Which is more important, environmental protection or economic development?
This is a question every government — in Taiwan’s case, whether led by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party — must face. As the economy recovers slowly and the year-end mayoral elections draw near, protest after protest has seen farmers gather in front of the Presidential Office, including one group led by Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬). The question has become an issue that could affect the elections.
Courts have ordered the immediate suspension of all building activity at the Cising (七星) and Erlin (二林) expansion projects at the Central Taiwan Science Park (中科園區). The courts, which are handling two administrative appeals, have said development might pose environmental risks and stressed the importance of environmental impact studies.
In 2001, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) conditionally passed the Cising expansion project’s environmental review and decided there was no need for a second-stage environmental impact study. Environmental groups filed an administrative appeal because they felt continued development would have a negative impact on the health of local residents. According to the Taipei High Administrative Court, the first-stage environmental review is only a written study, and the real review begins with the second-stage impact study. It also said sewage from the Cising expansion project would be discharged at the park’s northern side, which would affect irrigation water for farmers and drinking water for residents. The court therefore ruled against the EPA, and on Jan. 22, the Supreme Administrative Court denied the EPA’s appeal.
In November last year, the EPA announced that its environmental impact study of the Central Taiwan Science Park’s Erlin expansion project had been conditionally approved. More than 100 residents of Siangsihliao (相思寮) in Erlin Township filed a complaint with the Cabinet’s Petitions and Appeals Committee asking that the impact assessment be declared invalid. After the committee delayed handling the issue, Siangsihliao residents asked the court to stop all development. On July 30, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that all development at the science park must be suspended.
In addition to these residential protests and court decisions, more than 1,000 academics have signed an appeal against a Kuokuang Petrochemical development project in the area, and former Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) said it would be an unfortunate decision for Taiwan if the project were allowed to go ahead.
The court decision suspending the development of a plant worth hundreds of billions of NT dollars in investment has the Cabinet jumping with anger.
The EPA, which is supposed to protect the environment, said the court “must take responsibility for the consequences,” which proves that the government places development ahead of the environment.
Experience tells us something about the conflict between environmental protection and development. Under environmental legislation, every major development plan requires an environmental impact study followed up by patient communication with local residents. To improve the economy, the government now wants to shorten the process and skip environmental assessments. This led to public discontent and the government’s lost lawsuit. The government caused this situation — therefore it is not the courts that must take responsibility for the consequences.
There are many alternative means of promoting economic development, but a destroyed environment can never be restored. Government policy must give priority to environmental concerns. The government must not forget its place and must continue to communicate with the public as required by law. If it doesn’t, constant environmental disputes will cause major problems for the KMT in the year-end mayoral elections.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS