For many, the hardest part of Saturday’s recall elections and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung was not the outcome itself, but the perception gap and sense of helplessness when the majority seemed to endorse views different from their own.
Supporters of extending the plant’s service life focused on energy security, economic growth and a stable power supply. Opponents pointed to the dangers of nuclear waste and earthquakes, while stressing the importance of environmental sustainability.
Both sides marshaled experts and data, yet neither could persuade the other. That revealed a harsh truth: Public policy is never determined by science alone, but is also shaped by values, sentiment, fears, identity and the competing interests of many stakeholders. Once opinions harden, they seldom change, regardless of the evidence.
The recall votes showed a similar dynamic. Many felt the social atmosphere shift once the results were announced. Those who had openly taken a stand and devoted themselves to advocacy were left frustrated, disappointed, even ashamed and isolated. Believing they had acted rationally, they nevertheless found themselves beset by self-doubt when confronted with reality, and some began to question their ability to engage in dialogue with the wider public.
However, a majority vote does not necessarily equate to the right outcome. Collective decisionmaking involves many factors beyond rational judgment. Scientific evidence does not lose its value simply because it is disregarded in the moment. What is dismissed today — data, risk assessments, reasoned arguments — might be re-examined tomorrow.
Social consensus evolves. Being in the minority today does not mean a turning point will never come.
In light of this, those disappointed by the results should consider shifting their role from debaters to witnesses. By preserving evidence and keeping careful records, they ensure that today’s choices can be judged anew in the future.
They should also seek out like-minded allies to avoid isolation in moments of frustration, and should not withdraw from engaging with public issues. By fostering ongoing dialogue and advancing rational, science-based perspectives, society can gradually narrow the perception gap and build a more mature consensus.
Lu Chun-wei is a dermatologist and an assistant professor at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.
Translated by Fion Khan
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