Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen: How Do You Intend to Clean Up the Central Taiwan Science Park Mess?

Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen:How Do You Intend to Clean Up the Central Taiwan Science Park Mess?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 5, 2010

Construction has been halted on Phase 3 of the Central Taiwan Science Park. What do Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen have to say for themselves? This is not a hypothetical question. The reason we are demanding answers from them, is their role in the Seven Stars Farm Environmental Impact Assessment dispute. Afer all, forceful intervention by these two during their terms as premier and deputy premier created this mess in the first place. The Administrative Court has ordered the project halted. The industries impacted face hundreds of billions in losses. Clearly those responsible for creating this mess have an oblgation to explain themselves and help clean it up.

Back then the Chen administration was promoting its "Two Trillion, Three Stars" plan, and promoted the Central Taiwan Science Park full force. It allow AUO to move in after only 10 months. Su Tseng-chang single-handedly masterminded Phase 3. The EPA Bureau Chief at the time was environmental activist Chang Kuo-lung. Tsai Ing-wen personally telephoned Environmental Impact Assessment Commission members to "express concern for the project." The project was rammed through amidst intense controversy, leading to continued litigation. Two and a half years ago, the High Administrative Court squelched an Environmental Impact Assessment for the first time in history. The government refused to halt construction on the project, and rejected further appeals. The party in power at the time was the DPP. The record is clear to see. Yet the Green Camp and the DPP are now attempting to use the controversy to accuse the Blue Camp of indifference to environmental protection and contempt for the law, in flagrant defiance of the truth.

Governmental decision-making must of course have consistency and continuity. If the KMT were to characterize its plight as "being forced to wipe the DPP's ass," we would not approve. But when the government's plans for industrial development conflict with environmental protection, the successor administration and the ruling and opposition parties must face facts and seek solutions. They must not use the opportunity to engage in muck-raking or complicate issues by politicizing them. They certainly must not mire the public in a debate over "economic growth vs. environmental protection." They must insist on environmental sustainability while protecting the rights and interests of business. The government must not default on its responsibilities, and the opposition party must not attempt to fish in troubled waters.

A string of events seem to suggest an increase in environmental awareness on Taiwan. These include protests by farmers from DaPu, protests by farmers from Hsiang Shi Liao and the Seven Star Farm over the Central Taiwan Science Park, protests over the fire at the Formosa Plastics Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant, and protests over the Kuo Kuang Eighth Naphtha Cracking Plant. Closer examination however reveals that the motivations in each case were not the same. The backlash from farmers in Dapu and Hsiang Shi Liao was a reaction to the heavy-handed application of eminent domain. Public suspicions concerning Phase 3 of the Central Taiwan Science Park and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant were the result of a sloppy Environmental Impact Assessment. Concerns about the Formosa Plastics Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant arose in response to poor internal management practices and gaps in industrial safety measures.

As we can see, the current wave of environmental protests was the result of inept administrative practices by the previous two administrations. These left the public with the impression that the government "favors industry at the expense of agriculture." Secondly, a number of industries failed to fulfill their commitments, and left the public feeling betrayed. There was no wave of "anti-business" sentiment. The question that must be asked is whether past or present administrations abused their authority and failed to follow procedure. These administrations must pay closer attention, and respect the rights of minorities. Industry must set higher standards for itself. It must not blindly pursue profits and ignore public expectations.

Heightened environmental awareness is a sign of social progress. But current protests include political ploys masquerading as environmental protection. They involve environmental double standards. Their instigators are environmental con artists. Take the construction halt on Phase 3 of the Central Taiwan Science Park for example. DPP legislators are demanding that Sheng Shi-hung step down. They are feigning ignorance that this was a decision made by Su Tseng-chang while he was in office, They are deliberately inverting cause and effect. When academicians petitioned against the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, Lee Yuan-tse described the construction of the Eighth Naphtha Cracking Plant as "extremely unfortunate for Taiwan." The only problem is, the Chen Shui-bian administration had been promoting the project for years. Then EPA Bureau Chief Chang Kuo-long was accused of "obstructing" both this project and the Formosa Plastics Steel Mill, and summarily replaced. Then Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tse, and then National Science Council Chairperson Chen Chien-jen voiced no opposition whatsoever. Given their flagrant double standards, aren't they afraid of the damage to their reputations as scientists?

Economic growth and environmental protection are not necessarily rivals in a zero-sum game. Only 2 percent of the residents in Miaoli Dapu opposed government acquisition of the land. Only two dozen or so farmers refused to vacate their ancestral homes in Hsiang Shi Liao. Only seven farming families commissioned environmental groups to file suit in the Seven Stars Farm dispute. The will of the minority must be taken seriously. But the hopes of the majority for economic development and employment cannot be ignored. Phase 3 and 4 of the Central Taiwan Science Park have been halted. This has raised concerns among residents of Er Ling about the impact on their local economy. They are threatening protests of their own. The government must have sound reasons for whatever it does. It must balance economic growth with environmental protection. It must consider the will of both the majority and the minority.

The five cities elections are fast arriving. The KMT is afraid that the environmental issue may continue to burn. Therefore it has adopted a soft strategy. It has called a halt to Phase 3 and 4 of the Central Taiwan Science Park. It has become an election issue. Therefore the fate of the Central Taiwan Science Park must not be determined solely by Wu Den-yih or Jason Hu. Nor should the industrial firms involved be the only ones to suffer the consequences. Current political candidates Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen have an obligation to contemplate the mess they have left behind, and tell us how they think it should be cleaned up. This is an historical responsibilty that both the Blue and Green camps must share. During the Democratic Progressive Party's time in office, it ignored the law in order to help industry. They proved that this approach cannot work. Now that the DPP is in the opposition, it has the temerity to turn around and accuse industry of doing nothing but polluting. That simply does not fly.

問蘇貞昌蔡英文中科如何善後
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.05 02:18 am

這不是一個假設性問題。之所以要問蘇貞昌和蔡英文對中科三期喊卡有何看法，因為三期七星農場的環評爭議，正是兩人在擔任正副閣揆時強勢介入所留下的後果。如今，行政法院裁定停止開發、廠商數千億投資面臨無所適從，原始決策者當然有義務說明立場及如何善後。

扁政府當年為了推動「兩兆三星」計畫，全力開發中科，僅花了十個月就讓友達進駐。中科三期由蘇內閣一手主導，當時環保署長是出身環運的張國龍，蔡英文且打電話向環評委員關切；此案在爭議中強渡關山，導致居民不斷爭訟。兩年半前，高等行政法院首度判決撤銷環評，拒絕停工並提出上訴的仍是民進黨政府。從這些前因後果看，今天綠營或民進黨趁機反咬藍營蔑視環保、漠視法令，都是有昧於事實的說法。

當然，政府行政決策應有其一貫性及連續性，國民黨若要將此事形容為替民進黨政府「擦屁股」，我們也不贊同。問題在，當國家延續性重大工業開發計劃與環境保護發生衝突時，前後任政府及朝野政黨必須就事論事，設法尋求解決；而不是趁機相互潑糞，或將之複雜化為政治事件，甚至讓整個社會再陷入「經濟與環保孰重」的交戰之中。重要的是，維護環境永續的立場要堅持，企業的合法權益要保障，政府公權力則不可廢弛自己的責任，在野黨也不應趁火打劫。

近期的一連串事件，從大埔農民走上街頭，到中科相思寮、七星農場的抗爭，包括台塑六輕火災到反國光八輕的事件，都說明台灣保育意識的再度抬頭。但仔細觀察，其中問題並不全然相同：大埔與相思寮是出在徵收手段粗魯，導致農民反彈；中科三期和國光石化是環評程序不夠完備，引發社會疑慮；台塑六輕則是內部管理不良，出現工安漏洞。

由此可見，這一波環保事件，更大的癥結在於前後兩任政府的行政處理手段欠佳，留給人們「重工輕農」的印象；其次，是少數企業的管理和承諾未能徹底落實，失卻民眾的信任；而並非社會突然湧現了「反商情結」。要檢討的，是前後任政府公權力的運用為何偏離軌道，如何能更細緻化，不要忽視少數的權益。企業則應提升自我要求，不要一味追求營收，而疏忽了社會期待。

環保意識的提高，是社會進步的象徵；但在這波事件中，我們卻看到了一些假環保之名而為的政治操作，用兩套標準談環保，實可謂環保之賊。以中科三期遭裁定停工為例，民進黨立委要求沈世宏下台負責；他們假裝不知道這是蘇貞昌任內的決策，故意倒果為因。在學者反對「國光石化」的連署中，李遠哲形容建八輕是「台灣非常不幸的事」；問題是，此案在陳水扁執政時已經成立多年，當時環保署長張國龍還被扣上「阻擋」此案及台塑大鋼廠案之名而遭撤換；李遠哲和陳建仁當時分居中研院長及國科會主委，為何從未表示反對意見？如此兩套標準，不怕引起反科學之譏嗎？

經濟和環保，並不完全是零和遊戲。苗栗大埔僅百分之二居民反對徵收，相思寮抗爭是廿多戶農民不願離開祖厝，七星農場則是七戶農民委託環保團體代打行政訴訟。小蝦米的心願必須重視，但多數人對開發及就業的期待也不能不顧。中科三四期喊卡，一批憂心地方發展的二林民眾也表示要抗爭；政府該做的就是要進退有據，兼籌經濟和環境，並顧多數和少數。

五都選舉在即，國民黨深恐環保議題延燒，因此採取柔勢策略；中科三四期喊卡，應是出於這樣的盤計。這既是一個選舉議題，那麼中科何去何從，就不該只是吳敦義或胡志強的責任，也不只是廠商該自認倒楣；正在參選的蘇貞昌和蔡英文，也有義務想想自己留下的爛攤要如何收拾，這才是藍綠真正的歷史「共業」。民進黨執政時，罔顧法令也要幫助企業設廠，證明是行不通；如今在野，若竟然翻臉指控廠商只會「放雞屎」，一樣是說不通的！