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.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS