Formosa (FPG) suppressing academic freedom and freedom of speech?

Formosa Plastics at Mailiao in Yunlin County. In the foreground is recently reclaimed land in known pink dolphin habitat.


Has petrochemical giant Formosa Plastics Group (FPG) embarked on a campaign against some of the very principles that define democracy and basic human rights? Whether or not FPG ascribes to these hallowed values of common humanity isn't known. What is known, however, is that FPG has filed a lawsuit against Professor Tsuang Ben-jei (莊秉潔) of National Chung Hsing University’s (NCHU) department of environmental engineering because they claim that in a report that he said emissions from FPG's sixth naphtha cracker plant in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township (麥寮) resulted in a higher cancer occurrence rate amongst nearby residents which has injured FPG's reputation.


Lets be honest! What reputation does FPG have? Go ask the good citizens of Taiwan what FPG's reputation is and you'll undoubtedly hear the words "pollution," "fires," and "cancer rates" in the majority of answers; if not all. Lets call a spade a spade. How many fires have they had down at FPG in Mailiao over the past two and a half years which have emitted huge uncontrolled toxic clouds of smoke into the surrounding area? Folks have last count. The latest one was on 17 April, wasn't it? It would seem there's always some drama going on at FPG. Lets face it! The folks at the top of FPG weren't the winners of the infamous Black Planet Award in 2009 for nothing. According to ethecon, the organisation which presents both the Blue Planet and infamous Black Planet Awards, "the Black Planet Award condemns individuals (people) who have contributed to the destruction and downfall of our Blue Planet in an outrageous way." Thus, many folks must be scratching their heads this morning trying to figure out how last year during a meeting of the Environmental Protection Administration’s (EPA) environmental impact assessment committee in which Professor Tsuang Ben-jei reported that hazardous heavy metals and carcinogenic substances contained in the exhaust gas emitted by the company’s sixth naphtha cracker plant in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township in a higher cancer occurrence rate for nearby residents has so harmed FPG's reputation. Come on? Hasn't the the No.17 Highway which passes FPG in Mailiao been nicknamed the "Cancer Corridor" for years? Didn't FTV do a program on the high rate of cancer around the Mailiao FPG plant in December 2009? Compared to national TV, how many folks watch the proceedings of EPA meeting? Like it or not, isn't FPG's reputation linked to high levels and pollution whether they like it or not. That is the perception folks in Taiwan and a great many other places have of FPG.


So if what Professor Tsuang Ben-jei is saying is nothing new why has FPG filed a lawsuit against him claiming NT$40 million for damages to its reputation? Could it be that FPG wishes to intimidate? No, surely not! Can you think of another reason? Oh, I'm sure those clever FPG lawyers can think of many. But there are a great many very clever people that aren't buying FPG's reason. They see it as an attack on academic freedom and the right to free speech. FPG using fear to silence criticism. Using the old "kill one and scare a thousand" tactic. A large group of very prominent academics yesterday rallied behind Tsuang pledging their support. Some has even said FPG can sue them, too.


When a big rich corporation starts attacking basic freedoms it tends to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the average good citizen. Early last year those good citizens made such a fuss about the Kuokuang Petrochemical Project in Erlin just across the Jhoushui River from Mailiao that Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou was forced to step in and cancel the project. Never had the good citizens of Taiwan got quite so worked up over the petrochemical industry as over Kuokuang. And probably a lot of that anger wasn't directly against Kuokuang but rather against the petrochemical industry as a whole. FPG's string of fires likely helped drive the outrage in that one. FPG should note that. Formosa should also not forget the McLibel case. Even with money and lawyers things don't always go your way.

See Academics rally to support defendant in today's Taipei Times.

Update: FPG-Tsuang lawsuit

New paper on the problems faced by the Taiwan Pink Dolphins

A new paper has been published on the problems faced by the ETS Sousa (aka Taiwan pink dolphins) in the Oceanographic Environmental Research Society's Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology. The paper is titled A review of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on the critically endangered eastern Taiwan Strait Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) by Sarah Z. Dungan, Kimberly N. Riehl, Ashley Wee, John Y. Wang. The paper can is available in the online version of Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology.

Click A review of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on the critically endangered eastern Taiwan Strait Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) to read.

EPA's new system to tackle illegal dumping; is anything really going to change?

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) announced it has established a new Illegal Dumping Management System to combat the ongoing problem of illegal dumping in Taiwan. This hi tech system will use GPS on garbage trucks, security cameras on waste treatment facilities and satellite remote sensing technologies to combat the illegal dumping problem.

Sounds like a step in the right direction but is this just more tech about nothing? Illegal dumping is a major problem in Taiwan. It happens everywhere. It's so common that much of it happens in plain sight. Is the root of this problem not the lack of enforcement? If this is happening in plain sight why aren't the police seeing it? The answer is simply they are but don't do anything about it. The will to tackle the issue is simply not there. There are cameras all over but how often does the footage actually get checked? Obviously not that often.

Taiwan's police are still caught up in the government thug mentality from the Marshal Law era. Until the police are made to start actually policing as officers of the peace, illegal dumping and all those other countless social and environmental issues are not going to be solved with hi tech band aids.

See EPA inaugurates system to impede illegal dumping in today's Taipei Times.

Any hope for cross-party environmental protection?

Today's Taipei Times editorial comments on the rarely seen spirit of cross-party cooperation between three legislators over environmental protection of wetlands. The environment should be one area where parties should be able to find common ground. But as the editorial notes, it's more likely going to be cooperation on "secret opposition to environmental policies to protect the corporate interests of their constituents."

Taipei Times Editorial: Cross-party spirit only goes so far

The rarely seen spirit of cross-party cooperation made its presence felt in the legislature on Sunday when lawmakers concerned about protecting the environment joined forces despite their otherwise insurmountable mutual antipathy.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiu Wen-yen (邱文彥), Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (田秋堇) and People First Party (PFP) Legislator Chang Show-foong (張曉風) led by example as they called on their peers to quit bickering along party lines when it comes to the environment.

The main focus of the lawmakers was the remaining wetlands along the west coast and coastal areas that have not yet been concreted over.

Their call for cooperation was admirable, but given the track record of lawmakers, whether they be pan-green or pan-blue, the public should not expect a new era of eco-detente to be embraced any time soon.

What seems more likely is that a small number of legislators, such as Chang of the PFP, who is noted for opposing — but not stopping — the construction of a biotechnology center in Taipei City’s Nangang District (南港), will make regular calls on their peers to put aside partisan interests in the name of protecting the environment for future generations.

Such a call cannot be completely ignored, because it is generally accepted by the public, if not by politicians and corporate bosses, that protecting the environment is a good idea. However, most lawmakers are likely to remain silent when Chang and her colleagues call for huge infrastructure projects on wetlands or coastlines to be halted.

They will agree wholeheartedly when called on to do their civic duty and keep the nation clean, but then most likely vote down any proposals that might hurt their corporate constituents, while working to undermine any cross-party agreements made by Chang and like-minded lawmakers.

This is probably one of the few issues that could unite pan-green and pan-blue politicians — secret opposition to environmental policies to protect the corporate interests of their constituents.

Chang is a true environmentalist and appears determined to push policies that protect what is left of the nation’s already besieged natural environment. However, it is doubtful that she can achieve much on her own in the Legislative Yuan.

If, by some miracle and collusion of interests, Chang does get lawmakers from the KMT and DPP to agree to rules that keep developers away from wetlands and coastal areas, the rest of Taiwan will owe her a huge debt of gratitude because no other lawmaker has focused on the goals she has set out for herself.

It is a huge task. She would have to change the legal code regulating industry in those zones, amend the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例), strengthen the Environmental Protection Administration so that it is not simply a rubber stamp for corporate interests, and stop local politicians and business leaders from simply ignoring central government decisions. It would also be necessary to ensure rules were enforced nationally and not just for photogenic famous wetlands like those near Wugoushui Village (五溝水) in Pingtung County’s Wanluan Township (萬巒).

Chang is going to need a clear idea of the challenges that lie ahead if she is to protect Taiwan’s environment for the use of future generations.

Taipei Times, 14 February 2012

Also see:
Lawmakers seek multi-party push to protect wetlands

Lawmakers seek multi-party push to protect wetlands

Today's Taipei Times reports that three lawmakers are seeking a multi-party push to protect Taiwan's wetlands. Such news is always welcome and it is encouraging to see that one of the lawmakers is Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (田秋堇) who does have a pretty good track record in helping with coastal issues that threaten the Taiwan pink dolphins.

Taiwan urgently needs concrete legislation to protect its fragile coast and wetlands. Lets hope this is a genuine effort to do something and not just another "green-washing" gimmick.

See Lawmakers seek multi-party push to help wetlands in today's Taipei Times.


Also see:
Any hope for cross-party environmental protection?

Top environment news revealed

A poll on the Taiwan Environmental Information Association (TEIA) Web site showed that the top three domestic environmental issues for 2011 were the plasticizer contaminated food scandal, the resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement and the halt of a naphtha cracker complex construction project by Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology in Changhua County. With a legacy of advancing industry at the expense of the environment it was not surprising that almost half of the issues voted on were to do with farmland and the impact of industry on the environment.


The Kuokuang Petrochemical project threatened to destroy the internationally important Dacheng wetlands in Changhua county and the project posed a major threat to the critically endangered Taiwan pink dolphins. The MFCU was a major player in causing the project development in Dacheng to be halted.

See the article in yesterday's Taipei Times titled "Top environment news revealed".

Misguided Talk of “Hotspots” Threatens Taiwan’s Humpback Dolphins

The following is a translation of a letter by Allen C. Chen that appeared in the China Times on 29 December 2011.


China Times
29 December 2011

By Allen C. Chen

Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Administration yesterday held a meeting to review research on the environmental impact of expanding the Formosa Plastics Group’s Sixth Naphtha Cracker complex located on Taiwan’s central-west coast. The meeting addressed the findings of a study conducted by a team of researchers from National Taiwan University and National Sun Yat-Sen University commissioned by Formosa Plastics. The researchers found that wastewater discharged by the plant is likely to adversely affect the endangered Taiwan humpback dolphins* and cause their population to dwindle. This finding surprises no one.

The humpback dolphins are not the only victims of pollution by the Sixth Naphtha Cracker plant. Residents of the neighboring area suffer increased mortality from air pollution emitted by the plant. The local humpback dolphin population, already struggling to find enough food in the area’s over-fished waters, must breathe the same polluted air, and swim in seawater that is acidified by effluent from the plant. This harsh treatment of the critically endangered humpback dolphins calls to mind the recent eviction of homeless people from a Taipei park in wintry weather by city workers armed with water hoses. Do we really need more costly studies when the plight of these dolphins is already plain to see? Furthermore, in taking a close look at the team’s research, this author has found it contains an alarming and misguided proposition that may prove to be the final twist of the knife for the Taiwan humpback dolphins. The problem is a serious misuse of the concept of “hotspot,” creating a skewed picture of the humpback dolphin ecology.

The term “hotspot” is rigorously defined in the field of biology. Wikipedia, for example, defines “biodiversity hotspot” as a “biogeographic region with a significant reservoir of biodiversity that is under threat from humans”. An example of a generally recognized biodiversity hotspot is the Coral Triangle region between Indonesia, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea, a region with over 800 species of tropical coral and 1,500 species of fish and shelfish. The Formosa Plastics research team’s arbitrary use of the term “hotspot” to describe the frequencies of appearances by members of a single humpback dolphin species is a fundamentally mistaken analogy.

The concept of hotspots has been misused and bandied about to mislead the general public ever since the environmental impact assessment for the Kuokuang Petrochemical project, and has even given rise to absurd claims that the Taiwan humpback dolphins are capable of “steering their own way” out of danger. This flawed research adopts the false premise that the humpback dolphins reside only in the “hotspots” and merely “transit” through other areas of the waters they inhabit. This has led, in the research and planning of protection zones, to a misguided focus on defining the “hottest hotspots.” The researchers have accepted successive rounds of funding from the public and private sectors to conduct study after study based on the same old false premise.

Accumulating data by observing cetaceans in the wild is a long and time-consuming process. This research team has declared its data on the distribution of the Taiwan humpback dolphins to be “classified” and has denied other groups access to the data for comparative study. It has not submitted its findings for review by any international scholarly publication. By taking this approach, it has continuously postponed the formulation of follow-up conservation policies. The result is that efforts to save the dolphins are being snuffed out with the passing of time.

By contrast, a number of papers by other experts already published in rigorously reviewed international publications show that the full range of the humpback dolphins’ habitat off of Taiwan’s west coast is one integral territory that cannot be divided up into zones, and certainly not into so-called “hotspots.” Yet these facts have been entirely disregarded by the government authorities in charge of conservation, to the dismay of the international community of cetacean experts. Even though half a year has passed since the suspension of the Kuokuang Petrochemical project, the conservation authorities have not taken any action. They remain in thrall to the absurd “hotspot” theory that has never been subjected to peer review, and that is killing the humpback dolphins. The present author and numerous international experts have written directly to President Ma and to the Minister of Agriculture to stress the crucial point that the humpback dolphin habitat cannot be divided up, but our voices have been ignored, and the false concept of “hotspots” has continued to spread.

The Taiwan humpback dolphin faces five devastating threats: disappearing habitat; declining inflow of fresh water, affecting food sources; domestic wastewater and agricultural and industrial chemical pollution; underwater noise; by-catching in gillnets. This conclusion, backed by ironclad evidence, was confirmed by international cetacean experts back in 2007, and published in an international journal and a book, but 5 years later the Taiwan government has yet to listen to the admonitions of these experts. In the face of this snail-paced bureaucracy and flaw-ridden local research, this author must pessimistically predict that the eastern Taiwan Strait subpopulation of humpback dolphins will be stricken from the “critically endangered” category on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species within the coming few years—not because we will have succeeded in our conservation efforts, but because the dolphins will have disappeared forever from the Taiwan Strait. When that day comes, there will be no question about who killed the Taiwan humpback dolphins.


Author Allen C. Chen, PhD, is a Research Fellow of the Biodiversity Research Centre Academia Sinica, Taiwan, a member of the Eastern Taiwan Strait Sousa Technical Advisory Working Group, and a specialist on working groups of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

*Taiwan humpback dolphin commonly called Taiwan pink dolphin.