"Taking into account the interests and needs of consumers, ... and bearing in mind that consumers should have the right of access to non-hazardous products ... "
That is the opening line to the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection adopted in 1985. The phrase "right of access to non-hazardous products" is of particular relevance to Taiwan, but regrettably consumer rights seem to be taking a backseat here.
Such basic consumer rights as the right to have safe bottled water should be an area of wide public interest and activism as well as being a high priority for government regulators. Taiwanese laws may be sufficient but enforcement of consumer protection laws is largely non-existent.
According to a recent Consumers' Foundation study, 80 percent of bottled water and mineral water sold in Taiwan fails to pass quality-control tests and is unfit for consumption. The report states that much locally bottled water fails to pass safety tests because of high levels of bacteria.
There seems to be a common pattern that appears in consumer rights laws in Taiwan, particularly in relation to food and drink. This pattern can be broken down into six elements. The first is for politicians to enact consumer protection laws. Doing so gains the politician votes and establishes the "right" in law for consumers' protection. But as time goes by no budget is set aside for inspections, monitoring and enforcement of the newly established consumer law.
The second element is haphazard product handling. Given the profusion of mini-wholesalers and the decentralized supply channels that characterize Taiwan's grocery industry, it is difficult to monitor the quality of food products once they leave the factory. These mini-wholesalers have no particular incentive to handle the products safely.
One reason the wholesalers have no interest in food safety is the very primitive state of tort law in Taiwan. This is the third element. Put simply, given the very low tort compensation amounts and the difficulties in getting a judgment, food manufacturers and wholesalers have virtually no financial risk from consumer protection laws. So the pattern is lax enforcement, a motive to cut corners and little downside risk.
The final three elements that undermine the effectiveness of consumer protection laws in Taiwan are the labyrinth of government agencies responsible for different aspects of consumer protection, the fact that many of these agencies have little real regulatory authority, and public apathy. Put these six elements together and you have a system that does a very poor job of ensuring safe food for the public.
In the case of local bottled water you have a good example of this pattern. It starts with no budget for government enforcement leading to lax enforcement. Then add haphazard product handling and the always-present "greed factor." This all leads to a situation where 80 percent of Taiwan's bottled water supply can best be described as "Bacteria Brand Bottled Water."
Taiwan's Consumers' Foundation does a fine job of investigating and reporting on various consumer issues. The foundation provides an important counterbalance to the government's inaction on consumer protection issues. However, like all NGOs, the foundation has limited resources and cannot be a substitute for government monitoring and regulation.
It is ironic that President Chen Shui-bian (
Brian Kennedy is an attorney who writes and teaches on criminal justice and human rights issues.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers