Ten years after Lin Yi-hsiung (林義雄) completed a third 1,000km walk demanding a referendum on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), the Presidential Office and the Cabinet have finally given the nod to holding a referendum on whether to stop construction of the plant. However, given the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) longstanding opposition to holding such a referendum, we should be careful not to dance to the party’s tune uncritically.
The jury is still out on whether this is a goodwill gesture or a sugarcoated poison pill.
The first question is how such a referendum should be designed. It could be a specific question: If voters agree that construction should stop or if it should be continued. It could also be a non-specific question.
The reason this issue must be discussed is that Article 30 of the Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that more than half of all eligible voters must vote, and more than half of all valid ballots must be in support of a referendum for it to be passed. So, if less than half of all eligible voters turn out to vote on a referendum, it will not pass.
Suppose the referendum question posed is whether to halt construction of the plant. If the referendum is arranged quickly, voters get insufficient information on the subject and do not understand the issue, and are therefore unable to make an informed decision. This may cause less willingness to vote, and insufficient turnout means the referendum will not be passed. The government could then claim to be justified in continuing construction.
If the government is serious about holding a referendum, then all information pertaining to the benefits and shortcomings of the plant, to nuclear safety and economic risk, must be made public. This information must be thoroughly discussed in a public process, and then rebroadcast and republished in the media.
The public must also be given time to understand and absorb this information before a referendum can be held, to avoid irregularities and possible manipulation.
Finally, based on the sensitivity of the issue and the government’s low credibility on it in the eyes of the public, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) should appoint a group of experts and upstanding members of society to form a committee to be in charge of handling all the preparatory work leading up to the referendum.
This must include all the compilation and publication of information, the preparation and execution of the public hearing process and dissemination of information about the referendum procedure, as well as formulating the referendum question to be voted on.
This committee should only hand their work to the Central Election Commission once the process touches on electoral matters directly related to the execution of the referendum. This is the only way to build credibility, and it would avoid accusations of being both player and referee when the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan Power Co and parties opposed to nuclear power try to influence voters before the referendum is held.
The decision to hold a referendum should be affirmed.
The government has already made a preliminary decision to hold one on the issue and it should now offer an explanation for all the abovementioned issues. In addition, surely putting construction of the plant on hold while asking for further budgetary funds to continue construction is the logical thing to do.
Chan Shun-kuei is a lawyer and chairman of the Environmental Jurists Association.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS