A Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation survey released on Oct. 26 suggested that the government was likely to be defeated in the four referendums scheduled for Dec. 18.
Three of the referendums concern major planks in the government’s policy for expanding overseas trade and changing the nation’s energy mix, and are therefore crucial for its plans for national development. A defeat across the board, in what the opposition is trying to equate with a vote of no confidence in the government in general and Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) in particular, would be a major setback for the government’s agenda.
The poll results suggest that if the government wants to win the argument and persuade Taiwanese to vote “no” and therefore support Su’s policies, the boat has already sailed. The opposition’s message on the issues of restarting construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, banning imports of pork containing ractopamine residues, relocating a planned third liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving station to protect algal reefs in Taoyuan, and holding referendums and elections on the same day seem to have proven persuasive.
All four issues require rational debate; the debates for the first three, in particular, should be based on facts, looking at the underlying science. The opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has preferred to steer clear of facts or science in its argument, and has turned the referendums into primarily political issues. The Democratic Progressive Party has mostly held its fire, until more scientific, rational debate has come to the fore over the past week. It seems to be betting on getting its own arguments out this late in the day, in the belief that minds have not been made up irretrievably, and that the argument that remains fresh in people’s minds when it is time to vote will remain persuasive enough for the government to win on the day.
On Monday, experts from the Taiwan Medical Association and Public Research Institute of Taiwan urged those involved in the debate to refrain from using the term “toxic pork” when referring to meat containing residues of ractopamine, saying that it did not cohere with facts. They also tried to paint a more objective picture of what nuclear power means for pollution levels and the risk of nuclear disaster, together with the practical problems of dealing with nuclear waste and spent fuel rods.
Saturday last week saw live televised debates on the issues of linking referendums and elections and the relocation of the LNG terminal. The former was between KMT Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) and Deputy Minister of the Interior Chen Tsung-yen (陳宗彥), and was purely political. The latter was between environmentalist Chen Hsien-cheng (陳憲政) and Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua (王美花), making the dynamic entirely different, and yet equally determined by the nature of the speakers. With the environmentalist debating the minister charged with the nation’s economic affairs, the two were able to get their respective points of view across without disagreeing with each other.
It is difficult to disagree with Chen Hsien-cheng’s arguments on face value, of the importance of protecting the environment, and that using gas for energy generation would not enable the nation to reduce carbon emissions in the most efficient way possible. However, the key is to find the right balance between environmental protection, national development and energy provision, especially with the return to Taiwan of many companies in the wake of the US-China trade dispute and the planned opening of a new Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co plant in Kaohsiung, within the context of the government’s plans for a staged transition of the nation’s energy mix to a more sustainable and carbon-free future.
This was the area in which Wang was able to lay out her argument.
People will find out on Dec. 18 whether voters found it persuasive enough.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past