For professionals whose entire job requires good communication, politicians can be an especially tone-deaf bunch. Or perhaps their blunders are symptomatic of who has their ear, which, more often than not, correlates with who has the most money.
On Monday last week, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chen Ou-po (陳歐珀) caused a stir by suggesting that Yilan County’s Turtle Island (Gueishan Island, 龜山島) and nearby areas be developed into an international tourist destination.
Sandwiched in the middle of a Facebook post discussing legislative progress and the battery industry, Chen threw in the idea of building a hotel on the uninhabited island using a build-operate-transfer model.
Media jumped on the idea, forcing a response later that day from Chen, who doubled down on his view that the area should be developed “provided that the development does not compromise the environment or ecosystem.”
Yet the story has held interest in the media and online, drawing another defense on Sunday. Repeatedly emphasizing the importance of sustainability and low density, Chen said that he was not calling for large-scale development, but merely floating an idea to consider as a way to realize the potential of Taiwan’s world-class natural attractions.
There is no reason to disbelieve Chen’s intentions, but his suggestion has clearly struck a nerve.
People have been clamoring to go to Turtle Island since it was reopened to the public in 2000, after being used by the military for 23 years, but the Northeast and Yilan Coast National Scenic Area Administration has been careful to implement strict ecological controls. Daily visitor numbers are limited and monitored through coast guard patrols, although the cap has steadily risen from 250 in 2000 to 1,800 today. No one is allowed to stay overnight, and only part of the island is open to tourists, while ferries and tour operators are trained in conservation practices.
Especially when compared with another popular offshore tourist destination, these efforts should be lauded. Pingtung County’s Siaoliouciou Island (小琉球) — just a 30-minute boat ride from the main island — once had some of the healthiest coral reefs in the nation, but now environmentalists say the surrounding seabed is “barren” due partly to poor tourism practices.
Also about 30 minutes from shore, Turtle Island is home to a stunning diversity of rare species, including at least 16 types of cetaceans and the endemic Formosan lily. It is also a habitat of the Formosan flying fox, the only one of three habitats in Taiwan that has seen a steady increase in population since 2010, even as it opens to ever greater numbers of tourists.
The approach is clearly working. Input from environmentalists and stakeholders are taken into account to balance their needs. The scenic area administration even addressed the development issue in a prior report, stating that large-scale construction does not fit with its conservationist goals, even if last week it said that it has not yet evaluated the possibility of building a hotel.
At the same time, Chen is offering nothing but buzzwords to support his argument. His logic jumps from globalization to tourism growth to building a hotel, without asking whether the industry would be best served by another “international-grade” facility, while the east coast remains dotted with failed hotels and resorts.
It would take far more creativity to help the area live up to its potential as a world-class travel destination, but the best Chen can come up with is to parrot the desires of developers. No wonder people are disappointed.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS