A policy banning the use of plastic bags and disposable eating utensils will soon come into effect. Controversy surrounding the forcible implementation of the policy has centered on whether it will have a negative impact on the current problems of domestic unemployment and economic development. Moreover, it isn't clear whether the government has a plan to alleviate these problems. The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) may appear to have prepared responsibly for the possible impact of the policy, but, on the basis of indications in the government's budget for the coming year and related policy measures, it is my impression that this policy was formed and implemented hastily. Careful consideration is urgently needed.
First, a thorough policy-making procedure should estimate the probable impact of a given policy before it is implemented and include response measures in the government's budget for the following year. But in the government's budget for 2003, there are no funds earmarked for the EPA to aid those made unemployed by this policy. Currently, the EPA's response budgets -- the NT$380 million and the NT$1.2 billion employment counseling funds -- contain no moneys specifically designated for handling the repercussions of this policy. One of these funds was appropriated from the regular employment counseling budget of the Council of Labor Affairs' Employment Security Fund. The other was appropriated from the budget for the Cabinet's emergency plan, passed in September of this year, to respond to the unemployment problem, strengthen public services, and expand employment opportunities.
In other words, on the eve of implementing its policy, the EPA is responding to the likely impact on unemployment by appropriating funds earmarked for other policies in a last-minute, improvised manner. These actions will restrict the effectiveness of those policies for which the budget was originally earmarked and they highlight the hurried manner in which the EPA has implemented its policies.
Next, the policy banning the use of plastic bags threatens a lifestyle enjoyed now for several decades. It must be considered a major undertaking. But for some reason a mere eight months were used to introduce this important policy to the public and to industry. Moreover, the national economy is in a trough, the unemployment rate is high, and a NT$5.5 billion loss in production value as well as an additional 5,000 people suddenly out of work are not minor matters. I can't help but wonder whether Taiwan's environmental consciousness has finally come to supersede in importance even the most basic matters, such as putting food on people's plates. Why is the EPA in such a rush? If this policy is implemented a little more slowly, what irreparable damage will it cause to the earth, the nation, and the public?
Finally, the government's policy will cost some members of the public their jobs and incur losses for manufacturers. Of course there should be items in the budget to ensure the welfare of these people and to compensate them. But, in the current policy, such items are nowhere to be seen. Furthermore, when this policy is implemented, the plastics industry will immediately incur production losses of NT$5.5 billion. But there appear to be no response measures designed to put productive capacity to alternative uses in order to reduce the impact on industry.
I have reservations about the production loss and unemployment data presented by the EPA, and I suspect that current response plans are too optimistic. Considering plastic bags alone, apart from the original production process, there are also related industries that will be affected such as those involving design, printing and others. Did the EPA consider these carefully when it made its estimates? Moreover, I haven't heard the EPA comment on the extent to which employment counseling can alleviate the unemployment problem. This gives some indication of just what a poor policy it is.
Out of my love for the earth, I support the government's general policy of banning the use of plastic bags. But the period for introduction of the policy should be extended, and in this period those currently in the industry should be given advice on the production of biodegradable plastic bags or other replacement products. In this way, the problems of environmental protection, production values in the plastics industry, and employment security for workers can all be given due consideration while at the same time the lifestyle of the general public is respected.
After all, even an authoritarian country like Singapore had to relax its laws banning chewing gum in response to public opinion. Why would the EPA stubbornly run against public opinion?
Chen Chien-ming is a TSU legislator.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
RSS