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.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS