Nuclear Referendum: Opponents are not Enemies

Nuclear Referendum: Opponents are not Enemies
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 27, 2013

Summary: The Ma administration has called for a referendum on the 4NPP, based on nuclear safety considerations. It has declared that it serious about the matter. It wants at least half of the eligible voters to participate in the referendum. Many KMT officials, unlike the Ma administration, are thinking only of 2014 and 2016. The referendum on the 4NPP will be a touchstone for democracy on Taiwan. It will be a touchstone for human values on Taiwan. .

Full text below:

As a ruling party, the KMT's ineptitude never ceases to amaze. Many KMT political appointees do not know how to play the political game. They have no tricks up their sleeves. When dealt a bad hand, they make it worse. Other KMT political appointees know how to play the political game. Even when they are dealt a bad hand, the outcome is not preordained. In general however, the KMT has a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Opponents of the KMT need do nothing. For example, Premier Jiang Yi-hua played the public referendum card. This left the DPP dumbfounded. The KMT essentially killed its own members with friendly fire.

Controversy has raged over the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP). Supporters of the plant probably cannot explain their reasons. As Taichung Mayor Jason Hu put it, "Nuclear energy is not something one can easily persuade people to like. I too support a nuclear-free homeland. But it should be phased in gradually. It should be discussed rationally. One should not make it an emotional issue." It is true that policy debate should not become an emotional issue. But the most serious problem is the Blue Camp has no idea how to prevent policy debates from becoming emotional issues.

KMT legislators invariably make the same mistakes. They lack both the ability and the willingness to defend their policies. They even lack the discipline to attend meetings on time. That is how they allowed the DPP to prevent the Legislative Yuan Fiscal Policy Committee from passing the Taipower budget. They even failed to demand further debate. With legislators like this, to expect effective governance from the Ma administration is wishful thinking.

KMT leaders, especially Eric Chu, Hau Lung-bin, and Chang Tung-jung in the Taipei, Xinbei, and Keelung evacuation zone, are subject to public pressure. Chang Tung-jung may be an exception. Chu and Hao have heavy responsibilities as younger generation, torch bearers. But the 4NPP impacts the lives of the people as a whole. If these KMT leaders harp on their reelection campaigns, seek central government level office, they will provoke popular resentment. Eric Chu expressed concerns over the safety of the 4NPP long before Premier Jiang. His views on the referendum are crystal clear. "It must be in earnest." To be fair, whether the referendum can calm the political storm remains hard to say. If fewer than half of the eligible voters participate in the referendum, but over half vote down nuclear power, the political repercussions will be serious. They will far exceed what Premier Jiang alone can smooth over.

The 4NPP controversy has raged for 30 years. Legislators have engaged in fisticuffs. Protestors have taken to the streets. No solution, however unsatisfactory, has been found. Never mind a consensus. Under the circumstances, the only solution is a referendum. As Jason Hu noted, "Having come to this, Taiwan must solve the problem through a referendum. Let us put it to a vote!" Elected representatives have a dilemma. A direct appeal to public opinion lets them off the hook. We must hold a referendum. We must ensure that everyone defers to the outcome. This time, we can no longer dodge the issue. The future of our children and grandchildren must not be left to the politicians. It must be our own decision.

Suppose more than half of the eligible voters participate in the referendum, and over half vote down nuclear power. Whether the Blue Camp or Green Camp is in power will no longer matter. They will both have to share responsibility. Suppose Jiang Yi-hua resigns out of a sense of responsibility. The sole sacrifice will be a single premier, or at most a handful of political appointees. This would be a small price to pay. Premier Jiang's declaration was clearly made after much thought. He is trading his own power for the good of the nation. Who can complain? Anyone who makes such decisions based on power considerations, is petty indeed. Conversely, suppose more than half of the eligible voters participate in the referendum, and more than half vote nuclear power up? Those who oppose the 4NPP would have to accept the fact that a nuclear-free homeland is still in the future. This future need not be a distant future. The government's nuclear-free homeland policy states that the 4NPP must be safe to operate. The 1NPP, 2NPP, 3NPP are older, higher risk power plants. They are scheduled to be decommissioned. The 4NPP has an operational life as well. During this time, Taiwan must find alternative sources of energy. This might be good for Taiwan's long-term development.

Overnight anti-nuclear convert Hau Lung-pin advocates deciding the fate of the 4NPP by means of an opinion poll. This proposal must be rejected out of hand. Others may support or oppose nuclear energy on the basis of irrational emotions. But Hau Lung-bin has a science and engineering background. He should understand the importance of making policy decisions based on science. He served as head of the EPA under the Chen administration. The first thing he did was to clearly inform the DPP that he supported his father Hau Pei-tsun's policy. He supported the construction of the 4NPP. Now however, he has jettisoned the scientific argument he once advanced. He may use the Fukushima nuclear disaster as an excuse. But to make such a major policy decision based on opinion polls reveals a serious misunderstanding of democracy. According to Hau Lung-bin's logic, the even more controversial Wenlin Yuan, in his jurisdiction, could not be dismantled because 60% of those who answered online opposed its demolition. According to his logic, we may as well use polls to decide which elected representatives should be allowed to remain in office, and which should required to step down, including Blue Camp representatives. Those who fail to receive an absolute majority would be required to step down. Impeachment would be unnecessary.

The Ma administration has called for a referendum on the 4NPP, based on nuclear safety considerations. It has declared that it serious about the matter. It wants at least half of the eligible voters to participate in the referendum. Many KMT officials, unlike the Ma administration, are thinking only of 2014 and 2016. The referendum on the 4NPP will be a touchstone for democracy on Taiwan. It will be a touchstone for human values on Taiwan. A democratic and pluralistic ROC must learn a lesson. When making policy decisions, your opponent is not your enemy. He is a compatriot who like you is attempting to safeguard his country and his home. Everyone loves his country. How he votes does not change that.

一起守護家園 公投沒有敵人
2013-03-27
中國時報

做為執政黨，國民黨的步調紊亂，永遠超乎想像。碰到沒有招數的政務官，無好牌可打，只能就著一手爛牌亂打一通；碰到能出招的政務官，手上就算不是順風牌，至少牌局輸贏猶在未定之天。偏偏國民黨就能把好牌給打爛，而且，完全不必等對手出招，行政院長江宜樺拋出核四公投這張讓民進黨也傻眼的牌，卻差不多快被自家人打爛，即是一例。

經過這段時間，核四的各種討論汗牛充棟，支持者大概都講不出擁核之言，至多只能如台中市長胡志強所言，「核能是很難讓人喜歡的東西，我也支持非核家園，但應該要循序漸進推動，這是應該理性討論的課題，不要情緒化。」政策討論本來就不該情緒化，但演變迄今，最嚴重的是藍營內部對如何避免情緒化都毫無頭緒。

黨籍立委犯的是一貫錯誤，缺乏辯護能力或意願之外，依舊是連準時開會的紀律都沒有，才會讓立法院經濟委員會竟通過民進黨退回台電預算的提案，甚至連復議都提不出來，有這群立委，馬政府預期效能執政，豈非天方夜譚？

黨籍地方首長特別是北北基逃命圈的朱立倫、郝龍斌、張通榮有立即、近身的民意壓力，除張通榮外，朱、郝都有中生代接班的另一重權力考量，但核四攸關全民生活價值之選項，若是反復提醒民眾自己意在連任或直取中央，只會引來更多惡感。朱立倫對核四安全顧慮發聲更早於江揆提出的公投，但面對核四公投，他的意見明確而清楚，「不要玩假的。」持平而論，公投是否真能拆解政治風暴，還很難論，但如果公投的公民數未過半而投票反核者過半，其可能造成的政治負作用，遠非江揆個人進退所能撫平。

核四爭議卅多年，國會打過架，街頭有運動，始終沒有辦法取得眾人可能未必滿意但都得接受的結論，遑論共識，在這種狀況下，唯公投能解，誠如胡志強所言，「台灣走到這一步，非公投很難解決問題，就讓他投一次！」訴諸直接民意，讓左右為難的民意代表們也不必再為難了。不但要公投，而且要讓全民體認：這一次，不能迴避，子孫的未來不必交給政客，我們自己決定。

若公投公民數過半而通過停建，藍綠未來不論誰執政政，共同承擔，即使江宜樺為此落實承諾，請辭下台，犧牲的不過是一位行政院長，或若干與之同進退的政務官，這算是最小的政治代價。江揆做此宣示，顯然已做足了心理準備，以一己之權位換國家之相對大利，誰曰不宜？任何以權力揣度其心者，其器小哉！相對的，若公投公民數過半而通過續建，反核四者就得接受非核家園還有一步之遙，這一步並非遙遙無期，因為根據政府非核家園的既定政策，核四必須確保安全才能運轉，核一、二、三風險更高的老舊電廠必須如期除役；而且核四也有其運轉年限，在這段時間中，台灣必須相應找到替代能源，相對而言，對台灣長遠發展未必不利。

至於突然反核的郝龍斌主張以民調決定核四存廢，此議最不可取！別人擁核或反核可以無視理性，唯情感用事，但郝龍斌是理工出身的人，應該理解科學依據的重要性，他在扁政府執政時期出任環保署長，開宗明義第一件事，就是明確告知民進黨，他支持父親郝柏村的政策：興建核四。此刻，他放棄了自己曾經有過的科學立論，或者可以日本福島核災為擋箭牌，但以民調決定重大且續行中的政策和建設，那就是對民主的基本認知都出了問題。照郝龍斌的邏輯，他轄下的都更重大爭議文林苑根本不能拆，因為六成網友民調反對拆；甚至藍營首長和民代，大家乾脆做個民調看看支持度能否過半，若無過半者一起請辭下台，連罷免都不必了。

馬政府決定在核安的前提下推動核四公投，並宣示不會玩假的，一定鼓勵全民投票讓參與的公民數過半，其器識遠超過腦袋裡只有二○一四與二○一六選舉的眾多國民黨人。核四公投將是台灣民主的試金石，也是台灣生活價值選擇的試金石，民主多元的台灣透過核四公投，必須學會一件事：在政策抉擇過程中，站在你對立面的人不是你的敵人，而是與你一起守護家園的同胞，我們對台灣的愛，不因投票取向之不同而有任何差別。