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.
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS