A year ago, Hau Lung-bin (
It has been a year since then. The slogans remain, but how many stores continue to abide by the policy? Our society has paid a price for the policy over the past year; how can we now let our efforts go down the drain?
The policy was already being challenged while Hau was still in office. Despite the EPA's determination, local agencies had neither sufficient manpower to inspect stores nor the will to enforce the policy.
A habit that was yet to be established thus soon collapsed.
The public still hasn't developed the habit of using shopping bags from home and does not mind paying NT$1 for a plastic bag when shopping. Most stores have resumed the old practice of giving away free plastic bags.
Early in December, I spotted a very interesting news story -- paper bag manufacturers solicited the EPA to restrict the use of paper bags too. This weird idea shows the failure of the policy to limit the use of plastics. Since people do not mind spending NT$1 on a plastic bag, plastics providers actually double their gains as a result of the policy, and paper bag manufacturers have born the brunt. It is truly ridiculous and sad that a ban on plastics ultimately creates more business opportunities for plastic bag manufacturers.
Around the same time last year, shopping bags were the most common souvenirs given away at government or privately-organized activities. Over the past year, how many of the so-called "environmental" shopping bags have been given away? Have we really made use of them?
The answer is no, I think.
Most of the shopping bags may have ended up in the garbage. The lucky ones perhaps function as children's schoolbags.
The even luckier ones may be used for shopping at big malls. How many shopping bags are really used in daily life to hold lunch boxes or breakfast? How many people use an almost broken plastic bag to carry their milk tea?
The misuse or lack of use of the shopping bags is a common phenomenon in our society. Major flaws have long existed in the policy.
However, all we see is the central and local governments turning a blind eye to the failure of the policy, legislators slacking off in their job of supervising the government and siding with interest groups, and the public's emphasis on convenience that outweighs their fear of the fines.
The most successful policies that have changed people's habits in recent years are the crackdown on drunk driving and riding motorcycles without wearing helmets.
Intimidated by the fines, people know that someone who rides a motorcycle without wearing a helmet is subject to a NT$500 fine. But when you ask what the fine is for stores that provide free plastic bags to customers, nobody knows.
People generally believe that few stores could possibly be fined NT$60,000, which is considered far too much.
Besides, it is difficult to catch stores in the act of giving away free plastic bags.
Many warnings were issued right after the policy was put into practice, but after a while the inspectors did not even bother to issue warnings anymore.
I'd like to ask: Has every county-level government seriously implemented the policy? If a policy is not supported with persistent enforcement, how can we expect the public to cultivate a habit?
Another thing I'd like to point out is that education has a lot to do with the failure of the policy. A good education campaign should make the public abide by it wholeheartedly.
People should not follow the rule simply because they fear the fines.
Take drunk driving, for example. The success of the policy lies in the public's awareness of the horror a drunk driver can cause, not just the fines.
People have learned from news reports that drunk driving has in many cases resulted in deaths and broken families. Government campaigns also show the results of drunk driving. That is why people cannot be more familiar with the need not to drive when under the influence of alcohol.
By comparison, how many people are aware of the overuse of plastic bags in Taiwan? How many people know what impact plastic bags have on the island's ecology?
We cannot blame the inadequacy of environmental awareness solely on the government, since Taiwan lacks a forum where public policies can be thoroughly discussed, and also lacks media that pays constant attention to policies and social values that prioritize the environment.
One year after the introduction of the policy, the media has reported that the EPA will draft guidelines to improve the policy to restrict the use of plastics more successfully.
Hopefully, after the guidelines have been proposed, they can be enforced and more effort can be put into environmental awareness at the same time.
Bryan Fang is a student in the Geography Department at National Taiwan University.
translated by Jennie Shih
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath