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
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS