Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) recently tendered his resignation as head of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), bringing the issue of environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and referenda under the media spotlight. More discussions are needed to clarify the facts and certain concepts.
First, the advisory referendum held in Pinglin township was not meant to overrule the results of an EIA, but to prove to the government that residents wanted the construction of on- and off-ramps at Pinglin connecting the Taipei-Ilan Freeway to improve their livelihoods.
But from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the EPA (which opposes building the ramps) to the Taipei County Government, not a single agency has ever cared about the anxiety for survival felt by this township, whose development is restricted due to its location in a water resources area. Nor have they ever come up with plans to boost the area's economy.
What the Pinglin residents really want is not a ramp but for the government to face up to the problems in these areas and map out well-arranged supplementary plans. The Pinglin case is not an isolated one. Nationwide, too many townships and villages have had their development restricted because of their location.
Why should these residents be deprived of their right to pursue a better life? Do environmental protection agencies really safeguard the residents' interests and rights with their expertise?
Take the dispute over an incinerator in Linnei township as an example. The incinerator site is only 1.8km from the open-air water-treatment plant that provides drinking water for residents in Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan. But this plant was not mentioned in the EIA report presented by the construction company.
The EPA did not raise objections in its review of the case and granted subsidies for the project. Even when the residents realized the threat posed to their drinking water and repeatedly pleaded with the EPA, the construction went ahead as planned.
A plethora of mistakes can be found in the piles of EIA reports ordered by construction companies. Ecological protection and sensitive areas, unique historical sites and special industries (such as dairy and vegetable farms) in the vicinity of development sites are never listed in the reports.
This is why these EIAs were passed without a hitch. Even though the reports were questioned by experts, they were still passed. The EIA system has long been criticized for serious defects in design and implementation.
Adequate information is necessary when making significant environment protection and technology policies because they will have a profound impact.
To resolve the defects inherent in the system, new forms of public participation, such as citizens' juries, citizens' consultative committees, public forums and referendums, have become important supplementary mechanisms in mature democracies. Transparent information and full communication -- which are lacking in the EIA system -- are prerequisites for all of these forms of participation.
In an non-governmental organization forum at the Earth Summit held in Johannesburg last year, it was mentioned that the key ingredient of a sustainable society is "good government," which should work for information transparency, public participation, social equity and justice. A review of the nation's environment-related system and governance by way of these values will reveal that the so-called "environmental protection expertise" cannot stand the test.
Lai Wei-chieh is secretary general of the Green Citizens' Action Alliance. Lin I-ying is the organizer of a Web site on social movements (www.coolloud.org.tw).
Translated by Jackie Lin
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with