On Oct. 11, the Taipei High Administrative Court revoked the permit for the Central Taiwan Science Park’s (CTSP) fourth-phase development project in Changhua County’s Erlin Township (二林). It is well worth investigating how the permit came to be issued in the first place.
The first factor to consider is the choice of location. The site proposed for the park’s fourth phase covers more than 600 hectares in the heart of central Taiwan’s most important farming region. The area is short of water and suffers from subsidence. Picking this location runs completely contrary to Taiwan’s national land-use system.
The National Science Council got round this fact by sleight of hand. It excluded, or minimized the weighting of, important selection criteria such as the master plan, water supply and construction limits, when converting them into selection indices. In contrast, it gave heavy weighting to construction potential, construction procedure and overall assessment (which combined to be 71.25 percent of the total score). That is how Erlin was chosen.
The second factor is that the Ministry of the Interior’s Construction and Planning Agency arranged for the ad-hoc case group of the ministry’s Regional Planning Committee to hold eight meetings over four months in 2009 — an average of one meeting every two weeks. From the CTSP’s third-phase development on the Houli Farm (后里) and its proposed expansion on the Cising Farm (七星) to the fourth-phase development project, the CTSP Administration regularly assured committee members that there would be no further development, yet repeatedly submitted new development proposals for the committee’s approval. Some committee members felt that they were being taken for a ride.
A meeting was then held on Nov. 12, 2009 — excluding members of the public and civic groups — where the project was approved. There were 11 votes in favor, including two people who only gave conditional support. The nine who supported the development plan unconditionally were official government delegates sent to vote the government’s way. The five remaining committee members who voted against the development plan were all experts and academics.
From the choice of location through to the granting of the construction permit, the CTSP’s fourth-phase development plan demonstrates how experts go along with government, how science acts at the behest of politics and how administrative departments surrender their authority.
This shabby fraud has turned experts and officials into political tools, and has made a joke of the nation’s entire land-use plan. It has led to scandals such as the CTSP’s attempt to divert water from farms in Sijhou Township (溪州), the release of industrial waste water into the Jhuoshui River (濁水溪) and the expropriation of farmland in Siangsihliao (相思寮). The whole thing has got completely out of hand.
Seen in this light, the recent court verdict simply seeks to put the national land-use plan, administrative departments and the system of review by experts back on track, and to help the public understand that sustainable development can only be achieved if economic development and the construction of science parks comply with national land-use regulations.
The verdict is also a test of whether those in control of state machinery, having used their influence to undermine the administrative system, will now try to undermine the judiciary as well. The interior ministry is of course entitled to appeal the verdict, but to do so would be further proof that it is no more than a toothless political tool that is beyond hope of redemption.
Liao Pen-chuan is an associate professor in National Taipei University’s Department of Real Estate and Built Environment and chair of Citizen of the Earth, Taiwan.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS