Number Four Nuclear Power Plant: DPP Lip Service to a Public Referendum

Number Four Nuclear Power Plant:
DPP Lip Service to a Public Referendum
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 27, 2013

Summary: Public opposition to nuclear power is increasing day by day. The administration and the legislature have approved a public referendum on whether to halt construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP). But surprise, surprise. The DPP, which has for decades demanded for a referendum on nuclear power, suddenly began hemming and hawing. Chairman Su Tseng-chang even said that no referendum on 4NPP was necessary, and that President Ma could simply hand down the order.

Full Text below:

Public opposition to nuclear power is increasing day by day. The administration and the legislature have approved a public referendum on whether to halt construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP). But surprise, surprise. The DPP, which has for decades demanded for a referendum on nuclear power, suddenly began hemming and hawing. Chairman Su Tseng-chang even said that no referendum on 4NPP was necessary, and that President Ma could simply hand down the order.

This argument is absurd. The DPP has long boasted it would spare no effort honoring the "Will of the People." It has long equated public referenda with holy edicts. The "Public Referendum on 4NPP" is virtually the DPP's calling card. The government intends to resolve the dispute by holding a public referendum on whether to retain or eliminate the 4NPP. the DPP should be applauding enthusiastically. So why is it instead insisting that "The President can simply issue an executive order?"

Can it be that the DPP was bluffing all along? Can it be that it was merely paying lip service to the "Will of the People?" Can it be that it was shrilly demanding a public referendum, while hoping a public referendum would never actually come to pass, and force it to show its hand? Was it merely putting on a show? Was it merely using a public referendum as a tool to manipulate public sentiment? Was it indifferent to whether a serious public policy controversy was resolved or not?

This is not all. The Green Camp is also demanding three peculiar pre-conditions before it will agree to a public referendum on the 4NPP. One. It is demanding an amendment to the Referendum Act, lowering the referendum threshold. Two. It is demanding a change in the wording of the referendum, from "Do you support a construction halt?" to "Do you support continued construction?" Three. It is demanding that most voters on Taiwan be disqualified from voting in the referendum. It is demanding that participation in the referendum be limited to residents of Xinbei City. Its demands are both incomprehensible and unjustifiable.

The current Referendum Law stipulates that referendum issues require a quorum consisting of over half the electorate, and the approval of over half the valid ballots cast. Only then can the referendum pass muster. This threshold, which is not terribly high, was set by the Chen administration, when it authored its "Referendum Law." The main reason so many past referenda on Taiwan have failed to pass, is that they were phony issues. They were nothing more than political footballs to be demagogued during election campaigns. That is why the public refused to participate in them. That is why they failed to meet the minimum threshold. The 4NPP is a major issue vital to the national interest. Here is an opportunity for enthusiastic citizen participation in a referendum that would truly highlight public sentiment. Why would one amend the law at this time, and lower the threshold, unless one's intention is to play fast and loose with the rule of law, "customizing" the law to one's own liking?

Furthermore, the government has already spent over 300 billion dollars building the 4NPP, every cent of which came out of the hide of the people. Whether to retain or eliminate the 4NPP has a huge impact on electricity prices and their future livelihood. This is definitely not a matter that affects only a single village or a single city. Of course it must be a collective decision. Of course it cannot be treated as merely a regional referendum, held only in Xinbei City. Now consider the wording of the referendum. The choice of "halt construction" or "continue construction" may indeed have positive or negative implications. But the public on Taiwan is not that ignorant. If the premise of the referendum is sufficiently clear, if information is sufficiently accessible, and if the public is not stampeded into a premature conclusion, the results will conform to the peoples actual feelings. Therefore, what justification do politicians have to confuse the public about the issue at stake?

The attitude of the ruling party is clear. It hopes to continue construction and eventually operate the 4NPP in a safe and secure manner. But because many people have doubts, the Ma administration has left the decision up to the people as a whole. It is letting the people decide the fate of the FNPP through a referendum. It is letting the entire community participate in the referendum. This decision is surely better than merely sitting back and watching the opposition DPP and anti-nuclear groups engage in pressure group warfare and turning Taiwan into a powder keg. It is far more responsible. We hope that this will be a public referendum in which the people participate enthusiastically. Regardless what the outcome turns out to be, we hope everyone will respect the collective decision of the people.

This newspaper was the first media organization to advocate a resolution of the 4NPP controversy via a referendum. Public referenda are the last resort for democratic societies attempting to resolve social differences. Having said that, we must recognize the limits to referenda. Referenda can ask only simple "yes" or "no" questions. They cannot ask more complex questions. They cannot tell people how to get from point A to point B. Even if the result of the referendum is that the people choose to continue construction on the 4NPP, it does not mean that disputes over the 4NPP will subside. Any negligence on the part of Taipower, or continued provocation by opponents of the 4NPP, could cause the flames of war to spread. In fact, if the public on Taiwan really wants to resolve the problem, it should change its focus from nuclear safety to non-nuclear power generation. That will require expert calculations and an active search for alternatives. That is not something a referendum can resolve. That will require combined governmental and private efforts.

The current wave of anti-nuclear sentiment includes many fresh faces from the middle-class. They are concerned about environment, both for themselves and for future generations. For them, unlike for the DPP, controversy over nuclear power generation is not a political tool. This is an encouraging phenomenon. They realize the waffling DPP cannot be trusted. They are keeping the DPP at arm's lenght. That is why the DPP's recent anti-nuclear initiatives have been so feeble.

Think about it. When Su Tseng-chang was premier, he approved over 40 billion dollars for the 4NPP. Now however, he is demanding a halt to its construction. The DPP has demand a public referendum on the 4NPP for decades. Now that the KMT has actually agreed to just such a referendum, the DPP is suddenly insisting that "No referendum is needed." Is the DPP merely caught in a contradiction? Or is the DPP at the end of its rope?

民進黨對核四公投前恭後倨
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.02.27 03:31 am

民間反核聲浪日漸強大，府院共同拍板將核四停建議題交付公投。未料，一向力挺公投的民進黨卻反而開始游移搖擺，主席蘇貞昌甚至說，核四不必公投，馬總統直接下令停工即可。

此種論調，讓人匪夷所思。民進黨一向歌頌「人民意志」不遺餘力，且奉「全民公投」如聖旨，「核四公投」亦是民進黨的招牌飯；如今政府要將爭議交付公投，由全民決定核四存廢，民進黨應該鼓掌叫好才對，為何反而說「總統下令即可」？

難道民進黨是「葉公好龍」，嘴巴上高喊民意、高呼公投，其實不願以公投與民意攤牌？或者其目的只在「項莊舞劍」，把民意和公投當成戲法來耍，並不關心問題的解決與否。

不僅如此，綠營還針對核四公投另外提出了幾項奇特的條件，包括：一，要求修改「公投法」，降低公投過關門檻；二，將公投題目由「是否支持停建」改為「是否支持續建」；三，不可全台公投，應僅限由「新北市」公民投票等。這些主張，恐均令人難以理解與苟同。

現行「公投法」規定，公投議題需有半數以上公民投票，並有過半以上有效票同意，公投才算過關。這樣的門檻，其實出自扁政府所製訂的「公投法」，並不算高。台灣過去多次公投無法過關，主要是因為絕大多數屬於「假議題」，目的是用來「綁選舉」炒熱選情，故而引不起民眾的參與興趣，而無法達到投票門檻。核四是全民利益切身相關的重大議題，有機會呼喚公民熱烈參與，形成一個真正展現民意的公投；此時若特意去修法降低門檻，除了「量身打造」的意圖太鮮明，不也在玩弄法制嗎？

再說，核四是政府花費三千多億興建，全出自民脂民膏；且核四興廢事關日後民生電價至鉅，這絕非一鄉一市之事，當然應由全民共同決定，而不能只在新北市舉辦地域性公投。至於公投題目的擬訂，「停建」或「續建」之措詞，確實可能給予民眾正向或負向之暗示。但台灣民眾並不愚昧，如果在公投前提供給民眾的資訊足夠完整而透明，且經過充分溝通而不是刻意煽動，兩者得到的結果應不會有太多出入。那麼，政治人物有必要藉此來混淆民眾的認知嗎？

執政黨的態度其實相當清楚：要在安全無虞的前提下續建核四，並使之運轉。但因為許多民眾對此有鉅大的疑慮，因此馬政府把決定權交給全民，讓人民透過公投來決定核四的命運，然後整個社會共同承擔公投的結果。這樣的選擇，至少比坐視在野黨及反核團體在那裡不斷施壓，讓整個台灣處於壓力鍋似的緊張狀態，要顯得負責得多。我們也期待這是一個全民熱烈參與的有效公投，不論結局如何，大家都能尊重人們共同的選擇。

本報是率先主張核四爭議以公投方式解決的媒體，因為這是民主社會解決社會歧見的最後手段。但話說回來，我們也必須承認：公投的效用其實有其極限。公投僅能顯示簡單的「是」或「否」，卻不能回答更複雜的問題，更不能為人們指出從甲地到乙地的路徑應如何行進。即使這次公投的結果是人民選擇續建核四，也不表示核四的紛爭至此將全然平息；因為台電的任何疏忽，或反對者的持續挑釁，都可能使戰火延燒。事實上，台灣真正要解決的，是如何走向真正的「從核安到非核」；那需要專家更精密地評估與計算，同時更積極地尋找替代方案；那條路，就不是公投所能解決，而需要政府和民間更努力地溝通與思考。

這波的反核聲浪，出現不少中產階級的清新臉孔，其關懷更著重家園的維護及下一代的生存環境，與先前民進黨作為政治工具的反核訴求不同，這是可喜現象。正因為如此，他們知道立場反反覆覆的民進黨並不可靠，並設法與之保持距離，這也是民進黨此次反核表現得如此虛弱的原因所在。

試想：蘇貞昌任內通過四百多億核四預算，現在卻在喊停建；民進黨歷年發動過多少回核四公投，現在竟對國民黨提議的核四公投說「不必」。這是民進黨圖窮匕現的自我矛盾？或者已是黔驢技窮？