A fire in a lithium battery warehouse in New Taipei City’s Shenkeng District (深坑) on Tuesday last week emitted plumes of smoke that polluted a broad area of the city and neighboring Taipei.
The administration of Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) issued a toothless five-point statement after the incident that could hardly calm the anger of people living in these cities.
Residents were left wondering how poisonous the air was and whether the city government would determine who was responsible for the fire and provide compensation to those affected.
In a statement, Chiang expressed sympathy with the affected residents. He also called on the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection to inspect the scene of the blaze and the surrounding areas.
However, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Clinical Poison Center director Yen Tzung-hai (顏宗海) said that burning lithium batteries could emit hydrogen fluoride — a highly toxic gas that could damage respiratory tracts and lungs and cause pneumonitis if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
Does Chiang and his administration think this is just “general air pollution”?
Following the fire, medical specialists urged residents in the affected areas — including New Taipei City’s Zhonghe (中和), Yonghe (中和) and Xindian (新店) districts and the Muzha (木柵) area of Taipei’s Wenshan District (文山) — to keep their doors and windows closed all day. They also advised residents to avoid going outside, and wear N95 masks if they must go out.
They especially advised people with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to seek medical attention as soon as possible if they experience chest tightness or wheezing.
Chiang and his administration do not seem to have fully grasped the situation, as they only asked the Department of Environmental Protection to test the air quality in affected areas.
Surely they should have asked health departments and specialists to join the effort in helping everyone affected fully understand the health risks associated with a lithium battery fire.
As for the New Taipei City Government, its initial actions were also insufficient.
The New Taipei City Department of Environmental Protection said that it would pursue legal action should it determine that there was a “spontaneous combustion due to improper management ... that causes odorous pollutants or toxic gases,” as stipulated under Article 32 of the Air Pollution Control Act (空氣污染防制法).
The department’s response was too conservative and was unable to dispel the fears of residents nor resolve any threat or damage to their health.
Residents of Taipei and New Taipei City need politicians who are willing and capable of taking responsibility in emergencies, not civil servants who are only capable of doing the bare minimum in accordance with the law.
Consider the response of Shenkeng-based Kinpo Group. As a private enterprise, it took the initiative to safeguard its employees’ health by allowing them to work from home after the incident.
Looking at how efficiently a business like Kinpo responded, should the Taipei and New Taipei City governments not act as quickly to determine who was responsible for this toxic incident?
Should they not also promise to compensate the affected residents?
Reggie Sun is deputy director of the New Party’s public opinion research center.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS