Just six days after Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) demanded that Cabinet officials “take an iron fist” to environmental problems, Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) on Thursday vowed to close all unlicensed lodgings in “high-risk” disaster-prone areas of Cingjing (清境), Nantou County.
The mountainous area, with its cool air, hiking trails and fruit farms, has become a popular getaway spot for weary urbanites in recent years, and 134 guesthouses and bed-and-breakfasts now dot the landscape around Cingjing Farm (清境農場).
According to Lee, only four of those establishments are actually operating legally and those that are not will soon feel the long reach of Taipei bureaucrats, with “no room for negotiation.”
Since these lodgings did not spring up overnight like mushrooms after a rain, this sudden interest by the ministry and other Cabinet agencies appears more of a cover-your-rear-end move than a measured response to the environmental damage and safety issues created by such retreats.
It is clear what prompted this outpouring of governmental concern: the release of, and public reaction to, director Chi Po-lin’s (齊柏林) stunning documentary Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above (看見台灣). The film has broken national box office records since it opened on Nov. 1 and triggered renewed debate over the environmental cost of the nation’s decades-long drive for development.
Executive Yuan Deputy Secretary-General Chien Tai-lang (簡太郎) said on Friday last week that Cabinet ministries and agencies have been divided into five teams to work on 16 major issues highlighted by the film, including illegal gravel and sand mining, the build-up of sediment in reservoirs, land subsidence, excessive hillside development and polluted rivers. The teams were told to present an initial report to Jiang within one month. However, Chien said the government “will take a holistic approach and not just focus on the 16 problems.”
Yet just two weeks earlier, the Cabinet was steaming ahead with its draft for regional development, the “National Regional Plan,” which would relax regulations on land use, allow small-scale industrial parks to be established without an environmental assessment and streamline application and review procedures for major projects. Critics say the proposal would ease restrictions on development in reservoir areas, farmland and active fault zones.
All of the environmental damage shown in the film has occurred under the noses of government officials, including those whose job it is to monitor and protect this nation’s mountains, forests, rivers and coastal areas. Yes, the aerial viewpoint of the film makes it easier to grasp the extent of the damage that has been wrought on this land, but the erosion of mountainsides, deforestation, unrestrained building of hotels and guesthouses and pollution of rivers and seashores can easily be seen from the ground.
The government continues to prioritize development, an imperative that will be difficult to reconcile with the newfound zeal for conservation. It is not so much a question of how long this latest reform drive will last, but whether the fat cats will win out as they have in the past.
Opposition is already being heard in response to the outcry created by the film and Jiang’s “iron fist” call. Owners of some of the Qingjing guesthouses have reportedly asked the government not to “mislead” the public based on the documentary.
That is like shooting the messenger. There is nothing “misleading” about Chi’s film. He has just made it more difficult for government officials — and the public — to ignore the cost of unchecked development and slap-on-the-wrist punishments for companies that damage the environment.
Chi won the Golden Horse award for Best Documentary on Nov. 23. He deserves a medal for his unflinching wake-up call.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
Owing to the combined majority of the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), the legislature last week voted to further extend the current session to the end of next month, prolonging the session twice for a total of 211 days, the longest in Taiwan’s democratic history. Legally, the legislature holds two regular sessions annually: from February to May, and from September to December. The extensions pushed by the opposition in May and last week mean there would be no break between the first and second sessions this year. While the opposition parties said the extensions were needed to