It is only March, but when Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) said a referendum on the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), could be postponed until the end of the year, he indicated that the war between pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear activists, as well as between political parties, could last for an entire year.
While that means the public would probably have to endure more mudslinging between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), a delay could be a good thing, as the public would have more time to digest information and assess the pros and cons of the issue.
Both camps are now engaged in a battle over the threshold of the Referendum Act (公民投票法) and the issue of absentee voting, which are salient issues.
However, the following observations are worth consideration by all parties.
First, there are many people who support the anti-nuclear movement and who are opposed to the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Equally, there are those who believe that the nation cannot afford to abandon nuclear energy but think that safety concerns over the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant are overwhelming and who oppose it becoming operational.
So, while these two issues are one and the same for some people, they should be discussed separately, as the use of nuclear energy is a national policy issue that involves many other factors.
Second, while the safety of nuclear power is a major concern, many people want to know whether electricity production would be affected and electricity prices rise if the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant does not become operational. Many do not trust Taiwan Power Co’s answers and have found that neither side of the nuclear power debate has been able to provide convincing data.
Answering these questions is more important for the anti-nuclear camp, as there are many people who place price and production issues above safety concerns.
Third, for the first time in the history of the anti-nuclear movement, significant numbers of Taiwanese celebrities have stepped forward and endorsed the anti-nuclear cause. Their support has arguably raised awareness more than political parties and civic groups. Will that momentum help the anti-nuclear movement build a head of steam and translate into votes at the ballot box?
Fourth, the government has never explained how it would deal with nuclear waste even if safety at the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is assured.
According to activists, once the nation’s three currently operational nuclear power plants go offline, there could be as many as 960,000 barrels of nuclear waste which would require a disposal site at least 10 times larger than the Lanyu nuclear waste storage facility, which no longer accepts nuclear waste since reaching its capacity of 100,000 barrels.
Even if the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant operates without mishap, there will still be pollution issues.
Fifth, the government has said the issue should be decided by a national referendum rather than a local one. However, some have argued that those in northern Taiwan deserve a greater say on an issue which could directly impact their lives.
It could be difficult for the government to rationalize why people living within a 50km radius of the plant are given the same importance as those who live 200km away.
Last, the KMT supported the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and said it also supports the goal of a nuclear-free homeland by gradually phasing out nuclear production of electricity.
The KMT should make its position crystal clear, as this claim will be examined time and again before President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) leaves office in 2016.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS