On Monday, the Taipei District Court ruled that former Taipei People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) could be released without bail amid a probe into alleged corruption involving a redevelopment project.
The judge said there was insufficient evidence to justify detaining Ko, as the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office failed to prove whether Ko knew the decision to increase the Core Pacific City project’s floor area ratio (FAR) was illegal.
As Ko did not participate in the meetings of the Taipei Urban Planning Commission and does not have relevant experience, he relied on the expertise of members of the commission as well as then-mayor Pong Chen-sheng (彭振聲) to decide the matter, the judge added.
There are some problems with the applicable scope and extent of the judge’s reasoning.
First, Pong would not have been willing to make the decision on his own, and the reports given to Ko about the project show that this case is critical, as relevant laws and regulations would not have allowed them to increase the FAR to the extent that they did.
Thus, prior to Pong presenting the plan to Ko, he would have already held several meetings with the Urban Planning Commission and other administrative units.
The self-initiated incentives for innovation, green buildings and other measures for the project did not adhere to the requirements to qualify for increasing the project’s FAR. Minutes of the commission’s meetings were attached to give Ko a basis for making his decision.
This is the process all administrative agencies must undergo when handing off proposals to an administrative leader, and they must include relevant attachments.
Second, based on the first point, this is a severe case of breaking the law. How could Ko not understand the conditions that required reinforcement? How could the judge make a preliminary conclusion that Ko could not have understood the legal grounds for the case just because he did not attend the commission’s meeting? If Ko had no understanding of the Core Pacific City project, then how could he have made any decision at all about the redevelopment plan?
Third, the judge said Ko lacked relevant expertise. However, there is no way any administrative leader would possess the full knowledge of an expert. Administrators — including mayors — all rely on the solicited advice of experts from the city’s departments to gain knowledge for the purpose of promoting public works and policymaking. How else could administrators push their policies?
Fourth, the judge believed Ko relied on the decisions of the commission, as well as Pong’s opinion, and did not know that the FAR incentives for Core Pacific City broke the law.
The judge also said that Ko did not give specific instructions to increase the FAR. However, there is the matter of Ko and Core Pacific Group chairman Sheen Ching-jing (沈慶京) frequently having close dealings in secret.
Moreover, during Ko’s first term as Taipei mayor, Sheen already petitioned the city government to increase the FAR. After the Ko administration rejected that increase, Sheen filed a lawsuit against the city government that eventually went nowhere. How could Ko not have known that this case already went far beyond the bounds of the law?
Lastly, after Ko finally accepted Sheen’s petition to increase the FAR, Ko palmed off all responsibility onto Pong. How could Ko not know that the initiatives proposed by Pong and others were walking a legal tightrope by giving Core Pacific City such a massive amount of floor space? Pong no doubt would have had to explain to Ko the function of incentive regulations from expanding the FAR.
The reasoning behind the Taipei District Court’s decision to release Ko without bail does not align with the public service activities and duties of an executive administration.
The court has yet to give consideration to the full account of this case, which has been ongoing for several years, including Ko and Shen’s close dealings.
The court was not rigorous enough in its review.
Michael Lin is a retired diplomat, formerly posted to the US.
Translated by Tim Smith
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS