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
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
RSS