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.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS