Recent Government responses to articles and blogs opposing the construction of a new Kuokuang Petrochemical plant are a little disconcerting.
One Cabinet member simply brushed aside what people might think of the government’s actions, not giving a second’s thought that there might be something to the criticism. Nor did he see fit to address the root cause of the issue in his vacuous response.
The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) likes to keep an eye on what is happening in the blogosphere and sometimes responds to individual blogs. One blogger named Tottoro, for example, wrote a Chinese-language entry titled “Want to live a long life? Then don’t live near a petrochemical plant.” The EPA duly responded, requiring the “offending” blogger to publish the text of its letter on the blog. Neither is the EPA above sending post office evidentiary letters, hoping this would discourage bloggers from writing similar pieces. In popular parlance today, it’s intended to create a “chilling effect.”
The Industrial Development Bureau (IDB), for its part, dealt with the increasingly vocal opposition to the Kuokuang construction project in its own fashion: first, by using public funds to publish notices in dailies on why we cannot do without the Kuokuang plant; and second, by paying every blogger who signed up NT$5,000 on the condition that they praise the petrochemical industry in their blogs. The question is, how far does this go in changing the public’s mind or in resolving their plight?
In responding to an article written by Severia Lu (陸詩薇) about the Kuokuang project, two Cabinet members also saw fit not to directly address accusations leveled in the article. Lu wrote about the effects the construction of the Kuokuang plant will have — in terms of quality and quantity — on the nation’s food security, resource allocation, efforts to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions, as well as the inherent contradictions between what the government says it wants to do and what it is actually doing. Instead, the two officials chose to engage in empty word games. This goes some way to explaining the slump in the government’s popularity ratings and level of support.
Whenever the government decides to take a controversial development project under its wing and rush through an environmental impact assessment (EIA), it asks the public to trust that it would handle the process in a strictly professional manner. There are, however, at least two cases that shed some doubt on the veracity of this claim to professionalism.
On Dec 9, 2009, the EPA announced the results of an EIA statement for a certain hotel development project, saying that it had passed, albeit with conditions attached. The second of these conditions was that the number of land crabs should continue to be monitored, and that if their numbers fall below half of the benchmark (based on a percentage of the number recorded during a 2007 survey), construction or operation of the hotel would have to be halted.
We shall leave aside for the moment the question of how one can accurately keep tabs on the number of land crabs or whose responsibility it is to do the monitoring, or to check whether it is being properly monitored. Neither shall we question the fact that the directive was never submitted in written form, rendering it pretty much toothless. The more pressing question is how can an official institution, ostensibly charged with “environmental protection,” allow big business to build a hotel on land known to be a major habitat for land crabs? And since we’re asking, how can it countenance the loss of a full half of the land crab population (which, according to the survey, stood at only 25,000 at the time). This does not bode well for the rich natural ecology of the wetlands at the intended location of the Kuokuang petrochemicals plant, nor for the local fishing industry.
Another case in question is the review for the Kuokuang project. The second stage of the EIA assessment for the Kuokuang project has already had its fourth review by a panel of experts. Prior to this, there had already been 17 meetings by experts on various topics.
According to Clause 2 of Article 12 of the Guidelines for Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Activities (開發行為環境影響評估作業準則) and the fourth item in the technical specifications for assessments of marine ecologies, Kuokuang is required to submit a marine ecology monitoring and compensation plan.
Furthermore, according to Article 11 of the specifications for environmental impact assessments for industrial area development projects, it is obliged to provide figures regarding the economic impact of the proposed plant on the farming and fishing industries, the results of a survey on the number of fishing households, and details of its plan for compensating those that are affected.
To date, it has submitted none of these legally required documents, something that the EPA has pretty much turned a blind eye to. If the EPA is acting professionally, why has it neglected to chase after Kuokuang about these documents? Can one really trust the EPA when it says it is not showing favoritism?
Given that Kuokuang has failed to comply with the aforementioned legal obligations, the EPA is bound to act in accordance with Article 13.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法). This article states that the “competent authority” — the EPA, in this case — must notify the developer — Kuokuang — “to make corrections within a limited time period.”
It also states: “For those developers that fail to make corrections within the limited time period or whose corrections fail to comply with competent authority regulations, the competent authority shall notify the industry competent authority in writing to reject the application for development activity permission and send a copy to the developer.”
From that point on, there is no need for the EPA to continue expending public resources in reviewing the development project in question. The EPA has made a mess of things, pulling out all the stops to accommodate the developer, and the public ought to know. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council of Agriculture are also duty-bound to do something about this.
Chan Shun-kuei is chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association’s environmental law committee.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS