To expedite the relaxation of the ban on US beef imports containing ractopamine residues, the government has recently spent a great deal of taxpayers’ money on advertising that should have been paid for by the companies selling the meat. Officials also ran around trying to sell the idea.
The biggest problem with this is that neither President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) nor the government officials involved seem to be on the public’s side. They seem reluctant to come clean or to communicate in any meaningful way. Instead, they just try to underplay the risks and construct fantastical ideas that ractopamine is not harmful. All they are doing is digging themselves deeper into a hole at the expense of the public’s trust in the government.
Many countries have banned imports of meat with ractopamine residues for the reason that the drug has no medicinal function. These countries are not willing to allow the inclusion of a substance that could potentially constitute a public health hazard if that additive is present for the sole purpose of reducing production costs and maximizing profits. The EU also bans it on animal welfare grounds, as ractopamine is thought to have various side effects, such as causing lameness and increased fatality.
Just as nobody wants to eat food that could harm them, it is repugnant to force animals to absorb toxins — such as ractopamine, antibiotics or hormones — that might be detrimental to their health.
Faced with growing public anger and pressure, the government, officials and certain academics have tried to play the economic intimidation card, repeatedly pointing out that the US beef import issue extends beyond the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) — it also impacts a potential US-Taiwan free-trade agreement (FTA) and Taiwan’s membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and therefore Taiwan’s global position.
If that is the case, then any country could just get Taiwan to do whatever it wanted, claiming that a refusal to lift a certain ban would be damaging to bilateral trade negotiations. Any other industries in Taiwan supportive of the government’s move to relax the ban on imports of beef with ractopamine residues should bear in mind that they might be the next to be sacrificed in the interests of the next set of trade negotiations.
If the government does not do its homework when preparing for the TIFA talks with the US, it is going to find it virtually impossible to produce concrete facts and figures to convince the public that accepting US beef imports was worth it, or that sufficient efforts had been made to put efficient damage limitation or compensation measures in place.
Developed agricultural nations, and especially the US, protect their farming industries far beyond the provision of substantial subsidies. Economies of scale mean that many of these agricultural products can be produced at low cost, making them very competitive in foreign markets. In international trade negotiations these advanced nations force other countries to open up their markets to these products, on the pretext of trade liberalization.
Now Taiwanese farmers are feeling they have their backs against the wall. The government should have restructured the industry some time ago in preparation for what it has known for some time, that agriculture in this country is to be seriously and unavoidably hit by the outcome of trade negotiations — including the TPP, the TIFA and FTAs — it will have with other countries.
For example, it could have implemented measures to help uncompetitive farmers move into other lines of work. This would set farmers’ minds at ease and there would be no need for a broad ad hoc emergency fund to compensate businesses who have been hit by cheaper foreign goods.
For those farmers who were both willing and able to stay in the industry, the government should help them increase their competitiveness and remove non-tariff barriers to trade so that domestic farming products can be sold overseas, mitigating the impact of increased trade liberalization. This would require a considerable amount of financial assistance and guidance from the government.
The problem is that morale is very low in the government departments responsible for agriculture, because of both the ractopamine issue and the avian flu outbreak. The situation has been exacerbated by the news, blown out of all proportion, of the actions of a very small minority of domestic swine and duck farmers found to have been using ractopamine: This has been very damaging to the domestic farming industry.
The situation has angered many farmers and has eroded their trust in the government. In particular, the controversy caused by the government’s handling of the avian flu outbreak caused people to question the organizational culture and personnel choices at the most senior levels of the institutions that deal with farming management.
Compare this with the manner of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office deputy director Zheng Lizhong (鄭立中) during his tour of rural southern Taiwan. He was the model of consideration, talking with farmers about their produce, and asking how he could help them market their apples and fish in China, taking an interest in the kind of problems they have encountered.
Farmers were impressed with this and even came up with a friendly nickname for him. On the other hand, Taiwanese government officials over the last few days have seemed bureaucratic and indifferent to the plight of farmers.
This is just the start of it, too. It does not bode well for future cross-strait political and economic negotiations. Ma has won his second term, so the political pressure is off. The governing party has a majority in the legislature, so it no longer feels the need to pander to the public. Unfortunately, the opposition parties are not up to the task of keeping the government in check. However, if the public puts up with it, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Du Yu is a member of the Chen-Li task force for Agricultural Reform.
Translated by Paul Cooper
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is