July 04, 2011

To Ya-ying twenty years later,

How are you? What kind of job are you doing right now? Are you sharing part of your income with public welfare organizations? Are you, like many generous donors who donate to the Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association right now, sharing a portion of you’re earnings so that public welfare organizations don’t have to rely on government, can operate independently, and can bravely administer issues they are involved in?

I hope and believe that you will do so. No matter how poor or rich you are, you will be able to share your time, experience, or money with others. “Sharing” makes both people and society richer. Being rich is not the same as having money but rather the willingness to share. I hope that the society you live in is very rich.

In the society you live in, are job positions in public welfare organizations desirable? Do they receive reasonable compensation for their labor to achieve their goals without having to worry? Do people support these public welfare organizations, question government, and reform society in the long term? Will government handle matters reasonably with greater fairness because of the people’s questions? Will all have a better opportunity for growth and development?

I used to believe that government acted for the betterment of the majority, because this is what government is supposed to be about and the reason why people pay taxes. After time spent working in the environmental movement, however, I have been exposed to different perspectives: the needs of corporations are pandered to but the cries of local people are ignored. Corporations seize land with government approval forcing residents out of their homes. Government administrations can spend tax dollars on advertisements to criticize courts of law and even proposals to revise laws. We elect the government through a democratic process, but if we do not continue to monitor and question this so-called democracy, the government does not necessarily act for the benefit of the majority. This is not only a danger to democracy but also a rallying point. We understand the problem and possible solutions. Public welfare organizations must become far more powerful so they can challenge government in the interests of the general public. Their power to influence must not be any less than the influence private enterprises have over the government.

In the era I live in, public welfare organizations are usually small and poor, using very limited staff and resources to stand against government and enterprises. Will this ever change? Will young lawyers seek a career in public welfare organizations as their top priority? Will they choose the field of public welfare as a long-time career? When affluent enterprises influence government to protect the benefits of industry above those of the common people will there be people in the legal field to take the case; performing litigation and fighting for justice for the general public? When the heartless organizational structures of government and industry oppress some members of society, will there be anyone there to challenge the powers-that-be for a fairer system?

I imagine you in a new beautiful era: the general public is willing to donate money and resources to support public welfare organizations so they can hire people to challenge controversial issues concerning the public. Where public welfare organizations’ money comes from the general public’s approval and not the government’s financial support. Professionals in the legal field, whether as full-time staff or volunteers, are actively involved in all kinds of non-profit organizations to secure human rights, realize social justice, and promote democratic law and order. My friends have told me: this “citizens’ society” era is about to approach. I believe in it and am excited about its arrival.

With much love and hope, for you and future generations,

Ya-ying

P.S. This was written after the Environmental Jurists Association’s first annual conference and before Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association’s meeting on its vision.

Conference on The United Nations, Taiwan and Sustainable Development, 19 July 2008This report is an adaptation of a presentation given by the Taiwan delegation to the Global Greens
Congress held in São Paulo Brazil on 3 May 2008.

The original English version was written by Robin Winkler, the Chinese by Lin Jhenyang, Li Hanru, Li Syuanheng, Cui Suhsin and Jhang Chuanjia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On account of the efforts of the United States and China, Taiwan’s ability to join
international conferences to discuss, debate and work towards solving global issues such as climate change, cross border pollution, conflict resolution, health issues and other aspects of sustainability is extremely compromised.

Although Taiwan is known by many names, the name I like best is “Ihla Formosa”, the words that are said to have been expressed by the Portuguese explorers in the early 17th century when they first came upon the island, an island that had been inhabited by the ancestors of some 70% of today’s Taiwan residents. The ancestors of Taiwan’s Indigenous people had been able to maintain the island through millennia of sustainable economic, political and social practices.

As Japanese colony for fifty years, Taiwan is said to have “reverted” to rule by the Republic of China in 1945. The status of Taiwan remains without consensus,
internationally, not to mention the rights of Taiwan’s half million Indigenous peoples. Lacking a “de jure” resolution, and the unlikelihood of a resolution soon, we must nevertheless look at the de facto status of Taiwan in order to address the issue of sustainable development. First, some environmental (in the broad sense, including natural environment, social and economic) attributes of Taiwan in order to give context to my view of sustainable development in Taiwan and its role the international community.

Our country of about 23.3 million people with an area slightly smaller than Holland but nearly two thirds of which are mountainous, enjoys a diversity of plants, people and other animals, soils and terrains that give the country vibrancy found in few other places on the Earth. Based on our land area alone, not counting the surrounding oceans, we have the second highest level of biological diversity in the world, and were known to 19th century naturalists as the “Galapagos of Asia”.

December 15, 2010

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　By Severia Lu, Janis Wang 陸詩薇、王佳真

The legislature Recently passed a resolution under the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) requiring the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) to hold a legislative hearing on the Kuokuang Petrochemical case within two months. It subsequently passed a motion stipulating that at least one preparatory hearing be held before the legislative hearing.

Public reaction was originally quite positive because transparency and public engagement are needed for issues this controversial and it would be the first time in Taiwan a hearing of this kind had been required, aimed at clearing up any contentious issues through a thorough discussion.

However, the ministry held the legislative hearing in Dacheng, Changhua County, yesterday, amid angry — and sporadically violent — scenes outside as many people were denied access because of the high turnout. And, according to our understanding, those who could enter were limited to three minutes in which to voice their opinions. There was no preparatory hearing.

Yesterday’s events attest to the uniqueness of the Kuokuang case and the special handling it requires. Not only is the case hugely complicated, it has also been highly controversial, not only among members of the public, but also among thousands of academics and members of Academia Sinica.

While it is true that Article 58 of the Administrative Procedure Act allows administrative bodies to use their own discretion in holding these preparatory hearings, the MOEA’s perfunctory approach to this process has been a waste of legislative resources and an insult to the intent of the act.

The format of the legislative hearing the ministry insisted upon was little different from other public hearings we have seen related to this case, held under the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法). Each side gets to say, or rather shout, their piece, and the exchange just descends into an ideological slinging match that goes nowhere. This shows the importance of a preparatory hearing, in which each side is allowed to present their main points, focus on the contentious issues and exchange information. Then, the objective of the legislative hearing is to enable the government to obtain the pertinent facts before it makes any decisions.

The ministry’s International Trade Commission (ITC) frequently holds administrative hearings, so the ministry clearly has a lot of expertise and experience in such things. However, the MOEA appears to have decided not to allow pertinent information to be considered on the Kuokuang case and to not allow other parties to participate in the process. These are little more than ploys to reduce potential controversy and risks.

If the government were really interested in hearing what the public had to say and in clearing up any issues and impacts this project would have on the lives and health of those who came to the hearing to voice their concerns, it would expect the MOEA to do its job and hold a meaningful legislative hearing conducted in a proper manner. The ministry should have had a preparatory hearing, and could have involved other government bodies. This would have ensured that the original intent of the Administrative Procedure Act was fulfilled, and would also have avoided further conflict.

Instead, the MOEA has tried to manipulate the system and, in doing so, demonstrated its contempt for a resolution made in the nation’s legislature. It has trampled roughshod over the Administrative Procedure Act and seriously damaged public trust in the nation’s administrative institutions.

Severia Lu is an attorney at the Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association. Janis Wang is a representative at the association.

TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER (FROM TAIPEI TIMES)

November 15, 2010

Taiwan Premiere:- Capitalism: A Love Story - Michael Moore

The 2010 Environmental, Economic, & Social Justice Film Festival will be held on Saturday, November 20 and Sunday, November 21 at Taipei Stock Theater. The Festival will kick off at 14:00 on Saturday, November 20 with the Taiwan Premiere of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story.

Date: Saturday, November 20 & Sunday, November 21.
Time: 14:00
Where: Taipei Stock Theater, 3F, No. 34, Section 1, Ba-de Road, Taipei.
Website: http://sites.google.com/site/wildatheartfilmfest/
Contact: comment@wildatheart.org.tw
Phone: 886-2-2382-5789

This event is free to the public, however, donations are welcome and will defray administrative costs. Any amount exceeding the administrative costs will go to support Wild at Heart's ongoing litigation, lobbying and education activities.

-------------------------- Click picture to enlarge --------------------------

November 20, 2010; Saturday
14:00
Capitalism: A Love Story (127min)
16:00
The Story of Bottled Water (8min)
The Story of Cosmetics (8min)
Bullshit (72min)
18:00
The Poisoned Sky (93min)
20:00
Texas Gold (26min)
Invisible River (29min)
The "Missing" Village (17min)

November 21, Sunday
14:00
Taiwan's Critically Endangered Pink Dolphins (9min)
The End of the Line (82min)
16:00
Total Denial (92min)
18:00
Path to Paradise (102min)
20:00
The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (53min)

Sponsoring Organisation: Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association

Co-sponsors:
Anti Changbin Coal Plant Alliance;
Earth Passengers;
Green Formosa Front;
HSU Wen-fong, film director;
Laboratory of Fish Ecology & Evolution, Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica;
LIN Jia-an, film director;
Luminoso Film Co., Ltd;
Matsu's Fish Conservation Alliance;
Taipei Stock;
Taiwan Watch Institute;
VideoDB Enterprise Inc.;
Wind Music International Corporation;
WO MEN Films.