The date has been set for a referendum on a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project near algal reefs on the coast of Datan Borough (大潭) in Taoyuan’s Guanyin District (觀音).
Although the Cabinet is willing to discuss the project and has adopted some suggestions offered by environmental groups, it is still rejected by other environmental groups.
Few people have a thorough understanding of the project’s ecological, environmental, energy and engineering implications, and rigorous thinking is needed to foresee the effects that either outcome — passing or not passing the referendum — would have.
A referendum, in which people vote yes or no, is not in the public’s best interest.
The referendum question is inflexible: “Do you agree with the relocation of CPC Corp’s [CPC Corp, Taiwan] third natural gas receiving station away from the coastal area and waters at Datan Algal Reef in Taoyuan?” For example, it asks for the relocation of the station, rather than simply moving it farther away from the reefs.
This is why some environmental organizations do not accept moving the terminal farther from the shore. Unless the groups that proposed the referendum are willing to withdraw it — which seems unlikely — the government should propose a counter-referendum.
Article 14 of the Referendum Act (公民投票法) states: “If the Executive Yuan deems it necessary to carry out referendums for a matter as prescribed in Subparagraph 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 2, it may hand the main text and the statement of reasons, after they are approved by the Legislative Yuan, to the competent authority to implement the referendum.”
In other words, the government can initiate a referendum without gathering signatures.
The government had decided not to counter any of the four referendums to be held on Aug. 28 with referendums of its own, but the situation changed after Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) discussed the issue with Democratic Progressive Party legislators and reached an agreement between the Cabinet and the Legislative Yuan — he should report to the president and quickly counter with a referendum.
With the voting just three months away, the government cannot stand by and wait for a disaster that would block its energy plan, throw industry and taxpayers into an energy crisis, perpetuate pollution from coal-fired power generation and make it nearly impossible to achieve the goal of a nuclear-free homeland by 2025.
Even if the referendum is blocked, the Cabinet must still follow through on its pledge to move the station 400m farther out from shore and extend the project by another two years. As this would cost an additional NT$15 billion (US$539.26 million), taxpayers would still be forced to cover the cost of the government’s backing down.
Instead of backing down, the Cabinet should counter with a more aggressive referendum: “Do you agree that CPC Corp, to meet the need for an energy transition, shall establish a liquid natural gas receiving system in Taoyuan’s Guantang (觀塘) area that will not affect the algal reef ecology?”
The reasoning should list every alternative solution, including how far from the shore the station should be located, and the alternative of using a floating receiving system proposed by former Environmental Protection Administration deputy minister Chan Shun-kuei (詹順貴) and others.
It should be clearly explained how these alternatives accommodate the needs of the algal reef and the terminal so that voters can make an informed choice. Doing so would also change the referendum from a yes-or-no issue to a multiple-choice issue.
Chen Wen-ching is a director of the Formosa Association of Resource Recycling.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
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
RSS