The massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, which led to the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, have triggered a debate on nuclear energy in Taiwan. The response of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government echoes the way it defends its China policy — underestimating the risk and telling the public that it need not worry because everything will be just fine.
Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are built near faults and volcanoes, and the three operational plants are already getting old. According to the March 19 edition of the Wall Street Journal, those three plants and the fourth one, which is still under construction, are among the most risk-prone in the world.
A responsible government would immediately stop operations at the three working plants to allow for safety inpsections, and then seriously consider scrapping the fourth one. It would also make greater efforts to expand alternative energy resources, improve energy efficiency and implement the existing “nuclear-free county” clause in the Basic Environment Act (環境基本法).
However, that is not what this government has in mind. It would have us believe that Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are as safe as houses. It raises the specter of economic collapse if the country were to abandon nuclear energy, while citing selective statistics to mislead the public.
While failing to set the public’s mind at rest, the government is also wasting a good opportunity to work out the best combination of energy resources for the nation.
Between the two extremes of scrapping nuclear power and further developing it, there are other options, such as gradual plant closures and slowly reducing our dependence on nuclear energy.
The government’s China policy also poses a grave threat for Taiwan. In a sense, this threat is even more serious, because Taiwan cannot decide the outcome alone. China is using a carrot-and-stick strategy to work toward the goal of annexing Taiwan.
However, the Ma administration seems to believe that if Taiwan acts obsequiously and pleases China by promoting a “diplomatic truce” and scrapping its defenses, the result will be peace and economic bonuses. Under the previous administration of president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used its majority in the legislature to oppose procurements of US arms.
Since taking office in 2008, Ma has repeatedly bragged about the “peace bonuses” of his China policy. He wants the public to share in his self--assurance, while the country unwittingly walks further and further into danger.
As to assessing the risks of its current China policy and working out how to respond if something goes wrong, the government has nothing to offer.
Just as we protect our own homes, we have to stand together in defense of our homeland.
Over the past three years, the government has narrowed Taiwan’s prospects by replacing “internationalization” with “sinicization.” The more Taiwan becomes integrated with China, the harder it gets to pull out.
The government is doing something similar with regard to nuclear power, expecting the public to accept it regardless of the risks and refusing to reconsider its nuclear energy policy.
The only assurance Ma can offer is: “With me in charge, your heart can be at ease.”
Unfortunately, given this administration’s record of incompetence, there can be few people who feel “at ease” as long as Ma remains in office.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS