The recent ruling by the Council of Grand Justices regarding the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant
First of all, no economy exists outside of culture. Our understanding of the economy is itself a cultural construct -- one produced by the mass media. In turn, such an understanding affects our economic, political and social policies. The debates unleashed by this "nuclear explosion" reflect and strengthen our understanding of the economy. The purpose of this article is to point out how such an understanding has had an unwholesome effect on the majority of Taiwan citizens.
Look at how the media have linked the nuclear plant issue to the economy. Turn on the TV or open a newspaper and we see headlines such as, "Halted construction of nuclear plant costing NT$30 million a day," "Fortune Electric to win NT$210 million in orders if nuclear plant project continues," "Nuclear plant impasse increasing social costs," and so on. Here, the plant is construed as a purely economic issue, which is then defined as the only issue affecting our society. Such commentaries shed no light on how the plant is related to environmental protection, disadvantaged groups, or future generations. All we can see are the assertions that the plant can save our economy and nation -- that it can supply the electricity needed for high-tech development, and, therefore, that it can solve our social problems.
Such a discourse is based on one premise -- "the economy will save the nation." The economy is viewed as the supreme yardstick of national development, as if economic development always improves people's welfare. But can economic development eliminate all problems? Look at what we have got from the past 10 years of development under the slogans of globalization, internationalization and liberalization. We have seen the farming population sacrificed (remember the slogan "Use agriculture to raise the industries" [以農養工]?), the uneven development between north and south Taiwan, and between urban and rural areas, the exploitation of female laborers, widening gaps between rich and poor. The list goes on. These are the results of developing industries on the sole basis of economic considerations -- especially the benefits of a certain social class.
The capitalists, their politician friends and the mass media are the biggest beneficiaries of the media's "Save the nuclear plant, save the economy, save Taiwan" logic. Think about it. "Fortune Electric stands to win NT$210 million in orders" -- what effect will it have on a vagrant begging near the Taipei train station, in comparison to the effect on the company's shareholders? High-tech development, which began in the 1980s, has not brought welfare to "all the people," but has simply created a new class of "high-tech nobility" and made jobs not related to technology increasingly worthless.
The way the media, academics and opposition parties are depicting the plant as the only means of saving the economy -- and economic development as Taiwan's only means of development -- reflects the cultural and political logic pervading Taiwan. Under this kind of logic, being "anti-business" becomes tantamount to being "anti-people." As a result, activities that run counter to "economic benefits" -- such as education in the humanities -- have their budgets slashed.
This is a political culture where we habitually view things in terms of how they will benefit a certain class economically. We should define and measure the economy with a humanistic yardstick instead in terms of how much money the capitalists can make.
Yang Fang-chih is an assistant professor of English literature at National Dong Hwa University.
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
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with