The Nantou County Government on Saturday last week convened an environmental impact assessment meeting on plans to build an incinerator in Mingjian Township (名間).
In a particularly hard-to-watch moment, tea farmers knelt in protest alongside petitioners before a row of officials and police officers. The scene showed their feeling of betrayal and the depth of their anxieties over the proposal and the troubling reality that Nantou County has long been governed by the wealthy and powerful. Proper procedure has been reduced to a fig leaf for their vested interests.
The county government described the incinerator as necessary to deal with 250 tonnes of household garbage produced every day, yet the plans showed it would have a capacity of 700 tonnes. What of the extra 450 tonnes? It is simple: more room to process industrial waste for profit.
The county claims to be sorting out its finances, but it is actually pushing through a controversial and polluting treatment plant in Mingjian, where 60 percent of Taiwan’s Oolong tea for hand-shaken bubble tea drinks originates.
The county government proposed Sinmin Village (新民) as the site for the incinerator, but overlooked the dangers of the area’s basin-like terrain, which could potentially trap and accumulate dioxin pollutants. Once heavy metals enter the environment and the tea fields, it would put local tea farmers’ livelihoods and bubble tea food safety standards across the country at risk.
Interestingly, the original report considered Nantou City (南投), and Caotun (草屯), Jhushan (竹山) and Guosing (國姓) townships as sites for the incinerator, one of which was ruled out for being upwind of the Nantou County Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) director’s house.
Ultimately, Mingjian Township, governed by a Democratic Progressive Party mayor, was selected. It is difficult not to view that decision as being politically motivated.
Perhaps most alarming is the lack of ethics behind the EPB’s decision.
The chairman of the Environmental Assessment Committee, National Chi Nan University professor Tsai Yung-pin (蔡勇斌), told the kneeling tea farmers: “You set a terrible example.”
Ivory tower arrogance indeed.
A quick look at the records reveals that Tsai’s team has long worked on Nantou County Government projects, where the relationship between research funding and policy decisionmaking has become deeply intertwined.
As the International Association for Impact Assessment puts it, environmental assessments should put public interests first.
What is happening in Nantou is unfair. EPB, as a player, is buying out the referee.
Why, in a democratic country, do citizens have no recourse other than kneeling? How could power in Nantou, long governed by the DPP, be flaunted so arrogantly? The issue is certainly not confined to the region either.
Once the inevitable “incinerator tea” label takes hold, the decades-long reputation of the purity of Mingjian’s tea would evaporate overnight.
Vested interests contaminating the bubble tea in every other person’s hand in Taiwan should concern all. Nantou County Commissioner Hsu Shu-hua (許淑華) must face the images of the kneeling protestors and ask herself: Is this not the very community she claims to be looking after?
Liou Je-wei is a teacher.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS