It has been reported that the Taipei Department of Urban Development ordered the closure of a recycling yard in Wanhua District (萬華) because it contravened the Regulations on Land Use Zoning Control (土地使用分區管制自治條例). According to the law, a recycling yard may not be established in a residential area. The neighborhood applauded the decision, saying that they have been bothered by scavengers’ noises and trash, as well as traffic problems nearby.
The city government has the right to shut down business premises that contravene the law, and problems resulting from the activities of scavengers should also be properly handled.
Yet the matter is not as simple as it seems.
The report said that the recycling yard has been functioning for 50 years, and more than 200 people take their recyclables there to make a living. They are usually in their later years, most are from low and middle-to-low-income households, and some have disabilities.
Every day, they take lots of items to the yard in exchange for cash. In many ways, this recycling yard in Wanhua is a bank for the impoverished.
The city government seems to believe that it must be closed for the greater good. I beg to differ.
A-hua (啊華), a 56-year-old woman, is one of the people selling her recyclables there. Unlike many others who come with carts, she rides her bicycle to the recycling yard with only a basket of items. She lives on Huanhe S Road without electricity, as she cannot pay the bill. For five years, she has been using candles if she needs light in the night.
She once took off her hat and showed me the scars on her head. When she was younger, she was run over by a gravel truck. She has had brain surgery and a tracheostomy. As a result, A-hua is slower than others when expressing herself and reacting to the outside world. She has a hard time finding a job.
Had it not been for her parents, she would not have survived. Unfortunately, her parents passed away five years ago. She suddenly lost her support, and because of the house left to her by her parents, A-hua cannot claim subsidies from official agencies, so she earns her living by collecting and selling the recyclables.
However, due to her health, it is difficult for her to collect as many recyclables as others. A-hua has to bring her items to the recycling yard eight times a day to receive about NT$30. This is how much she can spend on food per day.
If the recycling yard is shut down, how will A-hua earn a living? What about other people who rely on this form of income? The city government must do something to help them.
Social work and welfare agencies should investigate these people’s financial circumstances and living conditions. They must ask whether those from low and middle-to-low-income families have enough social security. They must help those whose households are not categorized as low and middle-to-low-income obtain the subsidies they are eligible for, or reach out to non-governmental organizations to assist with their problems.
The best-case scenario is that these people find jobs. Meanwhile, the matter of waste recycling should be regarded as an environmental issue that involves the entire public.
As for the establishment of a recycling yard and where it should be, that is up to the wisdom of the city government to decide.
Yu Ying-fu is a lawyer and honorary chairperson of the Pearl S. Buck Foundation in Taipei.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
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