The gas pipeline explosions on July 31 and Aug. 1 in Greater Kaohsiung that killed 30 people, injured 310 and left a neighborhood devastated was a tragedy, but a press conference held by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) discussing the disaster was also tragic.
Since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime relocated to Taiwan, economic development has been industry-driven, with the creation of labor-intensive manufacturing zones, the “homes as factories” policy, petrochemical industrial zones, science parks and industrial parks.
The development strategy succeeded in boosting the economy, creating Taiwan’s so-called “economic miracle.”
However, the “miracle” was not a miracle at all. The economic success was achieved at the expense of the environment, the agricultural sector, self-sustainability in food and the public’s health and safety.
With economic achievement as the paramount goal, factories quickly took over farmland, either through regular purchases or expropriation. Government authorities turned a blind eye to factories releasing unprocessed waste and to industrial use of water being given priority over agricultural or residential use. Exceptions would, from time to time, be made on environmental or labor regulations for industrial development, forcing workers or residents near industrial plants to suffer from pollution and disease.
The explosions in Greater Kaohsiung are the latest example of how the government’s focus on economic development has sacrificed lives.
Yet during his press conference, Ma only briefly spoke about a desire to see the public and politicians of all parties stand together to deal with the aftermath of the blasts and reconstruction, and find out who is responsible to prevent similar accidents. He then stressed the importance of economic development, promoting further economic liberalization, and urged support from the public and from the legislature on the cross-strait service trade agreement and the free economic pilot zones project.
It was a highly inappropriate response to an industrial disaster, because Ma failed to re-examine the government’s economic development strategy. Instead, he insisted on pushing forward his plans — which have already been questioned by many and were a trigger of the Sunflower movement in March this year.
For a small nation with few resources, international trade is essential and it might also be beneficial for Taipei and its trade partners to mutually lift trade barriers.
However, for Taiwan to do so without being fully prepared, as it is at present, is dangerous.
A copy of the service trade agreement released by the government shows many restrictions for Taiwanese businesses wanting to invest in China, yet almost no restrictions at all for Chinese businesses planning to invest in Taiwan.
So, what would Taiwanese businesses do if Chinese firms dominated the local market, while Taiwanese businesses suffered from trade barriers when investing in China? The government says that Taiwanese companies should be confident, promising that the agreement would be beneficial and that the government would serve as a gatekeeper.
The government did not give concrete answers to the public’s doubts decades ago, and it turns out that Taiwanese are suffering the consequences of industrial development.
Today, the public is skeptical about cross-strait trade development and trade liberalization, and the government is again not giving concrete answers to questions.
This is why so many people worry about what might happen a few decades from now.
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS