Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Sgroey/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
THE CENTRAL ELECTION COMMISSION (CEC) has approved a referendum on resuming operations for the recently shuttered Ma-anshan nuclear power plant, while rejecting a referendum on capital punishment.
The KMT pushed for both referendums as part of its electoral strategy in the upcoming waves of recalls it will face in the coming year. The recalls, which are historically unprecedented in Taiwan, target all KMT legislators. In this sense, we are in a de facto election year in Taiwan.
The Ma-anshan plant has become a symbol of the KMT’s nuclear advocacy, in that the shutdown of the reactor marks the phasing out of nuclear energy in Taiwan–at least for now. At peak usage, the Ma-anshan plant contributed around 3% of Taiwan’s energy mix.
Specifically, before the Ma-anshan plant reached the end of its 40-year planned lifespan and the decommissioning process started, the KMT had begun to call for the extension of nuclear power plants from their planned lifespan of 40 years to 60 years. The KMT very likely had an eye on the symbolism of extending the lifespan of nuclear reactors.
This has proven similar with regard to the controversial Gongliao No. 4 nuclear reactor. The Gongliao reactor was seen as uniquely controversial, even among nuclear advocates, for its use of mixed parts and the numerous starts and stops to its construction. Nevertheless, the KMT still called for the restart of the Gongliao No. 4 plant rather than disaggregate its nuclear advocacy from the contested case of the Gongliao No. 4 reactor.
Ironically, the KMT’s call for extending the lifespan of the Ma-anshan reactor takes place at a time when the DPP has shifted from its historic stance against nuclear energy, with Lai Ching-te expressing openness to small-scale reactors using advanced nuclear technology. This shift is motivated by concerns about the sources of energy that Taiwan will have to depend on in the event of a Chinese invasion that would cut off shipments of oil and natural gas that Taiwan is dependent on.
With regards to the other referendum, the KMT has framed a Constitutional Court ruling from last year as a de facto abolition of capital punishment. This is not true, in that the ruling narrowed the scope in which capital punishment can be applied to only the most violent crimes, but did not outlaw capital punishment.
In this, the KMT would be leveraging on widespread support for capital punishment in Taiwanese society, with the view that capital punishment is a deterrent for violent crime in Taiwan. Although the Lai administration has shown that, like the Tsai administration before it, it is willing to use capital punishment, whenever incidents of violent crime in Taiwan occur, the KMT claims that this is because the Lai administration has failed to implement capital punishment.
In calling for referendums in the same timeframe as recalls, the KMT is likely hoping to repeat the successes of 2018. In the 2018 election cycle, the KMT was able to leverage on national referendums to great success in conjunction with its electoral campaign.
Either way, the CEC struck down the referendum against capital punishment because of the fact that capital punishment is still on the books. But the KMT is likely to cry foul after the CEC’s actions, in line with how it has framed the Lai administration as behind recalls and, in this way, manipulating Taiwan’s democracy. Recalls are a constitutional right in Taiwan and the DPP is not the organizer of recalls, which are an organic effort by civil society, even if the DPP has thrown its support behind them.
Still, one also notes that the KMT did not appeal to the general public with either referendum, in collecting signatures for a referendum campaign, as it did in 2018 and on previous occasions. Instead, both referendums were pushed through by legislative vote. Though this is permitted by law, this may reflect weakness on the part of the KMT at the local level, similar to how the party has struggled to collect signatures for petitions against DPP lawmakers. Consequently, it is also a question as to whether the KMT’s referendum questions have built up popular support in the absence of a widespread campaign.