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
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
The arrest in France of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has brought into sharp focus one of the major conflicts of our age. On one hand, we want privacy in our digital lives, which is why we like the kind of end-to-end encryption Telegram promises. On the other, we want the government to be able to stamp out repugnant online activities — such as child pornography or terrorist plotting. The reality is that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Durov last month was charged with complicity in crimes taking place on the app, including distributing child pornography,
RSS