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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS