The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is a test of the new administration's stance toward both environmental and commercial issues. Right now public and expert opinion appear diametrically opposed, but room exists for compromise. A plebiscite would be a suitable solution.
The standard arguement against a plebiscite runs as follows: "Experts complain that their professional opinion has been belittled and politics is now the sole driving force behind the government's public policy."
This argument suggests, however, that professionals are a closed group, independent from the rest of society and immune to ideological and political influences. It is true that public policy would become skewed if professional opinion were drowned out by ideologies, but public policy is itself a political issue and should be politicized.
Democratic participation does not exclude professional participation. It merely implies that professional opinions and debate should help the public to make informed choices. A plebiscite could further help resolve the legitimacy crisis the government faces when no particular policy choice is clearly supported by the public.
Blind faith in expert opinion is a carryover from Taiwan's authoritarian period. Experts are prone to error just like anyone else and their vision of the future is not necessarily any more far-sighted. For example, the wastewater and public facilities constructed for the Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park -- designed by experts -- are nowhere near what is required for its present scale of development, a situation which has infuriated nearby residents.
More care is needed when discussing the construction of nuclear reactors, because if something goes wrong, the results could be catastrophic. The risk posed by nuclear power plants and the fact that even the experts can't guarantee that they are foolproof, means that their construction is a political issue.
In the past, the government only asked for an expert opinion after it had already reached a decision behind closed doors. The failed petrochemical project on the coastline of Changhua County is a good example of the government's policy mistakes and shows how political forces and corporate interests "use" experts to fool the public.
The superiority of expertise is often used to defend the non-democratic mentality of the ruling elite. It prevents debates between different groups and stymies a sense of civic responsibility in the public.
Rapid economic development has been a policy focus of the government for several decades. It has brought prosperity while creating huge untold environmental damage and complaints. The elite can hardly be blameless. No wonder people have termed development in Taiwan "dictatorial development."
Environmental Protection Administration administrator Lin Jun-yi
It is of course a good thing the policy "black box" is about to be opened to the light of day, but we are concerned that only "experts" will be allowed to participate in policy decisions, not the general public.
Public opinion is naturally subject to manipulation, but so are experts, politicians and the media. Distrust of public opinion suggests an underlying belief in the public's irrationality. Using images derived from mass psychology, public participation is distorted into little more than sloganeering, by ambitious politicians and symbolic politics.
Perhaps the fear is related to the lack of issues in Taiwan's elections and the carnival atmosphere surrounding them. But a plebiscite has been proposed precisely because elections, at present, do not permit an open, public debate on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
For a plebiscite to work, political parties and social groups must encourage experts with different opinions to submit alternative plans so that the public can make an informed choice. Nuclear experts, environmentalists and social movement groups should first undertake a long debate -- lasting perhaps one to two years -- before the plebiscite is held. This would help the people to consider the social and environmental price that Taiwan has paid for rapid development.
Launching a plebiscite would increase the legitimacy of public projects, something that was nonexistent in the past. It would also be an opportunity for experts and the public reach a new "social reconciliation."
We should not view plebiscites with suspicion, as KMT Secretary General Lin Fong-cheng
Experts, driven by a belief in their professional knowledge, often cover up their own shortcomings. Moreover, they can also be influenced by "special interest groups" and are not without ideology. More than a century ago, just as democracy was sweeping through Europe, the conservative French scholar Gustave Le Bon conveyed the doctrine of the "benighted crowd" to the extreme. He scornfully suggested that "the vote of 40 French Academicians is no better than that of 40 water carriers."
Democracy is about popular political participation. Experts need not fear the power of the public. As long as the public is able to understand the views of experts, they should be allowed to partake in a decision that will affect Taiwan for hundreds of years. Why let a handful of experts bear the unbearable weight of public policy in this democratic era? Why should a minority of experts be given the heavy responsibility for setting Taiwan's civil engineering policy?
Wu Jieh-min is an assistant professor of sociology at National Tsing Hua University.
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
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.