A year ago, Hau Lung-bin (
It has been a year since then. The slogans remain, but how many stores continue to abide by the policy? Our society has paid a price for the policy over the past year; how can we now let our efforts go down the drain?
The policy was already being challenged while Hau was still in office. Despite the EPA's determination, local agencies had neither sufficient manpower to inspect stores nor the will to enforce the policy.
A habit that was yet to be established thus soon collapsed.
The public still hasn't developed the habit of using shopping bags from home and does not mind paying NT$1 for a plastic bag when shopping. Most stores have resumed the old practice of giving away free plastic bags.
Early in December, I spotted a very interesting news story -- paper bag manufacturers solicited the EPA to restrict the use of paper bags too. This weird idea shows the failure of the policy to limit the use of plastics. Since people do not mind spending NT$1 on a plastic bag, plastics providers actually double their gains as a result of the policy, and paper bag manufacturers have born the brunt. It is truly ridiculous and sad that a ban on plastics ultimately creates more business opportunities for plastic bag manufacturers.
Around the same time last year, shopping bags were the most common souvenirs given away at government or privately-organized activities. Over the past year, how many of the so-called "environmental" shopping bags have been given away? Have we really made use of them?
The answer is no, I think.
Most of the shopping bags may have ended up in the garbage. The lucky ones perhaps function as children's schoolbags.
The even luckier ones may be used for shopping at big malls. How many shopping bags are really used in daily life to hold lunch boxes or breakfast? How many people use an almost broken plastic bag to carry their milk tea?
The misuse or lack of use of the shopping bags is a common phenomenon in our society. Major flaws have long existed in the policy.
However, all we see is the central and local governments turning a blind eye to the failure of the policy, legislators slacking off in their job of supervising the government and siding with interest groups, and the public's emphasis on convenience that outweighs their fear of the fines.
The most successful policies that have changed people's habits in recent years are the crackdown on drunk driving and riding motorcycles without wearing helmets.
Intimidated by the fines, people know that someone who rides a motorcycle without wearing a helmet is subject to a NT$500 fine. But when you ask what the fine is for stores that provide free plastic bags to customers, nobody knows.
People generally believe that few stores could possibly be fined NT$60,000, which is considered far too much.
Besides, it is difficult to catch stores in the act of giving away free plastic bags.
Many warnings were issued right after the policy was put into practice, but after a while the inspectors did not even bother to issue warnings anymore.
I'd like to ask: Has every county-level government seriously implemented the policy? If a policy is not supported with persistent enforcement, how can we expect the public to cultivate a habit?
Another thing I'd like to point out is that education has a lot to do with the failure of the policy. A good education campaign should make the public abide by it wholeheartedly.
People should not follow the rule simply because they fear the fines.
Take drunk driving, for example. The success of the policy lies in the public's awareness of the horror a drunk driver can cause, not just the fines.
People have learned from news reports that drunk driving has in many cases resulted in deaths and broken families. Government campaigns also show the results of drunk driving. That is why people cannot be more familiar with the need not to drive when under the influence of alcohol.
By comparison, how many people are aware of the overuse of plastic bags in Taiwan? How many people know what impact plastic bags have on the island's ecology?
We cannot blame the inadequacy of environmental awareness solely on the government, since Taiwan lacks a forum where public policies can be thoroughly discussed, and also lacks media that pays constant attention to policies and social values that prioritize the environment.
One year after the introduction of the policy, the media has reported that the EPA will draft guidelines to improve the policy to restrict the use of plastics more successfully.
Hopefully, after the guidelines have been proposed, they can be enforced and more effort can be put into environmental awareness at the same time.
Bryan Fang is a student in the Geography Department at National Taiwan University.
translated by Jennie Shih
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
On Tuesday, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a statement criticizing Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a student from Shanghai’s Fudan University, saying she had offended the sensibilities of Taiwanese. It also called for the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation — established by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — which had organized the tour group, to remind group members to be careful with their statements. Song, during a visit to a baseball stadium in Taichung, said that the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team (中國台北隊) ... we wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and
“Integrated Diplomacy” (總和外交) is the guiding principle of Taiwan’s current foreign policy. It seeks to mobilize technology, capital and talent for global outreach, strengthening Taiwan’s international connections. However, without a robust information security mechanism, such efforts risk being reduced to superficial courtesy calls. Security clearance serves as the “entrance examination results” for government agency personnel in sensitive positions, qualifying them to access sensitive information. Senior aides in the US Congress must also possess security clearance to assist lawmakers in handling classified budgets. However, security clearance is not an automatic right or a blanket necessity for accessing sensitive information. Access is granted only
RSS