Last week, the Taichung City Government received NT$8.62 billion (US$274.19 million) by auctioning off plots of public land in the city’s phase 13 and phase 14 zoning areas. The result was not as good as expected, with only 54 of 123 plots receiving bids, and the total amount raised being much lower than the floor price of NT$20.46 billion.
The city government’s announcement late last month that it would auction off 28,000 ping (9.26 hectares) of land in the city’s prime areas to repay debts attracted the central government’s attention and triggered discussion between parties. The Ministry of the Interior even asked to postpone the auction to help curb real-estate speculation, but to no avail.
No one is opposed to the Taichung City Government’s decision to auction off public land to repay debts. At issue are the huge areas of land to be sold at one time and the floor price being set much higher than the market expected, which might have a spillover effect, increasing land and housing prices in neighboring areas.
The ministry was concerned that setting a floor price at least 20 percent higher than the market price might further increase land and housing prices in the city. It even suggested buying the land from the city government to construct social housing. The plots at auction were not reserved for social housing and there was nothing wrong with selling them to repay debts, the city government said in response.
Should public land be put up for sale?
This issue is controversial and has persisted for a long time in Taiwan. Mayors and county commissioners have used urban planning and zoning to drive local development and obtain financial resources, which, at the same time, has made land more profitable and benefited local developers.
In theory, the central government or local governments could either raise funds from disposing of public land to bolster their finances or do it for other purposes. However, they should avoid contributing to the problem of rising housing prices. The city government did not directly respond to such worries, saying only it could not sell public land too cheaply.
In the past, state-owned land sales repeatedly hit sky-high prices, making the government a target of criticism for taking the lead in promoting real-estate speculation. In 2012, the Ministry of Finance revised laws to ban sales of state-owned plots measuring less than 500 ping in Taipei to avoid aggravating rampant property speculation and price gouging by construction firms. Last year, it started suspending sales of state-owned land measuring more than 200 ping in residential and commercial zoning areas in the nation’s six special municipalities, with priority given to the construction of social housing. The ministry only auctions off superficies rights for state-owned land instead of selling the land outright.
Unaffordable housing in Taiwan has been a top public grievance for many years. Unlike private enterprises which mostly focus on financial returns, government agencies must bear the responsibility of stabilizing housing prices and consider the impact on the market when disposing of public land. While implementing housing justice is a consensus in Taiwan, it depends on the concerted efforts of the central and local governments. After all, public land is not just an ordinary commodity that can potentially bring in a large financial return; it has embedded interests and value for the public. The allocation and utilization of public land should be in line with the principles of fairness, reasonability and sustainability.
Last week’s public land auction raised concerns about its rationality. The Taichung City Government should revisit its mechanism for setting floor prices. If the city government is still unwilling to sell the land to the central government, it should consider other options and put the interests of the public first.
The government and local industries breathed a sigh of relief after Shin Kong Life Insurance Co last week said it would relinquish surface rights for two plots in Taipei’s Beitou District (北投) to Nvidia Corp. The US chip-design giant’s plan to expand its local presence will be crucial for Taiwan to safeguard its core role in the global artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem and to advance the nation’s AI development. The land in dispute is owned by the Taipei City Government, which in 2021 sold the rights to develop and use the two plots of land, codenamed T17 and T18, to the
US President Donald Trump has announced his eagerness to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un while in South Korea for the APEC summit. That implies a possible revival of US-North Korea talks, frozen since 2019. While some would dismiss such a move as appeasement, renewed US engagement with North Korea could benefit Taiwan’s security interests. The long-standing stalemate between Washington and Pyongyang has allowed Beijing to entrench its dominance in the region, creating a myth that only China can “manage” Kim’s rogue nation. That dynamic has allowed Beijing to present itself as an indispensable power broker: extracting concessions from Washington, Seoul
Taiwan’s labor force participation rate among people aged 65 or older was only 9.9 percent for 2023 — far lower than in other advanced countries, Ministry of Labor data showed. The rate is 38.3 percent in South Korea, 25.7 percent in Japan and 31.5 percent in Singapore. On the surface, it might look good that more older adults in Taiwan can retire, but in reality, it reflects policies that make it difficult for elderly people to participate in the labor market. Most workplaces lack age-friendly environments, and few offer retraining programs or flexible job arrangements for employees older than 55. As
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
RSS