Chairman of Taiwan People's PartyKe WenzheRecently, he was involved in the Jinghua City floor area ratio fraud case, and was ruled by the court on Monday (September 9) to be returned without bail. In response to this case, Zeng Guangzong, a distinguished professor of the Department of Architecture at Chung Yuan University, published a long post on Facebook on Tuesday (2rd), emphasizing that the reasons and content of the proposal for the Beijing City Volume Bonus Case are both illegal and extremely unreasonable. Based on his professional judgment, he once He expressed his "opposition" to the Taipei City Council many times and bluntly stated that politicians should not be led away by the word "I don't know."
Zeng Guangzong put forward 5 personal opinions in the article, criticizing and making suggestions to all parties involved in the case. He emphasized that politicians should have the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Especially when facing cases involving huge interests, they should carefully examine objections and the reasons behind them. Regarding the competent authorities, he criticized the Metropolitan Development Bureau for failing to adhere to a professional stance and should not send illegal cases to the Metropolitan Committee, which was suspected of shirking responsibility.
In addition, Zeng Guangzong pointed out that volume rewards are public property and should be shared by all citizens and should not be easily transferred to private consortiums. He emphasized that as a member of the Metropolitan Committee, he should uphold a fair and neutral stance, resolutely oppose proposals that violate laws and regulations, and avoid becoming an accomplice of illegal decision-making.
Zeng Guangzong also pointed out that the volume bonus was originally a well-intentioned mechanism, but due to the huge interests involved, many drawbacks occurred in the operation of the mechanism. Zeng Guangzong called on the central competent authority to re-examine and amend the current volume reward mechanism from the legal and enforcement aspects to ensure that public interests are not harmed.
It is reported that Ke Wenzhe said with a solemn expression when he walked out of the Beijing Examination Center in the early morning of the 2nd that he had been subjected to extreme oppression and abuse by the prosecutors in the past two days. During his final defense, Ke emphasized to the judge that the so-called 2% floor area ratio of Jinghua City was transferred to the city that year. After the Urban Planning Commission, "I had no involvement at all. As mayor, I did not interfere with a single case." Therefore, he only learned about the floor area ratio of Capital City after media reports in March and April this year.
Ke Wenzhe said that the prosecutor had no evidence to prove that Ke Wenzhe intervened in this case. During the two-day interrogation process, he already knew that the prosecutor's attitude was quite clear, so he also told the judge, please don't be embarrassed. The most difficult thing this time is Judge, "He withstood all the pressure."
However, Taipei City Councilor Miao Boya questioned Ke Wenzhe in person three years ago about Beijing City's volume bonus, and also pointed out the objections of many metropolitan committee members; Taipei City Councilor Jian Shupei of the Democratic Progressive Party also pointed out that including questions from councilors and presentations to the mayor The four incidents of Qing Qing, Ke personally signing official documents and attending the groundbreaking of Jinghua Park all show that Ke Wenzhe is telling lies.
Zeng Guangzong’s 5 views are as follows:
1. For politicians:
Politicians are at a certain height and must be able to distinguish right from wrong. Especially when facing the Capital City case, which involves such huge interests and has gone through six years of deliberation, they should not just say "I don't know." Moreover, some members expressed objections during the period, saying that the case was controversial and that it was necessary to listen and understand the reasons for the objections and the pros and cons.
2. For the competent authorities:
As the competent authority, the Metropolitan Development Bureau must have a basic professional stance and judgment on this case. It should not directly send illegal cases to the Metropolitan Committee. Doing so will cause injustice to the members and be suspected of shirking responsibility. . Moreover, during this period, we should not help the applicant to come up with procedures and methods for "unblocking" the situation. We hope that the inspection and commissioning units will take a closer look at this point.
3. For private financial groups:
It is reasonable for a private consortium to obtain its original interests (statutory building volume), but if it wants to steal additional building volume (volume bonus) through illegal procedures and methods, it must not be done, because the volume bonus is public property and is for all. Commonly owned by citizens, this kind of public interest must be effectively protected and should not be given to private consortiums at will.
4. For members:
Members serving on the Metropolitan Committee should review relevant proposals from a third-party, impartial and neutral standpoint. If they encounter violations of relevant laws or inappropriate content of proposals, they should have the courage to raise objections in a timely manner. Especially in important review meetings, if you do not speak or the content of your speech is very implicit and vague, it will eventually be regarded as "agree" by the agency. This point needs to be paid attention to.
5. For the volume reward mechanism:
This is the most important point; the volume bonus was originally a well-intentioned mechanism, but because there were so many interests involved behind it, all the controversies including the Jinghua City case arose from this mechanism. In fact, not only Taipei City, but also other counties and cities currently have the problem of overly excessive volumetric incentives, and even lead to various disadvantages. This phenomenon not only violates fairness and justice, but also imposes a huge environmental burden on the city. In the end, the entire population will still have to pay for the resulting urban environmental problems.
Regarding the Jinghua City case, most of the current media focus on politicians, but I personally think that the Jinghua City case is a very good "civic education" opportunity for the public, through which we can re-examine politicians, competent authorities, and the public. Consortium, which should be of great educational significance to the establishment of civil society.
Relatively speaking, it is a very appropriate "professional education" case for the professional fields such as architecture and urban planning. The first priority is to clearly define the roles and ethics of relevant committee members, and more importantly, to re-examine the current "capacity reward mechanism". At this time, it depends on the central competent authority to review and revise it as a whole from the legal and executive aspects. In order to reduce the occurrence of disadvantages and promote the application of volume rewards where there is an urgent and real need.
