The tragic landslide on the Formosa Freeway (National Freeway No. 3) took four lives and revived awareness of Taiwan’s difficult geological situation and concerns for a safe living environment.
Statistics show that 340 residential buildings in the greater Taipei area are being monitored because they are located on dip slopes — surface layers of rock and soil resting on underlying solid rock and with the same incline — dip — as the solid rock. The government, however, refuses to disclose the exact location of these buildings because it worries prices would be affected. It says there is no legal foundation for such disclosure because a proposed geology act was not passed 13 years ago. As a result, many people living in hillside properties face uncertainty and fear.
Taiwan’s geological situation is exacerbated by frequent earthquakes, typhoons and torrential rains that have caused many landslides with great loss of life and property. In August 1997, the Lincoln Mansion landslide in Sijhih City, Taipei County, killed 28 people and forced more than 100 families to move, and in August last year, Typhoon Morakot wiped out Siaolin Village in Kaohsiung County. These tragedies are the result of Taiwan’s difficult geostructure and inadequate water and soil preservation.
Taiwan is densely populated and development has destroyed hillsides and blocked rivers. People build houses and roads in places where they shouldn’t in the belief that man controls nature. When disaster strikes, however, nature shows its might. Taiwan needs legislation to regulate environmental preservation and restricts land development.
Thirteen years ago, a week after the Lincoln Mansion landslide, the Ministry of Economic Affairs proposed an act requiring the government to carry out a comprehensive geological survey and make the results public. It also required the delineation of geologically sensitive areas where land development should be restricted. The hope was to establish a system of transparent and open geological information so the public could evacuate potential disaster areas.
The bill passed its third legislative reading, but was then recalled by legislators. One of the reasons given for the recall was that “if the law were used to review and determine which areas should not be developed, that would restrict land development and have a far-reaching impact on the rights and interests of the public.” The national organization for construction and development companies and six branch organizations for technical experts worked hard to block the legislation because of the mutual interests of, and exchanges between, these groups. The legislators recalling the geology act consisted of more than 60 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, including current Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Changhua County Commissioner Cho Po-yuan (卓伯源).
Thirteen years later, the Formosa Freeway landslide has again highlighted the need for a geology act, and both the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are now calling for rapid action. The question arises, however, whether Wu and the KMT should first apologize for blocking the act and also apologize to the families of the victims of Sunday’s landslide and the public before hurrying to correct the mistake they made 13 years ago.
Does passing a geology act ensure permanent land safety? If the government worries that it would hurt certain groups in the construction industry and therefore is afraid to make public the reasons for disasters and the location of geologically sensitive areas, then this law would merely be a paper tiger.
Not only do we need a geology act, we also need the government to implement it without fearing vested interests in the land development industry.
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It
Former Japanese minister of defense Shigeru Ishiba has been elected as president of the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and would be approved as prime minister in parliament today. Ishiba is a familiar face for Taiwanese, as he has visited the nation several times. His popularity among Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers has grown as a result of his multiple meetings and encounters with legislators and prominent figures in the government. The DPP and the LDP have close ties and have long maintained warm relations. Ishiba in August 2020 praised Taiwan’s
On Thursday last week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a well-researched report titled “The Widening Schism across the Taiwan Strait,” which focused on rising tensions between Taiwan and China, making a number of recommendations on how to avoid conflict. While it is of course laudable that a respected international organization such as the ICG is willing to think through possible avenues toward a peaceful resolution, the report contains a couple of fundamental flaws in the way it approaches the issue. First, it attempts to present a “balanced approach” by pushing back equally against Taiwan’s perceived transgressions as against Beijing’s military threats
RSS