Search

The Formosa Plastics Global Archive supports collaborative analysis, organized around shared research questions, for example:

Explore annotations.

Explore anotations.

The U.S. subsidiary of Formosa Plastics Corp (1301.TW) has agreed to pay $7.5 million and to cooperate with plaintiffs to settle an antitrust lawsuit alleging the company and others curbed the supply of a widely used chemical in a scheme to inflate prices. (Scarcella, August 16, 2023)

“When the government of Taiwan planned for the future of Taiwan several decades ago, it focused exclusively on industrially stimulating the economy. It has been promoting that kind of economic growth and development since the 1970s, making it appear as if industrial growth is the only factor to consider with regard to the country’s future. In the name of progress and economic revitalization, state-led industrialization walks hand in hand with private corporations. Together, they compete for the world’s largest petrochemical plants. The industrial development policy of Taiwan is one of the factors in the loss of Taiwan’s coastal wetlands, the subsiding of land from industrial water withdrawal and sand mining, and the increase of toxic air emissions, contaminated water, and toxic buildup of metals in soils (Wu and Wu 171–2). This “macroeconomy” policy ruins bioregions.” (Chang, 2023, p. 171)” 

The Taiwanese Formosa Plastics Corporation (FPC) is the tenth largest petrochemical company in the world. Focused primarily on the production of polyvinyl chloride (PCV) resins (Wu 2022), the FPC is the main subsidiary of the larger Formosa Plastics Group (FPG), a vertically integrated, global conglomerate that owns businesses in biotechnology, electronics, and logistics, among others (Wikipedia 2020). Formosa’s four main subsidiaries (all petrochemical companies) account for an estimated 10 percent of Taiwan’s gross domestic product (Wu 2022). The most important sites for production are Formosa plants in Yunlin County (Central Taiwan), Point Comfort (Texas), and Baton Rouge (Louisiana). Enabled by the shale gas boom discussed above, plants at all three sites are subject to ongoing expansions, including a proposed $200 million plant in Texas, and the $12 billion industrial complex in Louisiana. Formosa also operates a steel plant in Central Vietnam that is the focal point of much local and transnational activism.

Formosa’s current economic and cultural standing is deeply connected to Taiwan's history of industrialization. The Formosa Plastics Corporation and Group were founded by Wang Yung-ching and his brother Wang Yung-Tsai in Kaohsiung in 1954. Born under Japanese occupation, Wang Yung-ching made a living selling and delivering rice as a young boy, and later operated his own rice shop as a teenager. Eventually, Wang transitioned into the lumber business and benefited from market liberalization following the end of Japanese colonial rule (Lin 2016). However, since US military forces destroyed one of his mills during WWII, Wang received $800,000 from USAID, which he used as capital to found Formosa Plastics (Shah 2012). Until his death in 2008, Wang became one of Taiwan’s richest persons and remains widely known as the “god of management” (Huang 2008).

In Taiwan, conglomerates like the Formosa Plastics Group are called guanxiqiye (“related enterprises''), a colloquial term for tightly-controlled, family-owned businesses. According to anthropologist Ichiro Numazaki (1993), the expression emerged from 1970s business discourse and quickly became a self-identifying status symbol for many corporations (Numazaki 1993, 485). Numazaki argues that Chinese trading tradition (emphasizing partnerships) and Taiwan’s vexed relationship to Japan and China contributed to the rise of family-owned enterprises. Daughter Cher Wang has co-founded important businesses outside of the petrochemical sector, including consumer electronics company HTC. However, the Formosa family has also experienced a series of conflicts: in 1996, Wang Yung-Ching expelled his son Winston for extramarital affairs, who later became involved in ongoing efforts to disclose his father’s substantial tax evasion (Offshore Alert 2018). Today, the Formosa Group is in the process of transitioning key positions away from family members (Taipei Times 2021).

Formosa’s operations have further been shaped by Taiwanese politics and cross-strait relations with China. Considered a moderate liberalizer, Wang held close ties to Taiwan’s democratic party, but also continued to push for expansion in the Chinese mainland during his lifetime, often leading to conflicts between Taiwanese and Chinese administrations (Lin 2016, 81). In 1973, Wang’s plans to build a large petrochemical complex in Taiwan were halted by the authoritarian Kuomintang (KMT) government, but following the lifting of martial law in the mid-1980s, Formosa made a second attempt, suggesting to build the complex in the scenic Yilan County (Ho 2014). Rising concerns over petrochemical development and pollution, however, led to mass protests by local residents and fisher people, creating a landmark moment for Taiwan's larger democracy movement (Ho 2014). In face of this opposition, Wang arranged secret trips to mainland China, and later announced that the plant would be built on the island of Haitsang in Xiamen province. Yet, economic sanctions between China and Taiwan, combined with pressure by the nationalist KMT government, eventually led to construction of the vast petrochemical complex in the rural and impoverished Yunlin County in Central Taiwan (Lin 2016, 82).

The article is supported by additional articles that examine the constitutionality of Critical Infrastructure Bill in Louisiana. The article is supported in its claim that the statute can be argued as legislativley motivated as the critical infrastructure bills arose after the Dakota Acess Pipeline protest and the Lousiana revised Bill came after the Bayou Bridge Pipeline protest. The article is additionally supported in analysis of additional critical infrastructure bills from other states, such as Texas, Dakota, etc. 

The methods/Theories used to produce claims of violations of First amendment and Due Process from the Revised statute are taken from Modern First Amendment Doctrines and approaches. The article as well utilizes previous court cases and their decisions to guide the analysis.

In terms of the Due Process Clause violation, the article states that any statue is in violation of the Due Process Clause if the statute is so standardless that is encourages or authorizes discriminatory enforcement. 

In terms of the First Amendment, the article estabilishes first how the United States Supreme Court analyzes cases that contest the First Amendment. Their are three theories introduced that support the first amendment, if a law is found to be prohibiting these theories, a case can be made that it violates the First Amendment. These theories include: "self-realization", "marketplace of ideas", and "democratic value". To determine wether the regulation effects a speaker or the marketplace two models are used: "speaker based" and "audience based". These are used to determine wether the statute will effect the public discourse or the individual. In the end, the article argues how each of these three theories are violated and therefore the statute is in violation of the First Amendment. 

The article as well looks at how the Supreme Court uses a "tiered-scrutiny" approach when analyzing the constitutionality of statutes. This allows the court to apply a different standard based on if the statute is content neutral or content based. Any content based statue is unconstitutional as it prohbits a certain type of speech. When a statute is content neutral, the court must provided evidence that the statute was content motivated. 

"The modifications to Louisiana Revised Statutes section 14:61 seem to be a direct response to the Bayou Pipeline protests for four reasons. First, this is evidenced by the addition of pipelines to the definition of "critical infrastructure" protected by the statute, as well as the creation of heightened penalties aimed at deterring those speaking out against the further construction of pipelines within the state. Second, the arrest of protestors were made within weeks of the modification of the statute, supporting the contention that the legislature made these changes to silence protestors. Third, a sponsor could [...] potentially have a personal motive [...] as energy and natural resource companies are his or her leading campaign donor [...]. Finally, the national trend of statutes protecting critical infrastructure which arose after the Dakota Access pipeline protests seems to suggest that the fear of opposition toward pipeline construction is what led the Louisiana Legislature to amend section 14:61" (Pg. 18). 

This quote describes the arguments that can be made in regards to proving motivation behind the legislative revisions. Despite the statute is content neutral, the motivations behind the statute prove that the statute be upgraded to strict scrutiny. 

"By suppressing the speech of those opposing pipeline construction within the state, the government restricts the ability of citizens to articulate their desires, inherently excluding them from the political process of making changes within their community and perpetuating their plight." 

"Though some regulations of conduct are permissible, it is impermissible for the legislature to suppress the expressive conduct of those opposing the Bayou Bridge pipeline construction, as this suppression results in a governmental distortion of public debate and offends the democratic system."

These quotes demonstrate how the statute can be held in violation of the first amendment. 

The main argument presented in the article states that the Louisiana Revised Statute section 14:61 of the Louisiana Critical Infrastructure Bill should be revoked as it is impermissibly in violation with the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The article notes the timing and vagueness of the additions to the infrastrutcure bill to be discriminatorily motivated towards silencing a certain type of speech. The Revised Infrastructure Bill included the addition of "pipelines", both in construction and operating as apart of the definition of "critical infrastructure". The revised bill estabilished a strict penalty of jail for no more than 20 years or fine of no more than $25,000. The revision followed the Bayou Bridge Pipeline construction protests. The article argues for the regulation to be held under strict scrutiny under the law as, though it is content-neutral, the legislative motive appears to be content-based. An analysis is appropriate to conduct despite being content neutral. As well, the article argues that the new regulation silences speech, in violation with the first amendment. Noted in the article, First amendment arguments fall into three theories or categorizes: "self-realization" theory, "marketplace of ideas" theory, and "democracy" theory. The article argues that all three theories that enable the preservation of the first amendment are violated through the revised bill sections. The statute distorts the marketplace of ideas as it enforces such a harsh punishment, is standardless, and vague that it has the effect of creating self-censorship. Without access to dissenting ideas in opposition to the pipelines, this deprives the public from the marketplace of ideas but also denies them from self realization in creating their own opinions from the opposining ideas around them. Finally, the statue is argued to deny democracy in that it restricts the publics ability to share their desires for their communties, excluding them from the political process, denying them a democratic process to voice an opinion. The article goes on to propose ways in which the courts can fix their practices in reviewals of Due Process and First Amendment legal cases.