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?
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS