It is with mixed feelings that we hear of the Cabinet's intention to shelve a proposal for having a non-binding referendum on whether to continue the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant as part of the Dec. 1 elections.
The problem with the Cabinet's plan, lay, of course, in those words "non-binding." The referendum had to be considered as such because there was no legal sanction for the alternative. Taiwan, where the idea of seeking the electorate's opinion about anything -- including the question of who should govern -- is hardly a decade old, has no legal mechanisms for either running a referendum or determining its result.
This is not abstruse constitutional theorizing but involves extremely practical questions such as what percentage of voter turnout is necessary to make the referendum a valid test of public opinion, and what percentage of the result should be considered determinant. Add to that regulatory questions about whether to fund and whether to impose legal limits on spending by the various camps involved in the campaign. And of course there is the question that is to be asked -- how is this to be framed in a way that is agreeable to all parties? (remember that here in Taiwan, land of the bogus opinion poll, asking loaded questions has become a political art form). The issue is, obviously, one that needs careful consideration such that in the end all the parties involved agree that the informed voice of the people has been fairly heard and agree to abide by that result.
Taiwan has no such regulatory procedures, nor is a law establishing them likely to pass through the legislature before Dec. 1. Under these circumstances, to go ahead with the referendum would probably have done more harm than good. Voters would have felt small need to state a preference, the result would have been a muddled one and the losing side would have had no reason to concede defeat.
On top of this, it should be remembered that the Council of Grand Justices has established that stopping the power plant's construction needs legislative approval. The current legislature, however, has shown no interest in surrendering to the voters its ability to make policy on this issue. A referendum would, therefore, only have brought the idea of using referendums as a way of resolving intractable disputes into disrepute.
So the Cabinet's decision to end the referendum plan is only sensible. That said, it is not without its downside. For the fact is that to build the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant or not is a matter of great importance on which a political consensus has proved impossible to broker -- surely exactly the sort of issue where the voice of the people should be heard above the empty political battle and scoring of constitutional points.
Given the population's history of being forced to spout alien concepts by colonial-style regimes -- the Japanese, the KMT -- which has resulted in the "received wisdom" regarding the views of the Taiwanese being immensely distorted, Taiwan has more of a need for referendums to sort matters out than most other countries.
It is, of course, because of their ability to puncture the myth-making and fantasies of those in power -- especially the KMT's decades-old lie that Taiwanese seek unification -- that referendums have always been feared and there is no regulatory mechanism according to which they can take place, despite their being sanctioned by the Constitution.
If the legislative elections in December result in the defeat of the pro-China unificationist "blue" camp and a legislative majority that actually cares about hearing the voice of the people of Taiwan, perhaps this will change. We can only hope.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and