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
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS