Although no one thought that the national energy conference would be able to solve frictions over nuclear energy, alternative energy sources and energy conservation policy in two days, this week’s conference continued its meetings late into the night on Tuesday without being able to reach any kind of substantive conclusion. True to the government’s style, the conference ended in squabbling and without presenting any results.
It is an example in miniature of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) record on policy implementation. After seven years in power, policy implementation remains inefficient, with many pledges coming to nothing and the government incapable of resolving political, economic and social issues. This is why it is being spurned by voters.
Because expectations of any concrete results were low, many people did not want to attend. Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) only showed up on the second day, and even though he spoke six times, his call for an introduction of green energy sources and for a goal of 137,500 megawatts by 2030 to be moved forward by five years were not entered into the consensus statement. It is not surprising, then, that an angry Lai described the conference as: “two days of meetings just to pass a lot of hot air.”
The failure of the national energy conference is a clear sign that the government lacks planning and implementation abilities. Even though energy policy is important, with far-reaching consequences affecting industry, society and environmentally sustainable development, opinions about the policy diverge.
The government’s determination to hold the conference should have been preceded by good planning to provide detailed and reliable information, and the division of topics and proposals should have been preceded by detailed consultation to resolve possible conflicts and lay the foundation for a possible consensus ahead of the conference. When an adequate conclusion proved impossible, the goal should at least have been to minimize the failure, and ensure that the conference was not a waste of time.
However, the conference did not follow normal procedures. First, the information provided was questioned by conference participants, with Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (田秋堇) saying that the background material contained mistakes, and that although she pointed this out on several occasions on the first day, the organizers ignored her. Yenliao Anti-Nuclear Self-Help Association secretary-general Yang Mu-huo (楊木火) even knelt down to express his dissatisfaction. The organizers said that the background materials had been accessible on the Internet since September last year to solicit opinions, while Atomic Energy Council (AEC) Minister Tsai Chuen-horng (蔡春鴻) said that the AEC would never spread false information.
The nation has failed to reach a consensus on nuclear power issues despite several decades of debate, so if the government thought it would be able to reach one in two days, without any preparatory consultations, it was on a fool’s errand. Just look at Ma’s and Premier Mao Chi-kuo’s (毛治國) support of nuclear power, while Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) opposes it: How are KMT members going to listen when even the president, the premier and the KMT chairman disagree? It is not surprising then that the national energy conference resulted in squabbling.
The conference once again put the ineptness of the Ma administration on display as it attempted to deflect attention, procrastinate over a decision and do nothing to promote the success of the conference. Not only did the failure have a negative effect on the nation’s long-term energy policy direction, it also sacrificed the government’s reputation and trustworthiness.
Next time the Ma administration wants to hold a national conference of any kind, will anyone attend?
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS