Has President Chen Shui-bian
All issues have become as polarized as black and white, simplified into "true or false" questions. One can only be for or against the power plant. Compromises, gray areas, or any third possible answers are out of the question.
The DPP charter contains many articles with which Chen must comply in addition to the article on nuclear energy. Chen's previous opposition to construction of the plant could arguably be deemed as breaching such articles, so why hasn't anyone made that point? It is not, indeed, the only point that could be made to demonstrate the absurdity of the question.
Article 2 states that "a democratic free country should ... be established in accordance with the free will of a majority of the people..." As polls uniformly indicate that most people, not to mention a legislative majority, support plant construction, had Chen continued to oppose construction, he would have been acting against the will of the majority.
The same article also states that the government must govern in accordance with the law. As the Council of Grand Justices has ruled that the construction halt was "procedurally flawed," refusal to resume construction would not be "governing in accordance with the law." Chen would have been in breach of the DPP charter.
Article 3 mandates the pursuit of economic growth and the promotion of employment opportunities. As the halt to construction has devastated our economy, Chen would be in breach of the DPP charter if he continued to block construction.
The article on nuclear energy mandates "opposition to newly constructed nuclear power generators, active exploration of substitute energy, and closure of all existing nuclear power plants within a period of time." Com-mon sense dictates that successful exploration of substitute energy must come first. But Taiwan has failed miserably in that regard so far.
The harsh reality is that we badly need electricity for virtually every aspect of our daily life. The DPP has promised an adequate supply of substitute energy for only the next five to six years. Most people are not convinced, however, and businesses need to plan decades ahead.
In addition, most of the private power plants (supposedly our main substitute energy source) are not up and running due to protests led by local government heads, most of whom are DPP members. Shouldn't Chen be doing something about ensuring we have such alternatives first before scrapping the new plant? Otherwise, he would not be acting in compliance with the charter.
The article also talks of closing existing nuclear power plants. Chen would be complying with the charter by first closing the first three nuclear power plants, as they pose more security risks and produce more types of pollution than the fourth plant.
People should stop focusing their entire consciousness on the single issue of the plant. The pros and cons of nuclear energy are much more complex. It is unfair and shallow to judge people as supporters of nuclear energy, and traitors of the DPP, the Taiwanese, or mankind generally for that matter, just because they support construction of the plant.
How can anyone say that Chen has betrayed the DPP when "a nuclear-free homeland" is now the general consensus?
Last but not least, as president, Chen is leader of this country before he is a DPP member. His duty to all of us, not that to the DPP, comes first.
Wu Yi-ju is an attorney.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS