Recent Government responses to articles and blogs opposing the construction of a new Kuokuang Petrochemical plant are a little disconcerting.

One Cabinet member simply brushed aside what people might think of the government’s actions, not giving a second’s thought that there might be something to the criticism. Nor did he see fit to address the root cause of the issue in his vacuous response.

The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) likes to keep an eye on what is happening in the blogosphere and sometimes responds to individual blogs. One blogger named Tottoro, for example, wrote a Chinese-language entry titled “Want to live a long life? Then don’t live near a petrochemical plant.” The EPA duly responded, requiring the “offending” blogger to publish the text of its letter on the blog. Neither is the EPA above sending post office evidentiary letters, hoping this would discourage bloggers from writing similar pieces. In popular parlance today, it’s intended to create a “chilling effect.”

The Industrial Development Bureau (IDB), for its part, dealt with the increasingly vocal opposition to the Kuokuang construction project in its own fashion: first, by using public funds to publish notices in dailies on why we cannot do without the Kuokuang plant; and second, by paying every blogger who signed up NT$5,000 on the condition that they praise the petrochemical industry in their blogs. The question is, how far does this go in changing the public’s mind or in resolving their plight?

In responding to an article written by Severia Lu (陸詩薇) about the Kuokuang project, two Cabinet members also saw fit not to directly address accusations leveled in the article. Lu wrote about the effects the construction of the Kuokuang plant will have — in terms of quality and quantity — on the nation’s food security, resource allocation, efforts to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions, as well as the inherent contradictions between what the government says it wants to do and what it is actually doing. Instead, the two officials chose to engage in empty word games. This goes some way to explaining the slump in the government’s popularity ratings and level of support.

Whenever the government decides to take a controversial development project under its wing and rush through an environmental impact assessment (EIA), it asks the public to trust that it would handle the process in a strictly professional manner. There are, however, at least two cases that shed some doubt on the veracity of this claim to professionalism.

On Dec 9, 2009, the EPA announced the results of an EIA statement for a certain hotel development project, saying that it had passed, albeit with conditions attached. The second of these conditions was that the number of land crabs should continue to be monitored, and that if their numbers fall below half of the benchmark (based on a percentage of the number recorded during a 2007 survey), construction or operation of the hotel would have to be halted.

We shall leave aside for the moment the question of how one can accurately keep tabs on the number of land crabs or whose responsibility it is to do the monitoring, or to check whether it is being properly monitored. Neither shall we question the fact that the directive was never submitted in written form, rendering it pretty much toothless. The more pressing question is how can an official institution, ostensibly charged with “environmental protection,” allow big business to build a hotel on land known to be a major habitat for land crabs? And since we’re asking, how can it countenance the loss of a full half of the land crab population (which, according to the survey, stood at only 25,000 at the time). This does not bode well for the rich natural ecology of the wetlands at the intended location of the Kuokuang petrochemicals plant, nor for the local fishing industry.

From  TaipeiTimes ：http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/03/23/2003498867