On Oct. 11, the Taipei High Administrative Court revoked the permit for the Central Taiwan Science Park’s (CTSP) fourth-phase development project in Changhua County’s Erlin Township (二林). It is well worth investigating how the permit came to be issued in the first place.
The first factor to consider is the choice of location. The site proposed for the park’s fourth phase covers more than 600 hectares in the heart of central Taiwan’s most important farming region. The area is short of water and suffers from subsidence. Picking this location runs completely contrary to Taiwan’s national land-use system.
The National Science Council got round this fact by sleight of hand. It excluded, or minimized the weighting of, important selection criteria such as the master plan, water supply and construction limits, when converting them into selection indices. In contrast, it gave heavy weighting to construction potential, construction procedure and overall assessment (which combined to be 71.25 percent of the total score). That is how Erlin was chosen.
The second factor is that the Ministry of the Interior’s Construction and Planning Agency arranged for the ad-hoc case group of the ministry’s Regional Planning Committee to hold eight meetings over four months in 2009 — an average of one meeting every two weeks. From the CTSP’s third-phase development on the Houli Farm (后里) and its proposed expansion on the Cising Farm (七星) to the fourth-phase development project, the CTSP Administration regularly assured committee members that there would be no further development, yet repeatedly submitted new development proposals for the committee’s approval. Some committee members felt that they were being taken for a ride.
A meeting was then held on Nov. 12, 2009 — excluding members of the public and civic groups — where the project was approved. There were 11 votes in favor, including two people who only gave conditional support. The nine who supported the development plan unconditionally were official government delegates sent to vote the government’s way. The five remaining committee members who voted against the development plan were all experts and academics.
From the choice of location through to the granting of the construction permit, the CTSP’s fourth-phase development plan demonstrates how experts go along with government, how science acts at the behest of politics and how administrative departments surrender their authority.
This shabby fraud has turned experts and officials into political tools, and has made a joke of the nation’s entire land-use plan. It has led to scandals such as the CTSP’s attempt to divert water from farms in Sijhou Township (溪州), the release of industrial waste water into the Jhuoshui River (濁水溪) and the expropriation of farmland in Siangsihliao (相思寮). The whole thing has got completely out of hand.
Seen in this light, the recent court verdict simply seeks to put the national land-use plan, administrative departments and the system of review by experts back on track, and to help the public understand that sustainable development can only be achieved if economic development and the construction of science parks comply with national land-use regulations.
The verdict is also a test of whether those in control of state machinery, having used their influence to undermine the administrative system, will now try to undermine the judiciary as well. The interior ministry is of course entitled to appeal the verdict, but to do so would be further proof that it is no more than a toothless political tool that is beyond hope of redemption.
Liao Pen-chuan is an associate professor in National Taipei University’s Department of Real Estate and Built Environment and chair of Citizen of the Earth, Taiwan.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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