The referendums scheduled for August can be regarded as a midterm exam for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, in which its core policies of environmental protection and a nuclear energy phase-out are to be scrutinized.
One of the referendum proposals, concerning the relocation of a liquefied natural gas terminal project by state-run CPC Corp, Taiwan away from an algal reef ecosystem off Taoyuan’s coast, had been widely neglected until environmental advocates expanded their strategic engagement with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
For the advocates, engaging with the KMT might be seen as a necessary evil, after they have experienced the DPP, their preferred party, downplaying the issue. As of Friday, their campaign had garnered more than 528,000 signatures — 10 times more than one month ago. The surge was not just due to KMT supporters jumping on the bandwagon, but also due to people who loathed to see DPP supporters dismiss the advocates as campaigners for the sake of campaigning or naive pawns in the hands of the KMT.
If approved by the Central Election Commission, the referendum would on Aug. 28 be juxtaposed against one on restarting the mothballed Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮), which might foreshadow more confrontation over the government’s energy policy. This might also be the reason the government reportedly aims to send DPP Legislator Hung Sun-han (洪申翰), DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) and Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲), who have backgrounds in social activism, to communicate with the environmental advocates.
However, negotiations between the government and the advocates would be of no avail if the administration cannot admit its mistakes in the decisionmaking process on the proposed gas terminal.
The Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that, once a referendum on a major policy is passed, the president and government agencies should, but do not have to, take the steps necessary to fulfill the proposal, and no policy should be enacted to counter the proposal within two years. Therefore, the effect of a referendum is limited. It does not determine government policy, but rather offers parties an occasion to rally their supporters.
Nonetheless, the result of a referendum reflects public opinion on the ruling party’s performance. If the DPP believes its own words that Taiwan is a “bastion of democracy,” it should foster policy debates, instead of being satisfied with the self-deceptive illusion that it has “done better than the KMT.”
Environmental advocates in 2018 proposed an alternative location for the gas terminal at the Port of Taipei, but the government did not seriously consider the proposal and instead shrugged it off, saying that revising plans would delay the goal to achieve a “nuclear-free homeland” by 2025.
It is problematic that the public is not given options in terms of power-generation policies, or an integrated timetable on the planned commissioning and decommissioning of power-generation facilities. While many of the nation’s new energy policy projects are carried out in a hurry to meet the goal of a nuclear-free homeland, the government fails to inform the public of potential risks, not to mention that the goal’s legal basis in the Electricity Act (電業法) was scrapped in a referendum in 2018.
For many people, the 10 referendums held simultaneously with the 2018 local elections were a nightmare, as there was no thorough public discussion on the issues and many experienced nasty clashes with family members over divergent opinions.
To prevent such turmoil from recurring, the government should appeal to rational debate, rather than instigating hatred for opponents, and lead the nation toward a better democracy, without the counterproductive DPP-KMT antagonism.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS