Former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) began a hunger strike on Tuesday to demand that the government stop construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮). Lin has put his life on the line to rid the nation of nuclear power in a heroic and honorable way worthy of the highest praise.
This nation is small, densely populated, surrounded by water and in a seismically active zone. It does not need nuclear power. Why does the government keep on acting as though it is desperately needed? How can the government guarantee that there will never be a problem with atomic power after the disasters of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Dai-ichi in 2011? In the event of an accident, where are residents and visitors expected to go?
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) insists on building nuclear plants. Apart from his policies aimed at helping large corporations make money, his daughters live overseas and have foreign passports. Ma has his own airplane and can escape a disaster at any time. This is why he remains unswayed, regardless of whether those against nuclear power account for the majority in opinion polls or how many people take to the streets in protest.
Taiwanese have been fighting against nuclear power for decades and Lin has always been involved, because this is something he believes in deeply. At 72, he is on a hunger strike with no set finish date. He has also written his will, which shows that he is willing to become a martyr, so it is little wonder that his friends and the public feel extreme unease with what he is doing.
Lin’s actions are the result of a lot of deep thinking. He must be abjectly disappointed with Ma’s stupidity. The Sunflower movement, in which Lin saw young students and others bravely stand up and be counted to protect the nation’s future, prompted him to join them in silent protest. This must have made him wonder what he could do for the protesters, especially when silent protest and occupying the legislature and the Executive Yuan were not enough to move the gang that holds power and controls the nation. This is why Lin is risking his life for future generations.
Lin’s hunger strike — amid attacks on Ma from all corners of society — may compel the president to listen to public opinion and force his administration to make reforms. However, will Ma really listen? Given his selfishness, stubbornness and cold-blooded nature, he is not very likely to listen to anyone, which just increases public concern over Lin’s health and life.
Lin has been to prison for supporting democracy and even went through the Feb. 28, 1980, murder of his mother and twin daughters at their former family residence — which is now the church where he is conducting his hunger strike — by an unknown assailant.
However, he never sought revenge and instead persisted in the hope of helping to build a democratic nation and reconciliation. Now, he is ready to risk his life, which makes him a Taiwanese version of former South African president Nelson Mandela.
Ma spends all his time currying favor with the Chinese Communist Party and big business, while selling out the nation’s sovereignty and the interests of Taiwanese. Ma thinks this makes him worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
He knows no shame.
Premier Jiang Yi-huah’s (江宜樺) visit to Lin at the scene of the hunger strike was merely an act. Taiwanese should all know that Ma is the one who insists on nuclear power and that Jiang is just a puppet. If anything happens to Lin, the president, who is busy hiding behind the scenes, should be the person held solely responsible.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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 Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
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