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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95