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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US