Following President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) official apology to the nation’s Aborigines on Aug. 1 last year, many assumed that the government would adhere to the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) announced on Feb. 5, 2005.
However, on March 14, then-Bureau of Mining Affairs director Chu Ming-chao (朱明昭) approved an application by Asia Cement to renew its mining license near Taroko National Park for 20 years.
Chu’s retirement immediately after the approval has led to suspicions of a quid pro quo deal.
Late film director Chi Po-lin’s (齊柏林) observations of Asia Cement’s quarry in Hualien led to a public outcry over the renewal.
About 21,000 people petitioned the government to revoke the license, while environmentalists demanded that the government conduct an environmental impact assessment on the mining site and follow Article 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act.
Premier Lin Chuan (林全) ordered a review of the approval process.
On June 19, the Ministry of Economic Affairs confirmed that the license would be renewed, as it did not find anything illegal regarding the application.
Ironically, Tsai on July 14 presented a special award at Chi’s memorial service to his family for the director’s contribution to the nation.
Far Eastern Group chairman Douglas Hsu (徐旭東) on June 27 defended the quarry by saying the pit could be turned into a lake to raise fish, a point refuted by former minister of the interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源), who said that artificial reservoirs can leak, which could lead to dam failure.
Naturally formed landslide dams are demolished to prevent flooding should failure occur.
Indeed, there is a Truku community near the quarry.
That Hsu has failed to consider this suggests he cares little about the environment.
Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Yang Wei-fu (楊偉甫) on July 18 said that the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act is unclear, adding that even though the government respects the law, until the legislature passes amendments to the Mining Act (礦業法), it would be difficult to enforce.
Aboriginal studies academics are well aware that since the passage of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act, before carrying out any research on Aborigines, researchers must explain their project at a meeting and obtain a signed agreement from the people involved and submit a proposal to the research ethics committee for review.
Why was Asia Cement given special permission to skip those steps?
As several reports have said, many lawmakers believe the ministry prefers a version of the amendments to the Mining Act that is biased in favor of mining companies.
Cement production involves such issues as national land preservation, the public interest and infrastructure, which raises the question if more licenses should be issued to cement companies to satisfy domestic demand or if environmental impact assessment requirements should be stricter, mining areas restricted and exports banned. Perhaps cement should be imported? These are issues that the government must clarify, and it should let the public decide, perhaps in a referendum.
Another problem is the draft amendments to the Mining Act, which include the unfair article that allows the ministry to grant mining permission to companies when three-quarters of local residents agree.
The review process for the amendments has been slow. So far, legislators have agreed on only one amendment.
However, the budget review for the infrastructure program has already been scheduled for the third extraordinary session.
It is unknown when the legislature can finish reviewing the amendments, but Asia Cement will not stop its mining operations until some major changes have been introduced.
Andrew Cheng is a professor of psychiatry.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS