Which is more important, environmental protection or economic development?
This is a question every government — in Taiwan’s case, whether led by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party — must face. As the economy recovers slowly and the year-end mayoral elections draw near, protest after protest has seen farmers gather in front of the Presidential Office, including one group led by Yunlin County Commissioner Su Chih-fen (蘇治芬). The question has become an issue that could affect the elections.
Courts have ordered the immediate suspension of all building activity at the Cising (七星) and Erlin (二林) expansion projects at the Central Taiwan Science Park (中科園區). The courts, which are handling two administrative appeals, have said development might pose environmental risks and stressed the importance of environmental impact studies.
In 2001, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) conditionally passed the Cising expansion project’s environmental review and decided there was no need for a second-stage environmental impact study. Environmental groups filed an administrative appeal because they felt continued development would have a negative impact on the health of local residents. According to the Taipei High Administrative Court, the first-stage environmental review is only a written study, and the real review begins with the second-stage impact study. It also said sewage from the Cising expansion project would be discharged at the park’s northern side, which would affect irrigation water for farmers and drinking water for residents. The court therefore ruled against the EPA, and on Jan. 22, the Supreme Administrative Court denied the EPA’s appeal.
In November last year, the EPA announced that its environmental impact study of the Central Taiwan Science Park’s Erlin expansion project had been conditionally approved. More than 100 residents of Siangsihliao (相思寮) in Erlin Township filed a complaint with the Cabinet’s Petitions and Appeals Committee asking that the impact assessment be declared invalid. After the committee delayed handling the issue, Siangsihliao residents asked the court to stop all development. On July 30, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that all development at the science park must be suspended.
In addition to these residential protests and court decisions, more than 1,000 academics have signed an appeal against a Kuokuang Petrochemical development project in the area, and former Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) said it would be an unfortunate decision for Taiwan if the project were allowed to go ahead.
The court decision suspending the development of a plant worth hundreds of billions of NT dollars in investment has the Cabinet jumping with anger.
The EPA, which is supposed to protect the environment, said the court “must take responsibility for the consequences,” which proves that the government places development ahead of the environment.
Experience tells us something about the conflict between environmental protection and development. Under environmental legislation, every major development plan requires an environmental impact study followed up by patient communication with local residents. To improve the economy, the government now wants to shorten the process and skip environmental assessments. This led to public discontent and the government’s lost lawsuit. The government caused this situation — therefore it is not the courts that must take responsibility for the consequences.
There are many alternative means of promoting economic development, but a destroyed environment can never be restored. Government policy must give priority to environmental concerns. The government must not forget its place and must continue to communicate with the public as required by law. If it doesn’t, constant environmental disputes will cause major problems for the KMT in the year-end mayoral elections.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS