A policy banning the use of plastic bags and disposable eating utensils will soon come into effect. Controversy surrounding the forcible implementation of the policy has centered on whether it will have a negative impact on the current problems of domestic unemployment and economic development. Moreover, it isn't clear whether the government has a plan to alleviate these problems. The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) may appear to have prepared responsibly for the possible impact of the policy, but, on the basis of indications in the government's budget for the coming year and related policy measures, it is my impression that this policy was formed and implemented hastily. Careful consideration is urgently needed.
First, a thorough policy-making procedure should estimate the probable impact of a given policy before it is implemented and include response measures in the government's budget for the following year. But in the government's budget for 2003, there are no funds earmarked for the EPA to aid those made unemployed by this policy. Currently, the EPA's response budgets -- the NT$380 million and the NT$1.2 billion employment counseling funds -- contain no moneys specifically designated for handling the repercussions of this policy. One of these funds was appropriated from the regular employment counseling budget of the Council of Labor Affairs' Employment Security Fund. The other was appropriated from the budget for the Cabinet's emergency plan, passed in September of this year, to respond to the unemployment problem, strengthen public services, and expand employment opportunities.
In other words, on the eve of implementing its policy, the EPA is responding to the likely impact on unemployment by appropriating funds earmarked for other policies in a last-minute, improvised manner. These actions will restrict the effectiveness of those policies for which the budget was originally earmarked and they highlight the hurried manner in which the EPA has implemented its policies.
Next, the policy banning the use of plastic bags threatens a lifestyle enjoyed now for several decades. It must be considered a major undertaking. But for some reason a mere eight months were used to introduce this important policy to the public and to industry. Moreover, the national economy is in a trough, the unemployment rate is high, and a NT$5.5 billion loss in production value as well as an additional 5,000 people suddenly out of work are not minor matters. I can't help but wonder whether Taiwan's environmental consciousness has finally come to supersede in importance even the most basic matters, such as putting food on people's plates. Why is the EPA in such a rush? If this policy is implemented a little more slowly, what irreparable damage will it cause to the earth, the nation, and the public?
Finally, the government's policy will cost some members of the public their jobs and incur losses for manufacturers. Of course there should be items in the budget to ensure the welfare of these people and to compensate them. But, in the current policy, such items are nowhere to be seen. Furthermore, when this policy is implemented, the plastics industry will immediately incur production losses of NT$5.5 billion. But there appear to be no response measures designed to put productive capacity to alternative uses in order to reduce the impact on industry.
I have reservations about the production loss and unemployment data presented by the EPA, and I suspect that current response plans are too optimistic. Considering plastic bags alone, apart from the original production process, there are also related industries that will be affected such as those involving design, printing and others. Did the EPA consider these carefully when it made its estimates? Moreover, I haven't heard the EPA comment on the extent to which employment counseling can alleviate the unemployment problem. This gives some indication of just what a poor policy it is.
Out of my love for the earth, I support the government's general policy of banning the use of plastic bags. But the period for introduction of the policy should be extended, and in this period those currently in the industry should be given advice on the production of biodegradable plastic bags or other replacement products. In this way, the problems of environmental protection, production values in the plastics industry, and employment security for workers can all be given due consideration while at the same time the lifestyle of the general public is respected.
After all, even an authoritarian country like Singapore had to relax its laws banning chewing gum in response to public opinion. Why would the EPA stubbornly run against public opinion?
Chen Chien-ming is a TSU legislator.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
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