Nuclear Plant Four and Taiwan Independence:

Nuclear Plant Four and Taiwan Independence:
The DPP Owes the Public Two Referenda
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 7, 2011

A Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four is one of the DPP's key policy proposals. But the two times the DPP made a major decision on the Nuclear Plant Number Four, it could not be bothered to seek public approval. Instead, it made its decisions unilaterally, simply because it had the power to do so. The first time was in 2000, when President Chen Shui-bian halted the project. The second time was when Tsai Ing-wen announced that if elected president, she would call for a halt to the commercial operation of Nuclear Plant Number Four.

The Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four touches upon two issues. First, the DPP considers terminating commercial operation of Nuclear Plant Number Four justified substantively. Secondly, the DPP considers a public referendum conducted in a democratic fashion justified procedurally. Such approaches strike one as fair. They are not being promoted by the ruling party. Therefore they must meet with public approval before they can be adopted.

In 2000, when Chen Shui-bian halted construction on Nuclear Plant Number Four, he reneged on his promise to first seek a public referendum. He ordered construction halted on the project without first obtaining public approval via a referendum. Where was the legitimacy in his move? Furthermore, following a constitutional review, the Council of Grand Justices concluded that the president had exceeded his authority. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to halt commercial operation on Nuclear Plant Number Four. This too, raises two questions. First, if the halt is merely temporary, what is the point? If the halt is permanent, it is the same as decommissioning it. In that case, why bother finishing it at all? Secondly, whether the halt is temporary or permanent, it amounts to a major policy decision. Is the president authorized to make such a decision on his own? Shouldn't a decision to halt construction or commercial operation on Nuclear Plant Number Four be submitted to the people for a referendum, in accordance with the DPP's promises?

Chen Shui-bian reneged on his promise to hold a referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four, Now Tsai Ing-wen is doing the same thing. The DPP legislative caucus' call for a referendum is mere posturing. If it really intended to fulfill its commitment. it should have initiated a public referendum, instead of merely making demands within the Legislative Yuan, Tsai Ing-wen said"It is too early to talk about a referendum." Such an attitude casts serious doubt on her stated commitment to a referendum.

Tsai Ing-wen has painted herself into a corner. She initially considered Nuclear Plant Number Four a hot button issue, one with which she could incite Blue vs. Green political passions. She opportunistically suggested "continuing construction, but halting commercial operations." In effect, she decommissioned Nuclear Plant Four in fact but not in name. But if she is decommissioning Nuclear Plant Number Four in fact, why isn't she fulfilling her commitment to hold a referendum? Surely the DPP is not reneging on its promises?

Recently, Tsai Ing-wen began pulling her punches. She even changed the subject, and began talking about renewable energy. She said "We are merely making a modest call for a 4% increase in the use of renewable energy." This was transparent subterfuge. Leave aside the question of practicability. The issue is bogus. Nobody is against a 4% increase in the use of renewable energy. The real issue is, what does a 4% increase in the use of renewable energy have to do with "halting commercial operation of Nuclear Plant Number Four?" What does it have to do with a Referendum on Nuclear Plant Four? The DPP clearly hopes to stir up the pot for the sake of votes. It has no respect for public opinion. But absent a referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four, what right would "President Tsai" have to order a halt on commercial operations?

The DPP owes the public a Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four. It also owes the public another referendum, namely, on on Taiwan independence. The Taiwan Independence Party Platform calls for "the founding of a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan, and the authoring of a new constitution. These issues must be referred to the inhabitants of Taiwan for a decision via public referendum." This is what is known as a Taiwan independence referendum. But the DPP insists that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." The DPP also holds rallies, during which it proclaims that "the ROC is a sovereign and independent nation." At these rallies, Taiwan independence flags fill the air. But not a single ROC flag can be found. The "one nation on each side connection" is emerging as one of the party's newest factions. Frank Hsieh's "half a consensus on the constitution," meanwhile, is unable to reach a consensus. Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. As president he demanded Taiwan independence, demanded the rectification of names, and demanded the authoring of a new constitution. So why didn't he hold a Taiwan independence referendum?

As we can see, the DPP merely wishes to exploit Taiwan independence passions.It merely wishes to incite political divisions for the sake of votes. It has no respect for public opinion. Absent a Referendum on Taiwan independence, how can it assert that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation?" Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have been on the nation's payroll for years. Were their salaries issued to them by a "Nation of Taiwan," rather than the Republic of China? How long must we endure this kind of "backdoor listing," this kind of "brood parasitism," this kind of "self deception and deception of others?"

The DPP has long avoided a Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four and a Referendum on Taiwan independence. In 2004, Chen Shui-bian threatened to promote a Referendum a Nuclear Plant Number Four. In the end however, he retreated into his shell. Chen Shui-bian openly vetoed Trong Chai's Taiwan independence referendum bill. Absent any such public referenda, calls for decommissioning Nuclear Plant Number Four and a calls for a declaration of Taiwan independence lack legitimacy. The DPP owes the public two referenda. For decades it has relentlessly demagogued two issues -- Nuclear Plant Number Four and Taiwan independence. Can it really boast that it is "using reason to strengthen democracy?"

Nor is this the end of the matter. Tsai Ing-wen declared that If she is elected president, whether to abolish ECFA "may also be put to a public referendum."

核四與台獨: 民進黨欠國人兩個公投
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.07

核四公投是民進黨的品牌政策，但在兩次對核四作出重大決策時，均未經公投程序，而皆是由政治權力逕行片面作出決定。第一次是二○○○年陳水扁任總統時停建核四，第二次是蔡英文如今以總統初選候選人身分宣布，若當選將推動核四不商轉。

「核四公投」有兩個層次：一是實質方面認為停廢核四有正當性，二是宣示將以公投的民主方式達成，慮及程序正義。客觀而論，此一政策思維比較公允，因為並非由政治權力擅為主張，必須徵詢民意始決定取捨。

陳水扁在二○○○年停建核四，根本違反了「核四公投」的承諾。未經公投徵詢民意，逕自停建核四的正當性何在？何況後來釋憲，大法官會議亦認為總統已經逾權。如今，蔡英文又主張核四不商轉，亦涉兩個問題。一、如果只是暫時不商轉，意義何在？如果是永久不商轉，即同廢核四，則又何必將之續建完工？二、無論暫時或永久不商轉，皆涉重大國策執行，總統豈有權力擅自為之？此一攸關核四停續的動作，是否應履行民進黨的承諾而交付公投？

陳水扁違反了核四公投的承諾，如今蔡英文亦然。民進黨黨團在立法院發動公投，只是作態而已；若真要履行核四公投的承諾，當然應發動公民聯署公投；而即使只在立院發動公投，蔡英文也說：「現在談公投言之過早。」此種態度，分明有違核四公投的承諾。

蔡英文已陷不能自圓其說的困境。她原認為核四是政治圖騰，可以挑激藍綠神經；因而她直接拋出核四「續建／不商轉」的投機主張，認為是「無廢核四之名，有廢核四之實」。但是，既然已有廢核四之實，則為何不履行承諾而交付核四公投？民進黨總不能自食其言吧？

現在蔡英文的話愈來愈軟，竟然轉移到再生能源方面，而謂「我們很客氣的只（主張）增加百分之四（再生能源）而已」；然遁詞知其所窮，因為增加百分之四的再生能源，雖做不做得到是另一回事，但其實並無人反對；問題是：增加百分之四的再生能源，與主張「核四不商轉」有何關係？又與不交付核四公投有何關係？可見，民進黨要的只是挑激選舉衝突，而不在尊重民意；但若不履行核四公投，「蔡總統」憑什麼下令核四不商轉？

「核四公投」以外，民進黨欠國人另一個公投，即台獨公投。台獨黨綱稱：「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國及制定新憲法的主張，應交由台灣全體住民以公民投票方式選擇決定。」此即台獨公投的主張。但是，民進黨迄今稱「台灣（國）是一個主權獨立的國家」，而諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」；集會時台獨旌旗招展，不見一面中華民國國旗，而「一邊一國連線」更是黨內新興派系，甚至連謝長廷的「二分之一憲法共識」亦不能達到「共識」；至於陳水扁主政八年，到頭來仍以總統身分宣示「要台獨，要正名，要制憲」。試問：為何不舉行台獨公投？

可見，民進黨要的也只是藉台獨或台灣國的情愫來挑激選舉衝突，而不在尊重民意；但若不舉行台獨公投，憑何主張「台灣（國）是一主權獨立的國家」？蔡英文及蘇貞昌等領了國家薪水多年，難道是台灣國發給你（妳）的，而不是中華民國？這種「借殼上市」、「鳩佔鵲巢」、「偷天換日」的騙局，還要自欺欺人到何年何月？

民進黨一直躲避核四公投與台獨公投。陳水扁在二○○四年揚言要發動核四公投，後來竟告龜縮；而蔡同榮的台獨公投法，亦是被陳水扁公然擋下。廢核四及台獨，若未經公投通過，皆不具正當性；但民進黨欠國人這兩大公投，幾十年來卻一天到晚盡在操作廢核四及台獨這兩個議題，這還能說是「理性讓民主更有力」嗎？

事情還沒完，蔡英文又說，她若當選總統，ＥＣＦＡ廢不廢止，「公投其實也是一個選項」。