On Tuesday last week, Kuo Way (郭位), president of City University of Hong Kong, made a presentation on nuclear power at the Presidential Office in Taipei, during which President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) asked about global trends. Kuo was an almost permanent fixture in the media during the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear crisis, speaking in his capacity as an expert on nuclear safety about the crisis at the Fukushima plant itself and of the implications for the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong, China, and refuting claims that eating salt could protect humans against radiation.
Kuo, a Tsing Hua University graduate with a background in nuclear engineering, spoke of the need to be careful over the impact of violent unrest on the future of nuclear power stations in Taiwan, and — particularly risible — the danger posed by a lack of understanding about nuclear power plants and nuclear safety, and the many serious misconceptions that these lead to, threatening to cause social unrest. He said that it was therefore extremely important to devise effective and persuasive arguments to address these misconceptions, and asked what might be the best way forward.
Kuo is a great advocate of nuclear power. When Ma asked him about global trends in nuclear power, everybody already knew what his answer would be, even before Ma had lowered the microphone. There are as many opinions and perspectives on whether we should develop nuclear power as there are people giving them, so he has the right to express his own beliefs. Nevertheless, if he were trying to promote nuclear power while feigning neutrality, one wonders whether he is protecting certain energy interests.
According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010 co-authored by Mycle Schneider, who visited Taiwan last year, the percentage of global power provided by nuclear power stations peaked in 1993, when it stood at 17 percent, after which it has steadily declined.
In 2011, it represented only 11 percent. The overall output of nuclear energy globally reached its highest point in 2006, when it stood at 2,660 terawatt hours (Twh, equivalent to 1 billion kilowatts, kWh), falling to 2,518 Twh in 2011. The vast majority of countries producing nuclear power have already passed their peak in terms of the construction of nuclear power plants.
Even before the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, the global nuclear power industry had already hit a wall, due to all the uncertainty surrounding it, and this saw a corresponding and gradual rise in the development of renewable energy sources.
While soliciting the advice of authorities undoubtedly contributes to the debate, when such expert opinion has long been monopolized by those in power, it is also important to continue to bring in differing expert opinions. The meeting in the Presidential Office added little to the public debate. The message the office wanted to pass on to the public was loud and clear: Nuclear power is the way forward, it is the policy the government needs to take.
When Ma goes from saying, as he did almost exactly a year ago at a press conference, “We felt that no one was against [nuclear power] at the time,” to saying the public is just in a blind panic over the issue and that the government needs to be more persuasive, he is treating the public like children, and insulting its intelligence.
More recently, the government has systematically used the state mechanism in tackling public opinion, in the mistaken belief that merely by rolling out a few pro-nuclear spokespersons it will be able to dispel the massive wave of anti-nuclear sentiment among the public.
Ma has said that the issue of the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), can be resolved through a referendum. While this may appear to be a democratic solution, it is nothing of the sort, as the government holds a monopoly over relevant information.
Also, the government’s policy of gradually phasing out nuclear power is simply a delaying tactic designed to pull the wool over our eyes. One can imagine that next the government will attempt to use the advantage of access to resources to try to brainwash people and make them believe that we need nuclear power. The government is already resolved to promote nuclear power, and is not willing to hear what the public has to say on the matter.
Tsui Shu-hsin is secretary-general of the Green Citizens’ Action Alliance, Taiwan.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,