Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) New Taipei City Councilor Liao Hsien-hsiang (廖先翔), who is running in January’s legislative election, recently challenged Vice President William Lai (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, on the legality of a property his family owns in New Taipei City’s Wanli District (萬里).
Liao said that his family is willing to demolish an illegal structure they own in Sijhih District (汐止), and asked if Lai’s family would do the same.
Lai’s campaign headquarters said that Liao was trying to dodge the controversy surrounding the construction of his family’s luxury villa, which allegedly encroached on state-owned land, involved the cultivation of a slopeland conservation zone and damaged a water quality protection area.
Lai’s office said that was completely different from the Lai family’s property, which is a residence converted from a workers’ dormitory that had been in a state of disrepair for many years.
Lai’s old house is reportedly on land that was originally designated for mining. In 1963, mining authorities approved a mining plan in accordance with the Mining Act (礦業法), but in 1981 they classified the plot as in a slopeland conservation zone.
Under Article 54 of the central government’s Regulations on Non-urban Land Use Control (非都市土地使用管制規則), before an application can been approved to reclassify mining land as land for other uses, the Bureau of Mines — recently merged into the Geological Survey and Mining Management Agency — must, in accordance with the original mining plan, examine and approve the land’s permitted uses.
In such cases where a piece of land was long ago designated for mining, but where the mining plan has since been annulled, there is no mechanism or law to follow regarding the standard procedure for dealing with the original mining facilities, such as workers’ dormitories, and how they might be used.
In contrast, the luxurious villa built in 2011 by Liao’s father, Liao Cheng-liang (廖正良), which occupies an area of 800 ping (2,645m2), not only allegedly encroaches on state-owned land, but is situated in a water conservation area that is also susceptible to landslides, contravening several laws.
This is in contrast to Lai’s old house, which only occupies about 30 ping, and has existed since 1951, long before the area plan came into effect. After many years, the building fell into disrepair. It was refurbished in 2003, which was long before June 2, 2011, when the New Taipei City Government promulgated its guidelines for approving and issuing proof of legal buildings.
Furthermore, Lai’s old house was originally a miners’ dormitory that was built long ago in accordance with the Mining Act, making it quite different from what is now known as an “illegal structure.”
Even though verbal confrontations are expected during elections, statements should still be based on facts and laws, and should not disregard them. Given that the New Taipei City Land Administration Department has not yet been able to determine the status of Lai’s property, it is highly presumptuous to call it an “illegal structure.”
Furthermore, Lai’s attitude is clear. He respects the conclusions of government agencies, including the Geological Survey and Mining Management Agency and the Taipei City Government, and would cooperate in addressing the matter. In view of these facts, lawmakers should desist from misleading the public.
Lee Hong-jen is a professor of law at National Taichung University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS