In the absence of anything substantial — and with so many substantial problems to choose from — the political world has moved on to the next helping of a controversy that is contemptible in the way it takes ordinary people for fools and elevates the voices of the foolish.
Joining these disingenuous legislators, councilors and party hacks in their attacks on US beef are a number of interest groups whose contributions to the debate have been uninformed, unintelligent and even deceitful. The main offender is the Consumers’ Foundation, which over the years has launched consumer crusades of dubious priority and zero scientific rigor.
If this organization applied its ferocious strictness on US beef imports to all other health matters affecting consumers, it would extend its campaign to instituting bans on imports and local production of alcohol and tobacco, introduce bans on betel nuts, motorscooters, sports cars, meat with high levels of fat and night market food. This would just be the start.
The fact that the Consumers’ Foundation does not engage in such quixotic behavior points to opportunism and cynicism, not a sense of proportion or respect of the right consumers should enjoy to choose what they wish to consume.
This week the debate has raised the specter of that tactical chestnut of the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) presidency, the referendum, as a possible new front for opponents of US beef — as if prime rib and sirloin were a fit and proper subject for a plebiscite.
This gratuitous use of the referendum — not as a gauge of popular opinion but as a threat to intimidate governments away from actions within their administrative mandate — is no less cynical and inept than the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) attempts to solve political problems through a mechanism that would override the legislature.
Unfortunately for the DPP, this approach did more damage than harm, prompting boycotts, endless debate over ephemera and general irritation, thus harming the dignity of the process for years to come.
The prospect of a national referendum on beef is about the most absurd suggestion for a referendum topic to date, although the DPP’s suggestion that a referendum be held to assess whether a certain referendum topic be held comes a close second.
This is a health issue, not a political issue, but the way that this situation is developing augurs the overriding of individual choice by interest groups with no health expertise, let alone an understanding of the US beef industry.
In the end the most fascinating question is how the president and his government have been unable to develop a strong and clear message on why lifting the beef ban was correct. There is plenty of scientific evidence to formulate a position, and an added benefit would have been eviscerating opponents who have nothing but mischief to peddle. Now, even that opportunity has been lost.
Unfortunately for this administration, it failed to act in time, and without sufficient preparation and testing of waters, and so the door opened for prominent voices in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to oppose the change — for whatever political reason suited them.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS