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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS