Residents in Tainan County have good reason to be wary of assurances by the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) that toxic waste landfills in their backyard are nothing to be afraid of.
Taiwan has a long history of the economy trumping the environment, but public awareness about the health effects of pollution is growing. People nationwide want a cleaner, safer place to live, and agricultural produce that they don’t have to be afraid of eating.
Former backwaters like Chishang (池上), Taitung County, are becoming tourist attractions with their clean water and pristine rice paddies, and residents can see the money pouring in not only from tourist dollars, but also from agriculture. Therefore, it’s no wonder residents of Longci Township (龍崎), Tainan County, became angry when the EPA and Ocin Environmental Co refused to listen to their demands that an industrial waste management facility not be located in their backyard. A meeting to explain the project to wary residents descended into a violent clash, with residents throwing chairs and overturning tables as they realized their concerns were falling on deaf ears.
The EPA, which is tasked with protecting the environment, should be called the rubber stamp administration, because its main purpose seems to be to initiate dubious environmental assessments for huge corporations that almost always pass. Even if a corporation’s plans don’t pass environmental assessments, like the Erlin Science Park expansion plan, the EPA often gives the green light anyway. If local residents don’t like this, EPA officials then step forward to trumpet the economic benefits an industrial park, naptha cracker or toxic waste landfill will have.
In the case of the Longci landfill, the EPA and Tainan County Government officials touted the NT$60 million (US$1.92 million) that Ocin Environmental would be obligated to provide the government, as well as the 50 or so jobs the landfill would create. However, this doesn’t come close to addressing the concerns of residents, who are convinced that a toxic dump near their homes would damage the environment irreversibly, pollute their water and make food grown in the vicinity poisonous.
The EPA and the corporations engaged in these projects show a shocking level of arrogance when it comes to public concerns about the environment. In the case of Ocin, company officials insisted that the project would go forward despite environmental concerns.
In areas where corporations can’t get the EPA’s rubber stamp, they simply dump toxic sludge, slag and other pollutants illegally. Residents of Dongshan Township (東山), Tainan County, have been fighting Young Yang Environmental Industry Corp for years to get it to stop illegally polluting their environment. They recently brought along evidence to the EPA in Taipei to show that ground water near their homes now has about the same pH value as steel slag, the result of years of illegal dumping that was only publicly exposed by Typhoon Fanapi. However, instead of listening to their concerns and slapping a moratorium on the company’s operations, the EPA simply assured the residents that the groundwater was clean enough to drink and they shouldn’t worry.
It is the ultimate irony that these companies, and the EPA itself, even have the word “environmental” in their names. It’s like the a communist government calling itself democratic and saying it stands up for people’s rights.
It’s obvious that neither the corporations nor the government is going to help Tainan residents secure a clean environment. Therefore, it has now become necessary for people to get angry, throw chairs and protest outside government offices to have their voices heard. If they keep being ignored, they will have to step their campaign up a notch.
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
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS