On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants.
On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has approved the proposal, and the vote is to be held on Aug. 23.
According to the revised second paragraph of Article 6, the licensee may apply to the competent authority for a license renewal before the current license expires. Under a newly added third paragraph, “when there is need to continue operation after the license is expired, an application for renewing the license thereof shall be filed by the licensee with the competent authorities within the period prescribed by the competent authorities.” However, operations may only continue after the competent authority has reviewed and approved the plant’s final safety analysis report. In short, all three of Taiwan’s old and decommissioned nuclear power plants are now legally eligible to apply for license renewal and thus, reactivation.
The decision to apply for a license extension or reactivation lies with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Taiwan Power Co (Taipower), and the Nuclear Safety Commission is the competent authority responsible for approving or denying the application. However, the revised article of the act does not mandate that the economics ministry or Taipower submit an application.
The main text of the TPP’s referendum proposal asks: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the relevant authorities?” This is ridiculous for a number of reasons.
First, as determining whether the already decommissioned Ma-anshan plant can resume operations requires it being deemed safe and approved by the competent authorities — what is the point of holding a referendum on this issue? Furthermore, exactly which items would be reviewed by the Nuclear Safety Commission? What procedure would be followed? These details remain unclear as we await the release of subsidiary regulations — and yet, the KMT and the TPP are rushing to hold a nationwide referendum on the matter.
Former CEC head Chen In-chin (陳英鈐) recently wrote on Facebook that “whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations is an administrative issue that requires a case-by-case review and approval in accordance with regulations. Holding a referendum on the plant’s potential reactivation violates the principle of separation of powers, as such a matter cannot be solely decided by a vote indicating public support or opposition.”
Second, the decision whether to approve the plant’s continued operation must comply with legal requirements. Article 30 of the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which states that if a referendum proposal is passed, “the president or the competent authority shall take the actions necessary to implement the content of the referendum proposal.” However, if those actions do not meet legal criteria, the referendum cannot compel the president or the competent authority to act unlawfully. In other words, if reactivating the Ma-anshan plant is illegal, then its operations cannot be resumed. This would mean that the upcoming referendum would essentially have no legal binding force — it would merely be an expression of public opinion.
The main text of the referendum does not require that Taipower submit an application to renew the power plant’s license if passed. Seeing as it is entirely consistent with the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act, is it necessary to spend NT$1.1 billion (US$36.75 million) to hold a vote on such an unclear referendum? Chen believes that, while current regulations can be subject to initiatives or referendums, this case falls under the authority of the Legislative Yuan and should not be determined by a major policy referendum — it can only be initiated by citizens through a public petition.
Shieh Jyh-cherng is a retired National Taiwan University professor.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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