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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS