Following President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) official apology to the nation’s Aborigines on Aug. 1 last year, many assumed that the government would adhere to the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) announced on Feb. 5, 2005.
However, on March 14, then-Bureau of Mining Affairs director Chu Ming-chao (朱明昭) approved an application by Asia Cement to renew its mining license near Taroko National Park for 20 years.
Chu’s retirement immediately after the approval has led to suspicions of a quid pro quo deal.
Late film director Chi Po-lin’s (齊柏林) observations of Asia Cement’s quarry in Hualien led to a public outcry over the renewal.
About 21,000 people petitioned the government to revoke the license, while environmentalists demanded that the government conduct an environmental impact assessment on the mining site and follow Article 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act.
Premier Lin Chuan (林全) ordered a review of the approval process.
On June 19, the Ministry of Economic Affairs confirmed that the license would be renewed, as it did not find anything illegal regarding the application.
Ironically, Tsai on July 14 presented a special award at Chi’s memorial service to his family for the director’s contribution to the nation.
Far Eastern Group chairman Douglas Hsu (徐旭東) on June 27 defended the quarry by saying the pit could be turned into a lake to raise fish, a point refuted by former minister of the interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源), who said that artificial reservoirs can leak, which could lead to dam failure.
Naturally formed landslide dams are demolished to prevent flooding should failure occur.
Indeed, there is a Truku community near the quarry.
That Hsu has failed to consider this suggests he cares little about the environment.
Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Yang Wei-fu (楊偉甫) on July 18 said that the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act is unclear, adding that even though the government respects the law, until the legislature passes amendments to the Mining Act (礦業法), it would be difficult to enforce.
Aboriginal studies academics are well aware that since the passage of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act, before carrying out any research on Aborigines, researchers must explain their project at a meeting and obtain a signed agreement from the people involved and submit a proposal to the research ethics committee for review.
Why was Asia Cement given special permission to skip those steps?
As several reports have said, many lawmakers believe the ministry prefers a version of the amendments to the Mining Act that is biased in favor of mining companies.
Cement production involves such issues as national land preservation, the public interest and infrastructure, which raises the question if more licenses should be issued to cement companies to satisfy domestic demand or if environmental impact assessment requirements should be stricter, mining areas restricted and exports banned. Perhaps cement should be imported? These are issues that the government must clarify, and it should let the public decide, perhaps in a referendum.
Another problem is the draft amendments to the Mining Act, which include the unfair article that allows the ministry to grant mining permission to companies when three-quarters of local residents agree.
The review process for the amendments has been slow. So far, legislators have agreed on only one amendment.
However, the budget review for the infrastructure program has already been scheduled for the third extraordinary session.
It is unknown when the legislature can finish reviewing the amendments, but Asia Cement will not stop its mining operations until some major changes have been introduced.
Andrew Cheng is a professor of psychiatry.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
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 last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS