On Tuesday, I got so worked up that my mind went completely blank after spotting an article in the Liberty Times bearing the headline "A NT$250 million fake afforestation project."
I have participated in the examination of the nation's afforestation project in my capacity as an agricultural economist. Besides myself, five professionals specializing in water and soil conservation and four forestry experts also had a hand in the inspection.
In the summer of 2000, after the project had been in progress for three consecutive years, officials of the Council of Agriculture arranged a trip for inspectors to evaluate afforestation projects across the nation. Each inspector was supposed to file a report after the trip.
In my report, in addition to summarizing the achievements of such afforestation projects, I pointed out a number of problems concerning the formulation of the government's policy and its implementation procedures. Although I was critical of the fact that such an inspection project was just a formality, I did try to offer practical suggestions. I believe I did a thorough job and fulfilled the promise I made to the government.
Unfortunately, I was so naive that I thought that the authorities concerned would review my report and genuinely study the pros and cons of such a project.
Three years later, based on the report I presented to the government, I published a book and sent a copy to a score of legislators and Control Yuan members, as well as relatives and students. However, none of legislators, whose main job it is to check the government's expenditure on behalf of the people, sent me a reply; only two Control Yuan members phoned me to express their gratitude.
In retrospect, I do feel a measure of regret for giving away so much material which many of the recipients may have put straight into the recycling bin.
I believe that none of the problems have been solved, even if the government agencies responsible for afforestation had been concerned about the examination and evaluation of the afforestation project.
As the afforestation inspectors were not law enforcement officials, they were not in a position to investigate any fraudulent practices.
However, in a project of such magnitude, we can expect that the government would arrange all sorts of examinations, investigations and reviews in the beginning, middle and end of the whole process. Such a complete set of procedures is such a formality that nobody will pay attention to them.
Further, all of the authorities concerned would always claim that each plan is carried out according to certain types of principles, rather than earnestly and conscienciously reviewing all past flawed projects.
In the end, we have only realized that one project is being carried out after another, but we have no idea what these projects will bring about.
This whole situation made me finally realize that when people say scholars are the backbone of society, they must have been hypnotized by some complacent academics or experts.
Whenever I thumb through the books I have published, I get agitated. I do not mind being isolated by the government simply because I have acted willfully. However, I do feel lonely, for I seem to be the only one attempting to address such an issue.
Wu Pei-ying is a professor in the department of agricultural economics at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS