The recent heckling of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at a protest against the proposed construction of a plant by Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co in Changhua County put the controversial issue back in the spotlight. The trouble is, the proximity of the presidential election has colored the debate because of political agendas, and this has obfuscated matters.
The issue of whether to build the Kuokuang plant involves both the nation’s economic development and the protection of its environment. The project was originally proposed when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power, and the current governing party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has put its weight behind the project. However, the parties have since taken opposing stances, each spouting statistics and reports to support their arguments, which just prevents the public from getting an honest perspective of the pros and cons. The clamor of politicking has stifled constructive debate.
The governing party, be it the KMT or the DPP, has backed the project, citing economic benefits and job creation in Yunlin and Changhua counties. When environmental concerns were raised, the DPP turned on a dime and started crying bloody murder. The KMT, by comparison, supports the project, but is sitting back and watching how things transpire. Meanwhile, construction has been left treading water.
Both the KMT and the DPP are being evasive when it comes to whether there is a real need for the plant or what it means for the nation’s petrochemical industry and economic development. Nor have they been particularly forthcoming on the potential environmental risks. The debate has consequently been informed by political interests and emotive claims, neither of which are going to solve any problems.
DPP presidential candidate hopefuls Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) have voiced opposition to the plant. They both owe the public an explanation of how they went from a position of supporting the project to siding with environmentalists. Tsai has suggested moving Taiwan’s petrochemical industry to the Middle East. Even former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has questioned the advisability of the Tsai’s proposal. Tsai needs to explain what the thinking behind her plan is.
Anti-Kuokuang sentiment fomented when people became suspicious that the Ma administration had lost its neutrality and decided to push ahead with the project even before the Environmental Impact Assessment had been completed. Public Construction Commission Minister Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) has expressed concern about the impact of the plant on water and soil conservation, and the potential worsening of the problem of land subsidence, which may even compromise the safety of the Yunlin stretch of the High Speed Rail. His opinion has not changed. This is something that should be taken very seriously.
We have learned from last year’s fires at Formosa Petrochemical Corp’s sixth naphtha cracker and the current nuclear incident in Japan that just because a government says something does not make it true. People are more sensitive now about the possibility of an environmental disaster. If the government does give the go-ahead for the plant, can Ma guarantee the decision will not come back to haunt Taiwan?
Cities in Changhua County and Fangyuan Township (芳苑) need economic regeneration, but is Kuokuang the answer? Should the plant turn into an environmental nightmare, could local people cope?
The public needs to see constructive debate and straight answers, not emotive political diatribes.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
RSS