With the cloud of a recall vote hanging over the head of Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and the overturning on Friday last week of the first rulings on liability for the 2014 gas explosions in the city, the questions of whether mayors have time for distractions beyond the direct remit of their office and of who is accountable for public safety disasters has come under public scrutiny.
On Sunday, a fire broke out at a Cashbox Partyworld KTV outlet on Taipei’s Linsen N Road, leaving five dead and more than 40 injured, including one in critical condition. It should never have happened.
An investigation has given rise to questions such as why the sprinkler system was disabled on the B1, fourth, fifth and eighth floors of the building, and how a fatal fire could break out at an establishment that had only recently passed one of its regular fire safety inspections.
At the time of the fire, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was in southern Taiwan, dealing with Taiwan People’s Party business.
The question is not why he was away at the time of the fire: His presence would not have prevented it. The question is whether his duties as chairman of a political party are distracting him too much from his mayoral duties.
One of Ko’s highlighted moves early on in his first term was taking on Taipei Dome contractor Farglory Group over concerns that unauthorized changes to the approved blueprints for the project might cause major public safety problems.
Yesterday, the heat was on him, as Ko went to Taipei City Hall to face questions over fire safety inspections.
To his credit, he did not — on this occasion — shy away from accepting responsibility. Asked whether he would apologize to Taipei residents, who trusted his administration to ensure their safety, he said that not only was he willing to apologize, but that he felt ashamed.
He also acknowledged serious legal loopholes in the inspection system and promised that he would address them.
Ko faced a barrage of questions about how it could be that, despite Cashbox passing 20 fire safety inspections in the past two years, four of its six branches in the city failed spot checks following Sunday’s fire and what this says about the effectiveness of the regular inspections.
He was asked to clarify exactly why inspectors had not demanded to see updated fire prevention and emergency evacuation plans reflecting structural changes after a fire safety inspection on March 30 at the Linsen branch found that a temporary wooden wall had been erected on B1. He was also pressed on why inspectors from the Taipei City Building Administration Office on Wednesday last week failed to challenge management about a false decorative wall installed on the first floor.
On this occasion, it is right that the buck stops with Ko. Questions over whether he should be dividing his time between his mayoral duties and other political responsibilities are legitimate.
However, fire safety hazards, lax regulations and loosely enforced inspections are certainly not the preserve of Taipei: The fire is only the latest example of avoidable disasters that have happened nationwide.
The responsibility of ensuring that building safety regulations are observed, whether they be entertainment venues or commercial and residential blocks, also lies with companies, building management and the people in them.
A city government is responsible for carrying out inspections. That does not mean people or businesses are free to erect false walls or make structural changes without amending fire safety plans, turn off sprinkler systems or leave obstructions in stairwells.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS