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 building more non-nuclear sustainable energy sources. Increasing energy demand stemming from artificial intelligence processes and chip manufacturing, and the possibility of a blockade by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army are anticipated problems that should be considered while handling this issue.
However, the failure of the Ma-anshan plant operation extension referendum is a win for Taiwan. The nation is within an active earthquake zone, and the possibility of nuclear disasters remains a significant public safety concern, especially with nuclear plants using outdated technologies that have had safety issues and passed their expiration dates.
The question of spent fuel storage, too, has yet to be addressed.
The campaigns against nuclear energy clearly failed to persuade the electorate of the dangers of extending the life of the expired plant, and while the support for the extension was anticipated, the scale was not, with 75 percent for the extension to 25 percent opposed.
Voters were asked: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operation upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?”
That was a loaded question. It seems only reasonable to answer “yes” given the qualifications. However, those qualifications were considerable.
Voters were promised safe, inexpensive and stable energy, but the KMT and TPP sponsors did not provide them with the full facts. They did not tell the public that nuclear energy is expensive once used fuel waste disposal is factored in, or that the issue of waste storage has not been resolved yet.
New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) and his predecessor, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫), refused to have spent rods stored within their constituency. They were fine with the extension of the plant in Pingtung County, way down in the south of the country, and mysteriously uncurious about the advantages of extending the lives of the Jinshan and Guosheng nuclear power plants in New Taipei City.
With a voter turnout of 31 percent in Pingtung County, 120,720 voted in favor of the extension, versus 90,460 opposing it. The question of safety had clearly not percolated through.
There is currently no legal process for assessing a reactor’s safety before extending its operational permit. Extending the Ma-anshan plant’s operation would not have been a simple matter.
In his column, “Notes from Central Taiwan: What is the KMT’s real nuclear power stance?” (May 26, page 12), Taipei Times contributor Michael Turton asked whether, through this referendum, the KMT has cynically been repeating its contradictory stance on nuclear power, simply to trap the government into following a path that it neither wants to take and which would make it open to criticism, as restarting the plant would either be impractical, too expensive or take too long to realize.
The KMT and TPP almost got what they wanted. It was voter apathy that saved the day.
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