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
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS