The popular Top Pot Bakery chain caused an outrage last week with its admission that it has been using artificial flavoring in products it advertised as “all-natural.”
The Taipei City Government’s Department of Health has since slapped the chain with a NT$180,000 fine for false advertising, with Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) asserting toughness in the city government’s handling of the incident and demanding that the bakery adopt a stringent refund plan.
“Top Pot Bakery set a bad example by mislabeling the ingredients in its baked goods. It was a dishonest, deceptive act,” Hau said on Tuesday.
Indeed, the chain needs be held responsible for deceiving consumers, and it is encouraging to see Hau carry out his duty as mayor by speaking for the protection of residents’ rights and showing uncompromising firmness on food safety.
However, as exasperated consumers expressed disbelief and panned the chain for its fraudulent behavior, some were struck by a disturbing thought: They have become aware of how, for a long time, they have harbored a double standard toward politicians, indulging their shamelessly deceitful rhetoric and conduct without taking action to deter them.
If people are upset over a bakery’s deceptive advertising, why are they not angry at the misleading claims, brazen lies and broken promises of politicians?
Let’s take President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as an example: Elected as the head of the state, Ma has disappointed voters and set a bad example by failing to make good on his election-time promises.
To name a few, he has failed to deliver on his “6-3-3” campaign pledge — 6 percent annual GDP growth, an unemployment rate of less than 3 percent and US$30,000 annual per capita income; he has failed to donate half his salary as he had said he would if he fell short of the “6-3-3” targets; and he broke his pledge not to double as president and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman.
The government under his leadership has failed to seek compensation from Beijing for the damage caused to Taiwanese firms in 2008 over the imports of melamine-tainted milk products; failed to honor pledges to create a “golden decade”; and forsook national interests by resorting to back-room dealings.
Having lost much of their credibility because of broken promises and vacillating policies, it is evident that both Ma and his administration are not just incompetent, but also insincere.
Ma would not have gotten away with his unscrupulous behavior had it not been for lawmakers who serve as his accomplices in the Legislative Yuan, blindly endorsing any policy put forth by their party headquarters and sacrificing the nation’s interests.
Almost always, legislators who fail to serve the public and keep the executive branch in check complete their terms, enjoying the privileges that come with their status as lawmakers, while the taxpayers who voted them into office and pay their salaries continue to suffer.
Democracy is more than just people casting votes. While voters know they are responsible for electing public servants, they should be equally aware that they can recall any official who forsakes their duty to serve the public’s best interests.
Luckily, a recall campaign recently launched by the civic group Constitution 133 Alliance has reminded the public of its power to root out incompetent lawmakers.
As screenwriter and author Neil Peng (馮光遠) put it: “Ma has set the nation on fire on numerous occasions and we, the people, are always the ones left to put out the flames.”
The time is now for Taiwanese to exercise their right to recall lawmakers who are neither worthy of their pay nor respectful of their constituencies.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS