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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Ahead of US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) meeting today on the sidelines of the APEC summit in South Korea, an op-ed published in Time magazine last week maliciously called President William Lai (賴清德) a “reckless leader,” stirring skepticism in Taiwan about the US and fueling unease over the Trump-Xi talks. In line with his frequent criticism of the democratically elected ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which has stood up to China’s hostile military maneuvers and rejected Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework — Lyle Goldstein, Asia engagement director at the US think tank Defense Priorities, called
A large majority of Taiwanese favor strengthening national defense and oppose unification with China, according to the results of a survey by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). In the poll, 81.8 percent of respondents disagreed with Beijing’s claim that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China,” MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) told a news conference on Thursday last week, adding that about 75 percent supported the creation of a “T-Dome” air defense system. President William Lai (賴清德) referred to such a system in his Double Ten National Day address, saying it would integrate air defenses into a
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS