Referendum on Nuclear Energy is Inevitable

Referendum on Nuclear Energy is Inevitable
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 25, 2013

Summary: The political turmoil brought about by the nuclear energy controversy is unavoidable. In order to minimize the impact and to find answers, a referendum is essential. The KMT and DPP should come up with a comprehensive long-term energy policy. They should hold a referendum. They should make the referendum an inside the system forum for public debate. Nuclear energy policy must be divorced from partisan political struggle. A public referendum is essential.

Full text below:

The nuclear energy controversy is increasingly urgent. Fuel rods are about to be loaded into the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. The controversy is increasingly intense. The moment of decision is increasingly near.

To avoid divisiveness and chaos, the ruling and opposition parties should consider the possibility of a public referendum. They should establish a forum for debate. The people as a whole should cast their ballots and make their decision. They should ensure that the debate is conducted inside the institutional framework. They should ensure that any decision making takes place inside the institutional framework also. They must not allow the pros and cons to be argued and settled outside the system. Such outside the system decision-making will only tear the nation apart.

Consider both the "nuclear energy" and the "referendum" aspects of a "nuclear energy referendum." First consider the "referendum" aspect. Past experience tells us that the spirit and utility of the referendum process has been destroyed. Referenda are not used for policy making. They are used to mobilize political struggle. During the 2004 presidential election, the "missile purchase referendum" became a political football. During the 2008 presidential elections the "referendum on UN membership" served the same purpose. Referenda invariably become tools for ideological struggle, not means for decision making inside the institutional framework.

Suppose a referendum on nuclear energy is held? It would be the first time any public policy was ever determined by a referendum. As expected, DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang declared that the DPP would demand that an "anti-nuclear referendum" be incorporated into the 2014 "seven in one elections." Interestingly enough, party insiders soundly rejected his proposal. Some even accused him of being "out of his mind." Opponents utterly rejected his Machiavellian calculation. They thought the issue of nuclear energy and the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant must be fought and settled outside the institutional framework. They felt that greater political capital could be accumulated by working outside the system than within. Therefore they opposed any referendum.

The DPP once advocated a "Taiwan independence referendum." Yet the Chen Shui-bian regime amended the referendum law on its own initiative, ruling out any Taiwan independence referendum. They did this to make sure they could continue clamoring for Taiwan independence outside the system. They dared not demand a showdown within the system on Taiwan independence. The fact is the DPP has long demanded a referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant and on a non-nuclear homeland. Chen Shui-bian once tried to package deal a referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant with the presidential election. At the time this newspaper endorsed his proposal. Now that the moment of truth is near, however, most DPP insiders have suddenly gotten cold feet. They no longer demand a referendum. They are determined to block any referendum. Protests held outside the system, they have decided, are more advantageous. Such is their mentality. They are preoccupied with such trickery.

Now take the "nuclear energy" aspect. This has two levels. One. Does one want to oppose nuclear energy generation and eliminate nuclear energy generation? Two. Does one want to shut down the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant? This is a question of nuclear power plant safety. Is one's ultimate goal the elimination of nuclear energy altogether? If so, then that is more controversial than whether the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant should be used as a transitional measure or shut down altogether. Suppose one does not believe that Taiwan can afford to totally eliminate nuclear energy? Then the continuation or termination of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant can be determined on the basis of objective and quantifiable nuclear safety standards. If a referendum is held, opposition to nuclear energy and whether to shut down the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant will be key issues.

Currently, global opposition to nuclear energy generation is on the rise. Germany and other countries are attempting to eliminate nuclear energy altogether. This is not in dispute. But over 100 nuclear reactors are currently in planning. Over 50 are under construction. France, South Korea, Russia, the United States, and the Chinese mainland are still increasing their use of nuclear energy. Japan was hit hard by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. But even Japan does not advocate the total elimination of nuclear energy. The whole world may demand nuclear safety. Some countries equate nuclear safety with the elimination of nuclear energy altogether. But other countries prefer safe nuclear energy.

We on Taiwan also face such a decision. The impact of opposition to nuclear energy is great. We all know this. Those who advocate the elimination of nuclear energy advocate an increase in the use of alternative energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass energy. But talk is cheap. Those who advocate scrapping nuclear energy also advocate industrial restructuring and the development of low-energy industries. Again, what is this, except more hot air? Are non-nuclear electricity prices something Taiwan's economy can withstand? That is in serious doubt.

Nuclear safety concerns cast a giant shadow in peoples' hearts. The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant's credibility has been the victim of political struggle. Its construction has been started and stopped repeatedly. Is it still safe? Taipower says that if the public has doubts, they can visit the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant and see for themselves. That is a joke. If laymen such as Kevin Tsai and Chen Ai Ling visit the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant site, what will they see? Unless Taipower is endorsed by internationally recognized professionals, it will not be able to gain the publc trust. If the operation of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant once again falls victim to masses taking to the streets and surrounding the plant, the issue of nuclear energy will remain insoluble, and the nation will be torn asunder.

Concern for nuclear safety, and opposition to nuclear energy and the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, are far reaching issues. Should the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant continue to operate or be shut down? This cannot be decided by skeptical laymen visiting the site. The ruling and opposition parties must realize that an ambiguous nuclear policy is the greatest threat to nuclear safety.

The political turmoil brought about by the nuclear energy controversy is unavoidable. In order to minimize the impact and to find answers, a referendum is essential. The KMT and DPP should come up with a comprehensive long-term energy policy. They should hold a referendum. They should make the referendum an inside the system forum for public debate. Nuclear energy policy must be divorced from partisan political struggle. A public referendum is essential.

核電公投恐怕終須面對
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.25 02:56 am

核電爭議日亟，核四裝填燃料在即；這是一個辯論更趨激烈的時刻，也是一個必須作出決定的時刻。

為了避免撕裂動亂，朝野應考慮經由公民投票的體制，建立全民思考辯論的平台，並由全民票決作出政策抉擇。讓一切議論折衝能在體制內表達，並作出體制性的決策；勿使正反雙方在體制外對決，那樣非但作不出體制化的決策，也撕裂了國家。

可從「核電」與「公投」兩頭談起，先談「公投」。在往昔的經驗中，公投的精神與功能已經被毀壞；公投不是真正用來作公民決策，而只是用來動員政治鬥爭。綁二○○四年總統大選的「買飛彈公投」，與綁二○○八年總統大選的「入聯公投」，皆在鼓動意識形態的鬥爭，而不在真正要作出體制性的決策。

核電公投如果進行，將是首次對真正的「公共政策」進行公民投票。詎料，民進黨主席蘇貞昌宣示將以「反核公投」綁二○一四「七合一」選舉後，竟引致黨內一片反對之聲，有人甚至說他「頭殼壞去」。其實，反對者全然是出自權謀的算計，他們認為核電及核四的議題，在體制外進行抗爭，較在體制內以公投機制折衝，可以獲取更大的政治鬥爭利益，因此反對公投。

這正如民進黨過去主張「台獨公投」，竟在扁政府主導修頒的《公投法》自行排除了「台獨公投」；這是欲在體制外保有「鬧台獨」的政治利益，卻不願也不敢在體制內用公投來對「台獨」攤牌。其實，民進黨一直主張「核四公投」及「非核公投」，陳水扁亦曾欲以「核四公投」綁總統大選（本報當時即表贊同）；但現在問題已迫在眉睫，民進黨內的主流意見卻反而認為：不要公投，而應阻擋公投，因為在體制外抗爭比較有利。此等心態，誠是機關算盡。

再談「核電」。這可分成兩個層次：一、是否要非核、廢核？二、核四停續的問題，亦即核電廠安全的問題。如果最終要非核、廢核，是否要用核四來做為過渡的爭議即大，停廢核四的壓力亦大；但如果不認為台灣能夠完全非核廢核，則核四的停續或許可用核安的標準來衡量。若要公投，「非核」與「核四停續」的關聯應如何表述，應當是一個關鍵。

目前，在世界上反核非核的聲浪上揚，並有德國等國正在執行廢核政策，此無疑義。但是，全球仍有上百個反應爐計畫興建，且有五十餘座正在施工之中；法國、韓國、俄國、美國、中國大陸皆仍採核電擴張政策，連遭受福島核災重創的日本也不主張「零核電」。所以，全世界皆主張「沒有核安，沒有核能」，但此刻有些國家「以廢核電為核安」，有些國家則在政策上仍傾向「作好核安，維持核電」。

此時的台灣，也正面臨抉擇的關口。廢核非核的影響重大，此為盡人皆知。倡議廢核者主張增加替代能源，但風力、太陽能、生質能源，皆只是說來容易而已；倡議廢核者亦主張產業轉型，發展低耗能產業，這又豈可只是紙上談兵？再者，非核的電價是否台灣這個淺碟經濟能夠承受，也是一個茲事體大的問題。

當然，核安的顧慮已是民心上的一大陰影，核四的公信力已被政治鬥爭搞得停停建建、摧殘至此地步；台電卻說，不放心的民眾可到核四現場參觀，這簡直是個大笑話，倘蔡康永及陳藹玲赴核四現場，他們能看出什麼名堂？如果台電不能經由國際性的專業背書，恐怕絕無可能取得國人信任；而核四的運作一旦陷於群眾上街及圍廠的動亂之中，不但核電找不到答案，國家亦陷於撕裂。

非核、核安、核四，無一不是牽動重大的議題。核電政策必須重新建立在體制化的人民公意上，核四的停續更不可能用「不相信的可到現場參觀」的方法來解決。朝野須知，核電政策曖昧不明的本身，即是核安的最大威脅。

核電爭議帶來的政治動盪已不可免，為減低衝擊、尋求答案，公民投票恐怕是必須面對的機制；國、民兩黨應拿出各自全面長久的能源政策，用公投來作為體制性的社會辯論平台，也用公投來作出體制化的全民決策。核電政策若不想陷於政黨惡鬥，公民投票殆是終須面對的課題。