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
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS