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.
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