The issue of nuclear power has long been marginalized in Taiwan. Whether the third round-island march against nuclear power, which began at Taipei's Lungshan Temple on Sept. 21, will change this situation remains to be seen. But the issue is not just about the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, or even nuclear power itself.
I've been back in Taiwan for more than six years, but there is still one thing I can't get used to. In summer -- when electricity reserves are at their lowest level -- many public and private venues have their front doors wide open and their air-conditioners on full blast. When you feel a chill running your back, it's not just because there's a huge air conditioner blasting out cold air behind you. It's also because such a surreal phenomenon represents a madness so common that it no longer surprises anyone.
Have you ever travelled to countries that endure heavy snow-falls in winter? Public venues in those countries have revolving doors or automatic doors to prevent heat escaping. The privacy of private residences is respected, but that does not mean people with money are beyond the reach of regulators. The government will then send people to take infrared photos of your house or building. If it is emitting infrared rays like the head of a mystic cult master, this means your house does not have good insulation. The government will negotiate with you on what kind of subsidies you need to make improvements. Even factories whose energy efficiency levels are 20 percent to 30 percent higher than Taiwan's can't evade energy conservation regulations.
The escape of hot air and cold air both waste energy. I feel that, compared with Taiwan, these countries have at least some basic reasons for why they use nuclear power. Their debates on whether to use nuclear power and accept its risks are built on a base of energy-conservation efforts. Or at least they go hand in hand with energy-conservation efforts, so that they may build as few nuclear power plants as possible.
Also, in these countries, the democratic debate on whether to take the risks of nuclear power never evades the question of basic human rights. If no one wants a nuclear power plant in his or her backyard, then in whose backyard should we build it? Life, survival and health are basic human rights. No such rights of any minority can be sacrificed for the interests of the majority, even if everyone is already working hard to save energy.
But Taiwan has never taken the nuclear energy issue seriously. While leaving our front doors wide open and turning on our air-conditioners full blast, we care little about our compatriots from Kungliao and Orchid Island who have to shoulder the hazards of nuclear power with their lives and health.
I once talked to children about these issues. The children didn't feel the issues involved any abstruse reasoning. One even suggested that we go and talk to the owner of a shop that had its door open and its air-conditioner on. If children have such critical judgement and moral sensitivity, does it mean the problem is in the adults? Or is it in the history and systemic structure that has deprived adults of their critical judgment and moral sensitivity?
Let's take, for example, the authoritarian rule that "froze" the constitutional human rights of the people of Taiwan for more than 40 years. The decision to build the nuclear plants was made by the "great head of the family." Denied the right to doubt, allowed only to listen but not to question, we evaded our own moral responsibility -- out of habit and convenience -- thereby weakening our moral sensitivity.
The propaganda offensive from Taipower further narrowed the horizons of our knowledge with descriptions of beautiful scenes and safety guarantees. Energy conservation either did not cross its mind or was sidelined with a few perfunctory slogans.
At most times, authoritarian rulers threaten violence but do not use it. At most times, they only need to create excuses for us not to be responsible and not to think -- and therefore not to doubt and resist.
The advent of democratization has deprived us of this "convenience." As a result, criticism about the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is emerging. Some citizens have reclaimed their critical judgment and moral sensitivity. Their voices have even influenced other citizens to some extent.
But we are a people used to having our feet bound. Look at how indifferent we are toward places with open front doors and air-conditioning. Think about how ambivalent is our sympathy for the people in Kungliao and on Orchid Island.
On the other hand, the vested economic and ideological inter-ests of nuclear energy remain very stubborn and nimble. Even when a halt to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant's construction was put on the country's political agenda, they still managed -- in collaboration with some media institutions -- to turn the issue into gossip, whether it was former premier Tang Fei's (
All this is true, but look at how successfully the vested interests have used these opportunities to marginalize the issues of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and nuclear power itself. For some time to come, things such as disagreements between Chen and former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (
I think the conclusions are very clear. One, we can't continue to lazily rely on a ruling party just as ambivalent and inert as ourselves. Two, we, the ordinary citizens, must rediscover our critical judgment and moral sensitivity. Three, we need to take back our democratic rights and powers to set the nation's agenda.
Even if nuclear power is 99 percent as safe as Taipower claims it to be, and even if Taiwan is wading knee-deep through money, does that mean we can build nuclear power plants? That was the starting point of my thoughts as I walked on the round-island anti-nuclear march.
Huang Wen-shiung is a national policy advisor to the president and a consultant at the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Francis Huang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath