It has been reported that the Taipei Department of Urban Development ordered the closure of a recycling yard in Wanhua District (萬華) because it contravened the Regulations on Land Use Zoning Control (土地使用分區管制自治條例). According to the law, a recycling yard may not be established in a residential area. The neighborhood applauded the decision, saying that they have been bothered by scavengers’ noises and trash, as well as traffic problems nearby.
The city government has the right to shut down business premises that contravene the law, and problems resulting from the activities of scavengers should also be properly handled.
Yet the matter is not as simple as it seems.
The report said that the recycling yard has been functioning for 50 years, and more than 200 people take their recyclables there to make a living. They are usually in their later years, most are from low and middle-to-low-income households, and some have disabilities.
Every day, they take lots of items to the yard in exchange for cash. In many ways, this recycling yard in Wanhua is a bank for the impoverished.
The city government seems to believe that it must be closed for the greater good. I beg to differ.
A-hua (啊華), a 56-year-old woman, is one of the people selling her recyclables there. Unlike many others who come with carts, she rides her bicycle to the recycling yard with only a basket of items. She lives on Huanhe S Road without electricity, as she cannot pay the bill. For five years, she has been using candles if she needs light in the night.
She once took off her hat and showed me the scars on her head. When she was younger, she was run over by a gravel truck. She has had brain surgery and a tracheostomy. As a result, A-hua is slower than others when expressing herself and reacting to the outside world. She has a hard time finding a job.
Had it not been for her parents, she would not have survived. Unfortunately, her parents passed away five years ago. She suddenly lost her support, and because of the house left to her by her parents, A-hua cannot claim subsidies from official agencies, so she earns her living by collecting and selling the recyclables.
However, due to her health, it is difficult for her to collect as many recyclables as others. A-hua has to bring her items to the recycling yard eight times a day to receive about NT$30. This is how much she can spend on food per day.
If the recycling yard is shut down, how will A-hua earn a living? What about other people who rely on this form of income? The city government must do something to help them.
Social work and welfare agencies should investigate these people’s financial circumstances and living conditions. They must ask whether those from low and middle-to-low-income families have enough social security. They must help those whose households are not categorized as low and middle-to-low-income obtain the subsidies they are eligible for, or reach out to non-governmental organizations to assist with their problems.
The best-case scenario is that these people find jobs. Meanwhile, the matter of waste recycling should be regarded as an environmental issue that involves the entire public.
As for the establishment of a recycling yard and where it should be, that is up to the wisdom of the city government to decide.
Yu Ying-fu is a lawyer and honorary chairperson of the Pearl S. Buck Foundation in Taipei.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS