The recent heckling of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at a protest against the proposed construction of a plant by Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co in Changhua County put the controversial issue back in the spotlight. The trouble is, the proximity of the presidential election has colored the debate because of political agendas, and this has obfuscated matters.
The issue of whether to build the Kuokuang plant involves both the nation’s economic development and the protection of its environment. The project was originally proposed when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power, and the current governing party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has put its weight behind the project. However, the parties have since taken opposing stances, each spouting statistics and reports to support their arguments, which just prevents the public from getting an honest perspective of the pros and cons. The clamor of politicking has stifled constructive debate.
The governing party, be it the KMT or the DPP, has backed the project, citing economic benefits and job creation in Yunlin and Changhua counties. When environmental concerns were raised, the DPP turned on a dime and started crying bloody murder. The KMT, by comparison, supports the project, but is sitting back and watching how things transpire. Meanwhile, construction has been left treading water.
Both the KMT and the DPP are being evasive when it comes to whether there is a real need for the plant or what it means for the nation’s petrochemical industry and economic development. Nor have they been particularly forthcoming on the potential environmental risks. The debate has consequently been informed by political interests and emotive claims, neither of which are going to solve any problems.
DPP presidential candidate hopefuls Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) have voiced opposition to the plant. They both owe the public an explanation of how they went from a position of supporting the project to siding with environmentalists. Tsai has suggested moving Taiwan’s petrochemical industry to the Middle East. Even former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has questioned the advisability of the Tsai’s proposal. Tsai needs to explain what the thinking behind her plan is.
Anti-Kuokuang sentiment fomented when people became suspicious that the Ma administration had lost its neutrality and decided to push ahead with the project even before the Environmental Impact Assessment had been completed. Public Construction Commission Minister Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) has expressed concern about the impact of the plant on water and soil conservation, and the potential worsening of the problem of land subsidence, which may even compromise the safety of the Yunlin stretch of the High Speed Rail. His opinion has not changed. This is something that should be taken very seriously.
We have learned from last year’s fires at Formosa Petrochemical Corp’s sixth naphtha cracker and the current nuclear incident in Japan that just because a government says something does not make it true. People are more sensitive now about the possibility of an environmental disaster. If the government does give the go-ahead for the plant, can Ma guarantee the decision will not come back to haunt Taiwan?
Cities in Changhua County and Fangyuan Township (芳苑) need economic regeneration, but is Kuokuang the answer? Should the plant turn into an environmental nightmare, could local people cope?
The public needs to see constructive debate and straight answers, not emotive political diatribes.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS