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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS