Netflix on April 21 announced that it had gained 15.8 million subscribers in the first quarter of the year, almost double what market analysts had expected, largely due to the number of people staying home because of lockdowns or stay-at-home advisories to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
While that was good news for the world’s largest streaming service, it might not be for Formosa Plastics Corp (FPC), one of the four major subsidiaries of Formosa Plastics Group (FPG), which on April 10 posted a combined loss of NT$13.99 billion (US$469.43 million) for the quarter, its worst performance in five years. That is because on March 11, the second season of Netflix’s critically acclaimed investigative series about greed, crime and corporate corruption, Dirty Money, premiered worldwide, with six episodes that examine everything from Wells Fargo’s predatory business practices and fraud to Malaysia’s 1MDB scandal to Formosa Plastics’ damaging environmental practices at its massive plant in Point Comfort, Texas.
As a result of its actions at Point Comfort, FPG in October last year agreed to pay a US$50 million settlement to end a lawsuit over its discharge of plastic pellet waste and polyvinyl chloride powder into Lavaca Bay and other waterways near the Gulf of Mexico.
The settlement, which US District Judge Kenneth Hoyt approved on Dec. 3 and signed two days later, made headlines in Taiwan, the US and elsewhere when it was announced, not only because it was the largest financial settlement in a lawsuit brought by private individuals under the US Clean Water Act, but because FPG agreed to a zero-discharge agreement, something the plastics industry has long argued was impossible.
Hoyt and FPG made headlines the previous June when, in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, he called FPC a “serial offender” that had committed “enormous” infringements of the Clean Water Act and Texas state law since 2016.
The Dirty Money episode, Point Comfort, demonstrates that Hoyt’s comments were well deserved, for it is not just about malfeasance by FPG at the Texas plant.
Margaret Brown, who directed the episode, incorporated archive footage of protests against FPG in Taiwan, including those in November 1987 over pollution from its plant in what was then Kaohsiung County’s Renwu Township (仁武), as well as other protests in March 1993 and April 1999.
FPG’s poor track record is well known to Taiwanese. In 2009, the Environmental Protection Administration found that the soil and groundwater at the Renwu plant contained chemical compounds exceeding the agency’s standards, including 1,2-dichloroethane — which is believed to be a carcinogen — at 30,000 times higher than standards allowed.
However, Brown’s episode brings FPG’s story to homes around the world, showcasing the dichotomy between the company’s public relations efforts and the reality on the ground. It details the efforts of whistle-blowers and community activists such as Diane Wilson, a former commercial shrimper who waged a decades-long battle against FPG after she saw her industry destroyed by pollution from the Point Comfort plant. It also shows how easy it was for FPG to evade oversight from Texas regulators, as well as how the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Environmental Protection Agency are failing consumers and endangering their health, which are points that no doubt sound familiar to viewers in many nations outside Taiwan and the US.
The episode, which was produced before Hoyt finalized the settlement, leaves out an interesting part of the agreement: If Formosa issues any press release or statement about donations made or projects funded with the settlement, it must state that it has done so as a result of the lawsuit, not as part of corporate goodwill or largesse.
Point Comfort shows that in the end, there are some things that money just cannot buy.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS