Over the past two or three months, I have petitioned President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), the Taipei City Government’s Parks and Street Lights Office and Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) for different reasons. However, my petitions seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
This leaves me to feel that the government’s handling of public petitions and its problem-solving capability are flawed.
Not long ago, I met with Ma to promote the abolition of capital punishment. Seizing on the rare opportunity, I handed over a joint petition launched by writers Chang Hsiao-feng (張曉風) and Chen Jo-hsi (陳若曦), artist Ho Huai-shuo (何懷碩), dentist Lee Wei-wen (李偉文), choreographer Lin Hwai-min (林懷民) and myself, calling on the government to not transform part of the 202 Munitions Works in Taipei City’s Nangang District (南港) into a biotech park.
I received Ma’s reply on July 2, which said: “Your precious opinion is valuable to me. I have already instructed the Cabinet to study it.”
That kind of reply tells me my petition was useless. Allowing large corporations to develop the site was the central government’s decision and Ma was certainly aware of this.
During his two terms as Taipei mayor, he did not favor the project. Surprisingly, he did not say a word when his government passed the project.
The Taipei City Government and the Ministry of National Defense’s Armaments Bureau replied on Aug. 2 and Aug. 3, respectively. The replied were almost identical to their earlier media statements.
Ma said the Cabinet would study our petition, but the Cabinet is apparently even lazier than the president, since it simply passed the petition to a subordinate agency for consideration. In fact, releasing the site for development was the Cabinet’s decision, officially approved by former premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) on July 12 last year.
In response to our request that the project be stopped, the Cabinet should have said whether or not it accepted our request. If it did not, the Cabinet should have offered an explanation. Instead, the Cabinet only passed the buck to a subordinate unit responsible for policy implementation, ordering them to answer our question.
I wonder if Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) would cleverly argue that the whole thing was Liu’s idea?
I also wrote a letter to Hau’s office in May asking how Hau, a former Environmental Protection Administration minister, could propose to turn 144 hectares of the site into a special industrial zone for big corporations in accordance with the Cabinet’s policy.
In response, I only received a previously used official reply from the city’s Department of Urban Development.After requesting that Hau reply directly, he once again refused to do so and I received another reply from the urban development department, not the mayor.
In the past, I have also written to the Parks and Street Lights Office and Taipower regarding some problems in my neighborhood. Neither replied appropriately.
They either didn’t even read my letter carefully or gave me an irrelevant answer.
Public petitions serve as an opportunity for the government to improve administrative performance, resolve problems and reduce complaints.
The government will lose the public’s trust if it is incapable of responding to and dealing with citizens’ problems effectively.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Sociology.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US