Recent Government responses to articles and blogs opposing the construction of a new Kuokuang Petrochemical plant are a little disconcerting.
One Cabinet member simply brushed aside what people might think of the government’s actions, not giving a second’s thought that there might be something to the criticism. Nor did he see fit to address the root cause of the issue in his vacuous response.
The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) likes to keep an eye on what is happening in the blogosphere and sometimes responds to individual blogs. One blogger named Tottoro, for example, wrote a Chinese-language entry titled “Want to live a long life? Then don’t live near a petrochemical plant.” The EPA duly responded, requiring the “offending” blogger to publish the text of its letter on the blog. Neither is the EPA above sending post office evidentiary letters, hoping this would discourage bloggers from writing similar pieces. In popular parlance today, it’s intended to create a “chilling effect.”
The Industrial Development Bureau (IDB), for its part, dealt with the increasingly vocal opposition to the Kuokuang construction project in its own fashion: first, by using public funds to publish notices in dailies on why we cannot do without the Kuokuang plant; and second, by paying every blogger who signed up NT$5,000 on the condition that they praise the petrochemical industry in their blogs. The question is, how far does this go in changing the public’s mind or in resolving their plight?
In responding to an article written by Severia Lu (陸詩薇) about the Kuokuang project, two Cabinet members also saw fit not to directly address accusations leveled in the article. Lu wrote about the effects the construction of the Kuokuang plant will have — in terms of quality and quantity — on the nation’s food security, resource allocation, efforts to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions, as well as the inherent contradictions between what the government says it wants to do and what it is actually doing. Instead, the two officials chose to engage in empty word games. This goes some way to explaining the slump in the government’s popularity ratings and level of support.
Whenever the government decides to take a controversial development project under its wing and rush through an environmental impact assessment (EIA), it asks the public to trust that it would handle the process in a strictly professional manner. There are, however, at least two cases that shed some doubt on the veracity of this claim to professionalism.
On Dec 9, 2009, the EPA announced the results of an EIA statement for a certain hotel development project, saying that it had passed, albeit with conditions attached. The second of these conditions was that the number of land crabs should continue to be monitored, and that if their numbers fall below half of the benchmark (based on a percentage of the number recorded during a 2007 survey), construction or operation of the hotel would have to be halted.
We shall leave aside for the moment the question of how one can accurately keep tabs on the number of land crabs or whose responsibility it is to do the monitoring, or to check whether it is being properly monitored. Neither shall we question the fact that the directive was never submitted in written form, rendering it pretty much toothless. The more pressing question is how can an official institution, ostensibly charged with “environmental protection,” allow big business to build a hotel on land known to be a major habitat for land crabs? And since we’re asking, how can it countenance the loss of a full half of the land crab population (which, according to the survey, stood at only 25,000 at the time). This does not bode well for the rich natural ecology of the wetlands at the intended location of the Kuokuang petrochemicals plant, nor for the local fishing industry.
Another case in question is the review for the Kuokuang project. The second stage of the EIA assessment for the Kuokuang project has already had its fourth review by a panel of experts. Prior to this, there had already been 17 meetings by experts on various topics.
According to Clause 2 of Article 12 of the Guidelines for Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Activities (開發行為環境影響評估作業準則) and the fourth item in the technical specifications for assessments of marine ecologies, Kuokuang is required to submit a marine ecology monitoring and compensation plan.
Furthermore, according to Article 11 of the specifications for environmental impact assessments for industrial area development projects, it is obliged to provide figures regarding the economic impact of the proposed plant on the farming and fishing industries, the results of a survey on the number of fishing households, and details of its plan for compensating those that are affected.
To date, it has submitted none of these legally required documents, something that the EPA has pretty much turned a blind eye to. If the EPA is acting professionally, why has it neglected to chase after Kuokuang about these documents? Can one really trust the EPA when it says it is not showing favoritism?
Given that Kuokuang has failed to comply with the aforementioned legal obligations, the EPA is bound to act in accordance with Article 13.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法). This article states that the “competent authority” — the EPA, in this case — must notify the developer — Kuokuang — “to make corrections within a limited time period.”
It also states: “For those developers that fail to make corrections within the limited time period or whose corrections fail to comply with competent authority regulations, the competent authority shall notify the industry competent authority in writing to reject the application for development activity permission and send a copy to the developer.”
From that point on, there is no need for the EPA to continue expending public resources in reviewing the development project in question. The EPA has made a mess of things, pulling out all the stops to accommodate the developer, and the public ought to know. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council of Agriculture are also duty-bound to do something about this.
Chan Shun-kuei is chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association’s environmental law committee.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS