by Brian Hioe

語言:
English
Photo Credit: Chongkian/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS JW Kuo came under fire earlier this month for a proposal that Taiwan solves its issues with power shortages by purchasing power from neighboring countries, such as Australia, the Philippines, or Singapore, and transporting the power to Taiwan by boat or undersea cable.

The proposal has been criticized as unrealistic, given the distance and cost involved. DPP legislator Lin Tai-hua pointed out that it has cost 16 billion NT to construct submarine cables between the Taiwanese mainland and Penghu and it took 13 years to do so. In this sense, Kuo has been criticized for speaking about a plan that was half-baked and in which there had been little evaluation, particularly given the challenges of constructing such cables on the sea floor of the Bashi Channel, though Kuo cited the example of Singapore buying power from Australia.

It may not be surprising that the KMT has leaned more heavily into the criticisms, with KMT legislators calling for Kuo’s resignation. To this end, the KMT has asserted that the comments show Kuo’s unreliability for public office.

Still, it is important to note that the KMT also intimates that the idea was proposed by Kuo because of his links to solar energy companies in the Philippines. This is on account of Kuo traveling to the Philippines to meet with solar energy companies.

Likewise, the KMT has also suggested that the idea was proposed by AIT, the US’s representative in Taiwan in the absence of formal diplomatic ties. This continues several familiar lines of attack from the KMT.

In the 2024 election cycle, the KMT leaned into attacks suggesting that the DPP is only interested in the development of green energy because of illicit links between DPP legislators and green energy companies. As part of this, the KMT also sought to cast doubt on the reliability of green energy, suggesting that green energy was new, dangerous, and untested as a form of technology.

Photo credit: M. Weitzel/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

By contrast, the KMT called for a return to nuclear energy. The KMT argued that nuclear energy funded the growth of the Taiwanese economy in its heyday and that, in this light, Taiwan should return to nuclear energy. The KMT has often tried to criticize energy policy when this involves drawing on new forms of energy infrastructure, in this way targeting new ideas as a whole.

Part of the KMT’s continued calls for a return to nuclear energy leverages on nostalgia for the previous era of Taiwan in which economic growth was strong, during which it held power as the sole ruling party–the authoritarian period. This was also a period in which nuclear energy constituted a significantly higher portion of Taiwan’s energy mix, constituting 52.4% of all power consumed by Taiwan in the mid-1980s. During the period, nuclear energy was framed as a key element of Taiwan’s scientific successes. As such, the KMT has often tried to frame Taiwan as still heavily dependent on nuclear energy in a way that it actually is not, while green energy is attacked in order to undermine the DPP.

The foreign policy dimension of the KMT’s attacks on Kuo’s energy proposal are worth examining. Such criticisms dovetail with narratives of suspicion that the KMT has attempted to sow about potential allies of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, most prominently in the form of US-skeptic discourse that suggests the US would not be a reliable ally in the event of an invasion. But this has also included attempting to sow doubt about Japan using incidents such as Japan’s release of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the Pacific Ocean, so as to cast doubt about Japan. This may now be occurring, too, with the Philippines at a time that the Philippine government seems interested in strengthening ties with Taiwan.

As such, though Kuo’s proposals were criticized by both camps, the KMT’s criticisms hardly strike as in good faith. While Kuo has stated that an assessment of the proposal will be provided by the Ministry of Economic Affairs within six months, it is to be seen how the idea is received if it comes up again.

No more articles