Time and again when a typhoon hits Taiwan, the Suhua Highway linking Suao (
At the beginning of the year, hotel owner Stanley Yen (
Then the Chinese-language magazine Business Weekly published an article entitled "Big construction, big destruction." And so, in the blink of an eye, the construction of the new freeway was cursed, turned into a road that was damaging the environment and that had no practical use whatsoever.
As a professional civil engineer and a future user of the road, I hope that during this typhoon season everyone can give the issue more thought.
It's ironic that even though Taiwan has entered the ranks of developed countries, people still have to risk their lives driving on the Suhua Highway.
Every day thousands of people drive on this road with fear in their hearts. There are 20 dangerous curves on this stretch of the east coast highway, and the death rate is 130 times as high as on freeways on the western side of Taiwan.
Life is priceless, and I hope that those who oppose the freeway can sympathize with those who have to drive on the highway, as well as their relatives and friends.
The freeway will be an ecologically friendly road. Apart from wildlife corridors, safety ramps and the road itself, the construction of the freeway does not include construction access roads in order to avoid digging out large areas from the surrounding slopes.
The dated technology used in building the Central Cross-Island Highway involved large-scale digging and destruction of mountain slopes, but these are things of the past. The methods of construction for the freeway are trustworthy.
Arguments in this debate should be based on data, not emotion. The Business Weekly article "Big construction, big destruction" was intended to encourage protests; however,. much of its content is removed from the reality.
It says, for example, that the freeway will run across 11 fault lines, twice as many as the Chiang Wei-shui Freeway between Taipei and Ilan.
But according to a publication by the Central Geological Survey, there are only 44 active fault lines in all of the country, none of which are in the area where the new freeway is to be built. The only active fault line in the vicinity is the Milun Fault in Hualien City.
In addition, the railway has been in use since February 1980, and in all those 25 years, through many big and small earthquakes, safety has not been compromised. How can one then argue that the Suhua Freeway would be unsafe?
Then there are the cold springs of Suao. The Business Weekly said the freeway would travel through a groundwater control area, and that as soon as digging starts, tunnels would be flooded and the precious cold springs of Suao would face catastrophe.
But the fact is that the railway also crosses the same groundwater control area, and nothing catastrophic has happened there in 25 years.
The freeway will also be at least 2km away from the Suao cold springs, and between them there will still be the old and the new tracks of the railway line.
Moreover, the height of the freeway tunnel will be between 30m and 80m, the same as for the railway tunnel. The latter tunnel has never influenced the Suao cold springs or caused land subsidence, so it is quite improbable that a freeway tunnel would do this.
I hope those who oppose the construction of the freeway will direct their fervor toward supervision of the freeway's construction so that this safe and fast road can bring the people of eastern Taiwan more convenience, all the while meeting ecological demands and the criteria for sustainable development.
Lin Tzu-chiang is a civil engineer and a resident of Taitung County.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers