On Wednesday last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election.
In his speech, Hou repeatedly called for “another power transfer” without elaborating on what changes he and the KMT would bring to Taiwan if the party were to win. His call was nothing but a campaign slogan.
Based on the focus of discussion of pro-blue media and key opinion leaders over the past few years, there are at least three things that Hou should answer clearly and definitively as the KMT’s presidential candidate.
First, would he restart the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant project in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮)?
As the mayor, Hou has postponed the construction of dry storage facilities for the Second Nuclear Power Plant in the city’s Wanli District (萬里). As a result, there is not enough storage space for spent fuel rods at the plant.
He has also said numerous times that “without nuclear safety, there would be no nuclear energy.” Now, in the face of many pro-blue supporters and business groups’ calls to increase deployment of nuclear energy, he has the responsibility to explain what role nuclear power would play in his energy policy, and where nuclear waste would go.
Next, would he reverse the pension reforms for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers?
Faced with a potential financial crisis, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration dealt with this “hot potato” that it inherited from former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, thus angering many of the these public servants and even their family members with the pension reductions.
Once a power transfer takes place, is Hou going to reverse the pension reform, or even retrospectively repay those whose pensions were cut? Many retirees are surely waiting for an answer from the mayor.
Last, would he maintain the current short-term military service?
In response to the growing military threat from the Chinese Communist Party, the Tsai administration announced at the end of last year that mandatory military service would from next year be extended from four months to one year. While the extension is good for national security and can reinforce allies’ confidence in Taiwan, it has become an excuse for critics to attack the Tsai administration and become a weapon for them to sensationalize the risks of a war.
The extension would also have an impact on conscripts’ career plans and deployment of massive national resources. However, it is representative of the government’s attitude in the face of Beijing’s military threats.
As a potential commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces, Hou should clarify whether he would make a U-turn on mandatory military service if he takes over the reins of government.
If Hou is not planning to restart the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant project, cancel pension reforms and support the extension of military service, is there a need for a power transfer?
Huang Wei-ping is a former think tank researcher and a Kaohsiung resident.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS