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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS