Nuclear power and people's rights

In many respects, Taiwan's society continues to demonstrate strong Chinese cultural traditions. The development of "constitutional democracy" -- a strange concept to the Chinese tradition -- is wrapped up in political rhetoric, "monarch-and-vassal" relationships, as well as stereotypical images of "loyal vassals" (忠臣) and "imbecile monarchs"(昏君).

Legislators from a newly established political party have now and again used the idea of "loyal officials" personalified by figures such as Yueh Fei (岳飛) or Pi Kan (比干). It proves the amazing success of the KMT's over five-decade-long indoctrination of the "Three Principles of the People" (三民主義). Every political party nowadays has "totems" of its own -- the difference being that some parties have built memorial halls on the basis of political myths, while others oppose continuation of a nuclear power plant on scientific grounds. Which of the two sounds more reasonable?

Rumor has it that former premier Tang Fei (唐飛) stepped down due to his differences with President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on the nuclear power plant issue. One key problem in the dispute was said to be that no one has been able to find a legal basis for halting construction. Another more obvious problem is how to interpret the whole constitutional framework and the budget bill.

Many scholars insist that, according to the principles of separation of power, a new government has the power to "not implement" a budget item already passed by the legislature. In other words, the executive branch is entitled to reformulate policies. Otherwise, why bother to "rotate ruling parties?"

In countries with a cabinet system, the ruling party usually holds a majority of the seats in the parliament, thereby experiencing less trouble in administration. But under a presidential system, the executive power has a democratic and thus legitimate basis of its own. On pivotal policies, the president is not obliged to follow the previous government's policies, much less past decisions made by the legislature.

Even in Taiwan's ludicrous constitutional framework, a popularly elected president can take the initiative in national policy-making, too. If the legislature is able to compel the executive power or even pressure the public in the name of government authority to build a nuclear power plant for which preferable substitutes exist, then just exactly what kind of democratic constitution do we have on hand? It would be an issue beyond the comprehension of almost everyone.

Let's set aside these executive-legislative power conflicts that are after all a common occurrence in any given democracy. But we should not forget that in addition to the democratic principle, there is a "rule of law principle" enshrined in the Constitution of almost every country. Therefore, even if we leave aside the question of the legitimacy in continuing or halting the project, we should at least question the legitimacy of the plant's location.

If someone insists on constructing the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant or a nuclear waste storage site where the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall now sits, many citizens would surely label the idea as "ludicrous or absurd." However, only in such an apparently absurd suggestion can we bring to light more deep-seated and serious aspects of the issue. If building a nuclear plant in the heart of downtown Taipei is ludicrous, why isn't it equally ludicrous to consider putting it in either Kungliao (貢寮) or Orchid Island (蘭嶼)? Does it mean that the neighborhood by the memorial hall is not only more expensive, but the residents of the area are are "classier" as well? When has the decision-making process over plant sites ever seriously taken into account the views of residents from Taipei County, Pingtung or Orchid Island?