On Monday, the Taipei District Court ruled that former Taipei People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) could be released without bail amid a probe into alleged corruption involving a redevelopment project.
The judge said there was insufficient evidence to justify detaining Ko, as the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office failed to prove whether Ko knew the decision to increase the Core Pacific City project’s floor area ratio (FAR) was illegal.
As Ko did not participate in the meetings of the Taipei Urban Planning Commission and does not have relevant experience, he relied on the expertise of members of the commission as well as then-mayor Pong Chen-sheng (彭振聲) to decide the matter, the judge added.
There are some problems with the applicable scope and extent of the judge’s reasoning.
First, Pong would not have been willing to make the decision on his own, and the reports given to Ko about the project show that this case is critical, as relevant laws and regulations would not have allowed them to increase the FAR to the extent that they did.
Thus, prior to Pong presenting the plan to Ko, he would have already held several meetings with the Urban Planning Commission and other administrative units.
The self-initiated incentives for innovation, green buildings and other measures for the project did not adhere to the requirements to qualify for increasing the project’s FAR. Minutes of the commission’s meetings were attached to give Ko a basis for making his decision.
This is the process all administrative agencies must undergo when handing off proposals to an administrative leader, and they must include relevant attachments.
Second, based on the first point, this is a severe case of breaking the law. How could Ko not understand the conditions that required reinforcement? How could the judge make a preliminary conclusion that Ko could not have understood the legal grounds for the case just because he did not attend the commission’s meeting? If Ko had no understanding of the Core Pacific City project, then how could he have made any decision at all about the redevelopment plan?
Third, the judge said Ko lacked relevant expertise. However, there is no way any administrative leader would possess the full knowledge of an expert. Administrators — including mayors — all rely on the solicited advice of experts from the city’s departments to gain knowledge for the purpose of promoting public works and policymaking. How else could administrators push their policies?
Fourth, the judge believed Ko relied on the decisions of the commission, as well as Pong’s opinion, and did not know that the FAR incentives for Core Pacific City broke the law.
The judge also said that Ko did not give specific instructions to increase the FAR. However, there is the matter of Ko and Core Pacific Group chairman Sheen Ching-jing (沈慶京) frequently having close dealings in secret.
Moreover, during Ko’s first term as Taipei mayor, Sheen already petitioned the city government to increase the FAR. After the Ko administration rejected that increase, Sheen filed a lawsuit against the city government that eventually went nowhere. How could Ko not have known that this case already went far beyond the bounds of the law?
Lastly, after Ko finally accepted Sheen’s petition to increase the FAR, Ko palmed off all responsibility onto Pong. How could Ko not know that the initiatives proposed by Pong and others were walking a legal tightrope by giving Core Pacific City such a massive amount of floor space? Pong no doubt would have had to explain to Ko the function of incentive regulations from expanding the FAR.
The reasoning behind the Taipei District Court’s decision to release Ko without bail does not align with the public service activities and duties of an executive administration.
The court has yet to give consideration to the full account of this case, which has been ongoing for several years, including Ko and Shen’s close dealings.
The court was not rigorous enough in its review.
Michael Lin is a retired diplomat, formerly posted to the US.
Translated by Tim Smith
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