Fourth Nuclear Power Plant Demands Ruling and Opposition Party Cooperation

Fourth Nuclear Power Plant Demands Ruling and Opposition Party Cooperation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 23, 2014

Summary: In 2000, the DPP halted construction. Retired President Lee Teng-hui, President Chen Shui-bian, and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng were forced to clean up the mess. Faced with a new Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controvery, the KMT must not forget past experience. Wang Jin-pyng once had to clean up the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant mess, and prevent a "nuclear explosion."

Full text below:

Should construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant be halted? Yesterday Lin Yi-hsiung began fasting in protest. He did not set a time limit. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang shuttled back and forth. He met with Premier Chiang Yi-hua, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin, and New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu. He also expressed a willingness to meet with President Ma Ying-jeou and deal with the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue.

In 1985 the Legislative Yuan Economic Committee approved the budget for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Since then, the ruling and opposition parties have flip-flopped on whether to complete construction. Almost 30 years have passed, but they have still not reached an agreement. In 2011, Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant experienced safety problems. Anti-nuclear sentiment surged. Last year Premier Chiang Yi-hua proposed a public referendum on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. But the ruling and opposition parties in the legislature could not reach an accord. The referendum threshold was too high. Anti-STA protests prolonged the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controversy. Anti-nuclear sentiment intensified.

Whether to halt construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is actually a multiple choice question, not a true or false question. The question is whether the ruling and opposition parties and the general public can reach an agreement. Are they willing to bear the cost of halting construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant? They will have endure a higher cost of living. Are they willing to tolerate higher prices? Are they prepared to do without the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant? Are they prepared to keep the First, Second, and Third Nuclear Power Plants in service longer than originally planned? Are they prepared to rely on alternative energy sources? We can choose to halt construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Or we can complete construction on it, but not put it into operation. That is a reasonable alternative.

When Su Tseng-chang met Chiang Yi-hua, he made two suggestions. One. The Executive Yuan would announce a halt to the project . Two. It would support the DPP's proposed special regulations for a Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. The Executive Yuan would then announce a halt to the project. Chiang Yi-hua said the Executive Yuan cannot make such a decision by itself. He was correct. This made many people wonder whether Su Tseng-chang made such an illegal suggestion on purpose.

In October 27, 2000, Premier Chang Chun-hsiung announced a halt to the project. The stock market plummeted. The legislature convened an extraordinary session. It invoked the Council of Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation, which explained that an Executive Yuan halt to construction would be illegal. In other words, such an action would have been invalid. This forced the Executive Yuan to announce that it was resuming construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. In other words, the Executive Yuan cannot decide to halt the project.

Does the Executive Yuan support the DPP's proposed special regulations for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum? The problem is that the threshold for a public referendum is too high. It has been criticized as a "birdcage" referendum. The DPP wants something similar to the Articles for to the Offshore Islands. It wants to lower the threshold for public referenda. A simple majority vote would decide whether to complete construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Also affected is the threshold for public referenda. In the end, just how low a threshold is reasonable? There is no need for special regulations for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. That is something that could be accomplished in one fell swoop. Amending the referendum law and lowering the threshold for public referenda, should not be done for the sake of a specific regulation.

Those who advocate amending the referendum law and lowering the voting threshold argue that the presidential election uses a plurality rather than an absolute majority. They argue that if an official as important as the president is elected by a merely plurality, why should the referendum law require a quorum consisting of half of the eligibile voters, plus an absolute majority? Why the need for this doubly high threshold? In fact of course, the original reason for such a high threshold was to avoid frequent reunification vs. independence referenda leading to political unrest.

Understanding the background for the original legislation makes it easier to sort out the context. Especially since Premier Chiang proposed a Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum last year, and the DPP proposed special regulations for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. One might say that the ruling and opposition parties already have a consensus on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. The problem is over the referendum threshold. That is why the ruling and opposition parties should consider this a last ditch measure. Amending the referendum law would lower the high threshold for reunification vs. independence referenda. Lowering the voting threshold for public referenda on ordinary public issues would resolve the dispute over "birdcage" referenda. It would also avoid the need for special regulations every time we hold a public referendum.

If there is a consensus on reducing the threshold for referenda, when should it be held? Su Tseng-chang fears being criticized for harboring a political agenda. He fears linking a referendum to a general election. On his own initiative he suggested delinking it with the seven in one general election. Since Su has made this gesture of good will, the ruling and opposition parties may wish to consider a referendum on nuclear power plant safety. This would be more professional and more responsible.

Of course without nuclear safety there would be no Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. If it cannot even pass security checks, we can bid the the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant farewell. We do not even need a referendum.

Finally, we appeal to ruling and opposition party politicians. Find your political conscience. Be responsible to history. Takethe Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue, which has festered for 30 years, seriously. In 2000, the DPP halted construction. Retired President Lee Teng-hui, President Chen Shui-bian, and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng were forced to clean up the mess. Faced with a new Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controvery, the KMT must not forget past experience. Wang Jin-pyng once had to clean up the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant mess, and prevent a "nuclear explosion."

Ma and Wang must set aside their grievances for the time being.

社論－核四風暴 要朝野一起解套
2014年04月23日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊

核四到底要不要停建，因為林義雄昨天開始無限期禁食抗議，讓民進黨主席蘇貞昌四處奔走，分別會見行政院長江宜樺、台北市長郝龍斌、新北市長朱立倫，並表示願意和馬英九總統坐下來談，共同商量如何面對核四問題。

自1985年，立法院經濟委員會通過興建核四預算，要不要蓋核四，朝野一直翻來覆去，至今快30年，仍然無法解決。2011年發生日本福島核安問題，讓反核聲浪風起雲湧。去年行政院長江宜樺提出核四公投的議題，卻因為立法院朝野意見無法整合，加上公投門檻過高、反服貿協議的抗爭，核四爭議延宕至今，但是反核的抗議聲浪是有增無減。

其實，核四要不要停建是選擇題，不應該是是非題。關鍵就在，朝野政黨和人民要有共識，並且願意一起承擔停建核四後，必須面對比較高電價的生活代價。如果大家願意忍受相對高的電價，以及擬妥沒有核四，核一、核二、核三是否延役、替代能源如何備妥的共識，核四停建，或者建好封存不運轉，也是合理的選擇。

蘇貞昌會見江宜樺時提出兩個主張，一、行政院宣布停建核四；二、支持民進黨提出的核四公投特別條例。其中由行政院宣布停建核四的主張，江宜樺表示，行政院不能自行決定，的確是事實，也讓人有蘇貞昌是否明知故犯的感覺。

因為2000年10月27日，當時的行政院長張俊雄宣布停建核四，不僅股市重挫，立法院召開臨時會補破網，還動用到大法官會議解釋指出，行政院停建決定違背法律效力，也就是無效，逼得行政院再對外宣布核四復建。換言之，行政院不能自行決定停建核四。

至於是否支持民進黨提出的核四公投特別條例？關鍵就在目前公投法的門檻太高，被批評是鳥籠公投。民進黨主張比照離島條例，降低公投的門檻，以簡單多數決來決定核四要不要蓋。這個議題又牽涉到底公投的門檻多少才是合理？其次是有沒有必要為核四公投訂定特別條例，還是畢其功於一役，修改公投法，對於公共政策的公投，降低門檻，不是依個案訂定特別條例。

支持修改公投法，降低投票門檻的主張認為，我們總統選舉就是採相對多數就當選，並不是絕對多數。如果以總統這麼重要的權位都只是相對多數就當選，為什麼公投法規定要選舉人的一半投票，並且得票數要過半，這種「雙二一」的高門檻？其實，當初設計這麼高的門檻，說穿了就是避免動輒發動統獨公投，造成政局動盪不安。

了解當初的立法背景，就比較容易理出脈絡。尤其從去年江揆提出的核四公投，到民進黨提出的核四公投特別條例，可以說朝野都有核四公投的共識，問題在公投門檻的高低。因此朝野應該可以考慮釜底抽薪之計，修改公投法，把涉及國家定位的統獨公投保留目前的高門檻，至於一般的公共議題、公共政策公投，降低投票門檻，一方面解決鳥籠公投的爭議，另一方面也不必每一次遇到不同的公共政策就要訂定特別條例來公投。

另外是，如果降低公投門檻有共識，什麼時候公投？蘇貞昌擔心被批評政治算計太多，不搞公投綁大選，主動提出和年底七合一大選脫勾。蘇既然釋出這個善意，朝野可以考慮核四安檢後公投，應該是比較專業、負責任的做法。

當然，沒有核安就沒有核四，如果連安檢都沒有通過，核四就再見了，也不必公投。

最後，還是要呼籲朝野政治人物，拿出對歷史負責的政治良心，認真面對這個被擺爛了30年的核四問題。2000年民進黨停建核四的風暴，是由已經卸任總統的李登輝、當時的陳水扁總統和立法院長王金平連袂出手補救善後。面對來勢洶洶的新核四風暴，國民黨不要忘了找政治歷練深厚，曾經為停建核四善後的王金平共商決策，拆解「核爆」。