In the wake of Tropical Storm Kong-Rey, politicians have engaged in a veritable war of words. Each time there is a flood, the aquaculture industry becomes the target of public criticism because they pump groundwater and cause the land to subside. Is this because fish farmers are stubborn or because government officials are incompetent?
In the 1960s and 1970s, the government encouraged aquacultural use of low-lying coastal land and land not suitable for agriculture to provide more employment opportunities. Although the conditions were less than ideal, business operators worked hard to turn the low-value land into fish ponds. As they started farming, selling and exporting fish and shrimp, they brought a lot of foreign currency into the country.
However, because the issue of fresh water supplies was not considered at the time, and because the industry developed faster than the government had expected, the resulting water shortages made operators dig wells to sustain their fish farming. This practice was not addressed promptly by the competent authorities and land subsidence was a direct result in some areas.
This is not disputed by the fish industry, but other industries also had been pumping groundwater for a long time — although this has been overlooked. Therefore, for many years fish farmers have had to bear full responsibility for a problem that was not entirely of their making.
Today, many coastal areas have dropped below sea level, making it difficult to remove water that has collected in them. The government must now consider costly flood prevention measures in these areas.
However, it is most important to ascertain the cause of land subsidence — which is not only the result of pumping by the fish farming industry — and devise an effective response. The government should consider changing how the aquaculture industry operates and uses land, and help the coastal population lower their reliance on fish farming.
It could use aerial photography to mark the distribution of major fish ponds and land subsidence, divide the areas into mild, moderate and severe according to the levels of subsidence, and then design separate solutions for the different areas.
In mildly affected areas, the government could subsidize equipment for water circulation, implement strict controls on the use and discharge of water, implement an environmental and ecological certification regime and guide ecological fish farming.
In moderately affected areas, it could set up special aquaculture parks to be able to handle discharged water in a uniform manner.
In severely affected areas, it could encourage farmers to exit the industry and set up a mechanism to help make that possible while also planning big water catchment areas and floodways as well as areas for hobby fishing.
By addressing the needs of areas with different levels of land subsidence in different ways, it might one day be possible to prevent flooding and the loss of land.
Lee Wu-chung is a professor of agricultural economics.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with