H5N2 and politics
Recent issues involving ractopamine, US beef, lean-meat additives and now H5N2 in chickens and a possible cover-up point to a problem at the heart of Taiwanese society: promotion of economic interests over the safety of the general public by a leadership and government to secure its political ambitions.
It is interesting that ractopamine and H5N2 are not being understood predominantly in a political context since the issues seem to have developed during an election campaign.
It is eerily similar to how the Chinese milk scandal was pushed aside during an important event — the 2008 Beijing Olympics. For Taiwan, it was the Jan. 14 elections.
The latest outbreak of H5N2 seems to have started in December last year. This was at the moment the campaign was revving up and the notorious Yu Chang Biologics case emerged.
If the outbreak had been made public during the election, it could have turned the “soft capital” of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) socially-oriented pledges into hard capital, as they would have been potentially transformed into a narrative of a threat to families.
When reading about academics protesting against ractopamine, it makes one wonder why they have not been directing this kind of energy at the behavior of the Council of Agriculture over the H5N2 issue — not just this specific Cabinet agency, or simply only this level of government. Rather, they should be directing their energy toward how the media orientates itself and engages other representational entities across Taiwanese society to make real change.
The reality is that such an ambitious move would likely threaten their access to resources, if not their position within universities — as the universities know all too well they must toe the political line or risk censure. The logical outcome is to attack an easy external threat. It is easy as it has been replicated in other countries and similar issues have also had a history in Taiwan.
If you remember, during the election, other ministries sought to preserve and expand the political capital of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration. Former Council for Economic Planning and Development minister Christina Liu (劉憶如) is now infamous for implicating Tsai using inaccurate documentation during the election campaign. It all started when the Legislative Yuan voted to open sealed documents, the contents of which they, curiously, had no idea about.
The information was presented by Liu and later she simply brushed aside inaccuracies by saying her office had too few resources for the amount of data involved — yet she was willing to rush out a conclusion before accessing all the information.
This week, we find another government body has failed to fulfill its bureaucratic responsibilities.
Or has it? The H5N2 issue did not come up during the election.
This is part of a historical pattern found within the Taiwanese government. A legacy of political ambition and goals reflected in the bureaucracy. Political goals are pushed downward, shaping behavior in a way that reinforces the ambitions of leaders in power, rather than bureaucratic competency being the primary goal.
It is very rare for a department within the government to offer direction to the political elite. Take Academia Sinica and its relocation to Taiwan — its most influential department was Chinese literature when it was re-established, which is a curious thing for a country of new immigrants needing to make a new life for themselves. The reason? The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership’s ideological message was that it was the rightful protector of Chinese history and culture, in combating the evils of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army.
The next curious event was the shift to science, technology and research and development, after messages from the leadership previously ignored such aspects. The reason? China had become a nuclear power, outstripping the KMT on the global stage. This cemented what would become part of former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s legacy. The Republic of China needed to reconceptualize its message as the “better” China, through technology and industry. What has happened over the past few months has everything to do with these major events in Taiwan’s modern history — the establishment of political corporatism.
One should not forget that the post-secondary system is also very much part of the bureaucratic apparatus in Taiwan. It is very different from say Europe or North America, as the top-down pressure is quite visible and pronounced, when political messages translate into rapid implementation at the university level, leading to a cascading effect on academic departments.
These are not spaces where apolitical, abstract or contentious ideas can be generated and thrive. Rather they are spaces where political goals and ambitions are to be promoted, pushing aside anything that does not serve political ambition. The purpose of these academic offices, which academics are all too familiar with — the generation of ideas — are secondary.
The H5N2 issue is directly linked to the ractopamine issue and the political ambitions of those holding office, and has very little to do with ensuring Taiwanese are safe.
Philippe McKay
Pingtung
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
RSS