More than a month after the Chinese tainted milk powder scandal was exposed, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) was quoted as saying in an interview with the US journal Science: “We feel distressed about the milk powder incident. We think that although the incident occurred in an enterprise, the government is responsible, especially from the perspective of supervision.”
One wonders if the reason why it took Wen so long to make such remarks to the media was because some facts remain hidden. There also remains some doubt as to whether tthe Chinese authorities are sincere about their intention to address the matter.
In a Western democracy facing a similar incident, the government would usually apologize immediately and begin an investigation, followed by disbursement of appropriate compensation. But after the scandal occurred, only the Sanlu Group and the Shijiazhuang City Government stepped forward to apologize, while Li Changjiang (李長江), head of China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, and other officials stepped down. This may have given the impression that the Chinese government lacks sincerity.
The tainted milk powder has sickened more than 50,000 infants in many areas in China and affected Taiwan and many other countries. The level of the officials who have stepped down so far seems insufficient given the seriousness of the matter, nor will it be helpful in providing satisfying answers to the victims. Faced with rising public anger, Wen had to set the tone for the level of official “distress.” Hence his remarks.
More important, however, are the issues of an apology and compensation.
It is a moral and political responsibility for the government to apologize for its mistakes. Since the scandal broke, only company and city officials, no higher-ranking officials, have offered any apologies.
The reason no Chinese leaders at the state level have apologized is that the incident has spread to every corner of the world and become a hot potato, with heavier responsibilities and demands for compensation than they are prepared to deal with. The reason the Chinese government has not officially apologized is to ensure it has enough room to maneuver.
Wen was probably sincere in his remarks and there is a real possibility that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to address the problem responsibly. As such, China should apologize and show a willingness to pay compensation. This is what a powerful and responsible country should do.
It is a legal duty to pay compensation. Chinese tainted milk powder has sickened more than 50,000 infants and killed four children in China. Taiwanese are worried about food safety and many companies have suffered serious losses as a result. The situation is not much different in other countries.
Chinese products have been questioned by people around the world. This is a serious business risk for China. If the Chinese government fails to properly handle the matter, its reputation as “the world’s factory” will be severely challenged. This will also be an extremely heavy blow to overall Chinese economic development.
Wen’s comments before Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan later this year or early next year have prompted expectations that Chen will show sincere concern for Taiwanese.
An apology by China could go a long way to resolve cross-strait misunderstanding. Why is it so hard to speak up?
Li Hua-chiu is a researcher with the National Policy Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,
RSS