To silence the protests against nuclear power, the government has announced that the first reactor of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City, will be sealed after a security inspection, that work on the second reactor will be suspended and that the future of the plant will be decided after a referendum.
Although Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) stressed that construction has been suspended and not discontinued, work on the plant has stopped. Even though the government’s ambiguous approach has managed to cool antinuclear protests somewhat, the issue is still smoldering and could flare up at any moment. In the final analysis, the three-decade-long conflict over the plant will have to be settled by a referendum.
The reason the issue is so difficult to resolve is that nuclear power is a complex issue that requires an advanced level of knowledge. The situation varies between countries and every plant is different, which makes comparisons difficult. In Taiwan, the ability to access reliable information varies greatly between the government and the public: Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) has monopolized its data, making it very difficult for anyone else to get a glimpse of it.
Whether in terms of estimates of power requirement, nuclear safety data or spent fuel treatment, the government and non-governmental organizations have their own sets of numbers providing evidence for their ideas and neither is capable of convincing the other.
In its policy implementation, the government has always favored promotion over communication. Every time it has to deal with a complaint concerning the nuclear issue, it gives the standard responses: Without nuclear power, there is a risk of power rationing by 2018 and in the event of a shortage of power, industry will be prioritized; without nuclear power, electricity prices will go up by 40 percent; coal-fired power generators cause serious air pollution; nuclear power generation is the cheapest and most stable energy source.
In a situation where support for the government is high and people trust it, this might be an acceptable approach to policy implementation, but in the current situation when support for the government is low and public trust is lacking, such slogans are useless.
Prior to a nuclear referendum, the government should release relevant data to alleviate public concern by giving concrete numbers and clear explanations. Some of the questions it has to answer are:
What are the energy policies for a nuclear-free Taiwan and what are the costs of and development plans for substitute energy sources?
What are the economic development plans for the short, medium and long term and what are the industrial policies for each period? What are the estimated power requirements for the complementary measures?
Taipower’s past power estimates and development plans always included the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, but now it has to stiffen its resolve and assess how electricity prices will change without nuclear power.
A referendum on the plant will not be about emotions, and the government must be prepared for an unprecedented battle of expert knowledge. To coordinate with the referendum and the national energy conference slated for September, the government must prepare data about electric power and explain the situation, development plans and responses in schools, communities, industries, mass media and on social media, and it must accept a debate over the concerns and criticism of non-governmental organizations, experts and academics.
Even if the government is fully prepared, that does not mean that it will be able to protect the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, but it at least must make a concerted effort to win back the public’s trust.
If the government does not change its attitude to communication and honestly face public concern, it will lose power.
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