into what he called the “five major corruptions” of the previous administration and demanded the suspension of the Taipei Dome construction project.
As his second and last term is to end by the end of this year, he has changed his tone and rebranded the “five major corruptions” as the “five major cases.”
At this stage in the game, it is clear who is responsible for the long-term delay.
The Taipei Dome’s smoke exhaust equipment and fire safety system must pass a review, as they are crucial for emergency evacuations and the safety of visitors to events to be held there. Therefore the ministry carefully examined them in accordance with the law, and requested corrections of and explanations for the inadequacies it found.
However, the timetable for the review released by the Taipei City Government was another story entirely.
Despite that the developer, Farglory Group, provided incomplete documents and applied for increasingly far-reaching safety standard exemptions, the city merely tried to avoid this important matter and focused on trivialities instead.
Not long ago, the National Fire Agency issued a statement to refute the city government’s claim that the delay was caused by the ministry, under which the agency operates.
First, the Taipei Dome’s number of applications for exemption from the Standard for Installation of Fire Safety Equipment Based on Use and Occupancy (各類場所消防安全設備設置標準) increased from two to five within five months. According to the required procedures, the latter three applications had to be treated as new cases.
Originally, the developer in June last year filed two applications for exemption for the Taipei Dome Stadium and the Taipei Dome Plaza. Farglory in November filed three more applications for three more sites, including an arts and cultural plaza.
Next, the agency’s review committee held three preliminary meetings — on Aug. 20 last year, and March 18 and May 26 this year — and proposed 24 objections that would require correction or clarification.
The process was not just delayed by committee members’ diligent examination of the applications — including assessments whether they would have a significant effect on evacuation plans and the safety of event visitors — Farglory and its design team are taking excessive time to supply additional data.
After all the data are supplied, they would be submitted for review at a general meeting to be held later this month.
Ko might owe Taiwanese an apology.
Liu Jyh-jian is a retired firefighter at the Taipei City Fire Department.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS