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 New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS