The Executive Yuan on Thursday last week announced its draft amendment to the Mining Act (礦業法). The draft has major flaws that fall under three main issues.
First, there is the issue of history. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) first worked on the legislation in Beijing, then in Nanjing, and finally in Taipei, after its retreat to Taiwan.
The legislation has undergone 16 rounds of revision since its enactment on May 26, 1930. Each round revised articles, but never addressed the act’s underlying principle.
Ridiculously, the seventh round of revisions — made in 1949 after the government had relocated to Taiwan — still assumed that the legislation should address the needs of China’s administrative regions.
The legislation’s basic structure — laid out in China in 1930 — is not applicable to modern Taiwan in terms of its society and politics.
These problems have never been addressed, and the Cabinet’s proposed draft does not address them either, which is its most egregious issue.
Second, there is the issue of geography. The assumption behind the act is that a huge expanse of land — like China — must be controlled. Its design treats mining rights and land use rights separately.
The design is ill-suited to Taiwan, an island that mostly consists of high-altitude areas and has limited mineral resources. Countries such as Taiwan, Japan and other Pacific island nations need a mining policy focused on their particular geographies.
Third, there is the issue of content. Most of the minerals listed in the act are specific to China and are nowhere to be found in Taiwan.
Of the 60 minerals listed in Article 3 of the draft, only one-third are found in Taiwan. What is the point of listing these minerals at all?
There is no consistency in the terminology used. The draft mixes mineral names with chemical names, listing sulfur with pyrite and natural alkali, and mingles descriptions of commercial use with generic terms, such as abrasives, mineral pigments, and “gems and jade,” along with using umbrella terms with specific descriptions, such as marble and calcite.
Listing these in the proposed draft in this fashion is unforgivable.
There is a complete absence of minerals central to the government’s policy of safeguarding sovereignty — no green energy resources such as geothermal energy, methane ice and shale gas.
The entire passage of the Executive Yuan’s proposal — from the drafting and the announcement to the briefing session — has been filled with major administrative flaws.
An evasion of public scrutiny and incomplete meeting minutes all had people feeling deceived, and could even affect the authority of the draft.
The act is in dire need of amendment, but it must be revised from the ground up.
It is high time to establish a Mining Act that applies to a modern Taiwan and covers the nation’s geographic conditions.
With certain conditions in place, the act’s purpose is to regulate mining activity. The current worthless legislation is meant to restrict a developing mining industry.
The mining trade — one of the few industries covered in the Constitution — is influenced by and has an effect on geography, geology, mineral deposits, environmental protection and indigenous rights.
This is why it has been viewed as “untouchable,” but this is no excuse for the Ministry of Economic Affairs to do as it pleases.
Tseng Pao-chung is vice chairman of the Chinese Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.
Translated by Rita Wang
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
Numerous expert analyses characterize today’s US presidential election as a risk for Taiwan, given that the two major candidates, US Vice President Kamala Harris and former US president Donald Trump, are perceived to possess divergent foreign policy perspectives. If Harris is elected, many presume that the US would maintain its existing relationship with Taiwan, as established through the American Institute in Taiwan, and would continue to sell Taiwan weapons and equipment to help it defend itself against China. Under the administration of US President Joe Biden, whose political views Harris shares, the US on Oct. 25 authorized arms transfers to Taiwan, another
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and