President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently said that halting the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City (新北市) was unconstitutional and rejected a legal move initiated by the Cabinet to stop the project. In doing so, Ma twisted the spirit of the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 520 — an interpretation issued in 2001 in connection with the construction of the power plant — which deals with the relationship between the Cabinet and the Legislative Yuan, and the right of the legislature to participate in decisionmaking regarding critical national issues.
Given that opinion polls conducted by various media outlets have all shown that more than 70 percent of respondents support halting the plant’s construction, the Ma administration’s insistence on using a flawed referendum as the only way to solve the dispute sets the stage for a lot of political strife. With the Cabinet having turned into Public Enemy No. 1, I plan to propose a resolution in the legislature on halting construction and get legislators from both the ruling and opposition parties to sign a petition on the issue, so that the legislature can take responsibility for the matter and for its solution.
This problem started because the Cabinet insisted on continuing construction, while refusing to take political responsibility for the consequences. Since the Cabinet was not willing to stand up to scrutiny on the issue, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators proposed holding a referendum to decide the plant’s fate. However, this runs counter to the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which gives the legislature, not just one party, the power to initiate referendums on major policies. It is also clearly an attempt by the KMT to avoid responsibility for policymaking.
Contrary to what Ma says, a referendum is not the only way to decide whether construction of the plant should be halted. Not only can the Cabinet propose stopping construction after securing an agreement by a legislative majority, the legislature can also decide to halt construction via a resolution since the issue is an important national affair as stipulated in Article 63 of the Constitution.
Alternatively, construction can be halted by doing something similar to what KMT Legislator Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) suggested: Establish a special bipartisan committee for nuclear safety, have it release opinion poll results about the plant and then put the issue to a vote in the legislature.
Moreover, since the legislature decided on Feb. 26 that no additional budget would be allocated to the plant before the referendum is held, the legislature can simply exercise its power and stop further budget allocations. Construction at the plant would be halted as a matter of course.
The way the Ma government has ignored these alternatives and insisted on deciding things through a flawed referendum is an attempt to leverage the result of the illegitimate poll to take away the public’s say on the plant’s safety and its budget. The tricks Ma is using are very obvious.
Halting construction of the power plant is a national consensus. However, the Cabinet first tried to shirk its responsibility and then turned around and pretended to be democratic by proposing that the issue be put to a vote. With the president and the Cabinet both trying to shirk their duties, getting the legislature to initiate a motion to decide the issue by resolution would give the Cabinet a chance to halt construction without losing face. It would also allow a legislative majority to fulfill public expectations and halt construction of the plant. Such an approach would also stop the Ma administration from forcing the legislature into proposing a referendum while shirking all responsibilities.
Lin Chia-lung is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS