Not knowing whether food is safe to eat is probably the biggest worry of the Taiwanese public. From the plasticizer scare in 2011 to the starch scare in May and the current edible oil scare, Taiwan has become known for inferior, adulterated food products. It used to be famous for its cuisine, but now even former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) says “you cannot eat out.”
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has belatedly demanded “strict investigations and heavy fines, the immediate removal [of adulterated products] from shop shelves, an increase in manpower, a proper budget allocation, and that reporting [of violations] be encouraged and volunteers mobilized.”
The Taipei City Government’s Department of Health received a report that accused Chang Chi Foodstuff Factory Co of adulterating its olive oil in October last year. The authorities tested the product three times without any action being taken and the scandal was only revealed when a Chang Chi employee blew the whistle.
The same thing happened in the plasticizer scare in 2011. On April 7 that year, the Department of Health (DOH) — the precursor of the Ministry of Health and Welfare — discovered that plasticizers had been added to drinks, but only announced this on May 23. At the time, Ma admitted that he was only made aware of it late that month.
There was a similar situation ahead of the starch scare in May. The DOH received a report in February, but local health bureaus only followed it up in April, and the news was only announced in May.
In the edible oil scare, the agency doing the testing has yet to offer a reasonable explanation of why three tests failed to find anything wrong. Could it be collusion between government and business? While prosecutors and investigators took lightning fast action against the companies, they did not accord government officials the same treatment.
Both the inability to find any problems with the products and the procrastination in announcing irregularities makes it clear that unless it has run out of all other options, the government would rather expose the public to hazardous food than offend a manufacturer. In the same way, Ma’s approach to “getting to the bottom of the matter” makes it clear that unless he has run out options, he is not prepared to expose any government officials to “strict investigations and heavy fines.” He will not touch big business, but settles targets medium-sized companies to allow the public to vent their anger.
In the 2011 plasticizer scare, for example, Yu Shen Chemical Co and Pin Han Perfumery Co were singled out, but authorities did not pursue Pin Han’s biggest customer, Uni-President Group. Uni-President argued that it was also a victim and authorities never investigated whether it was aware of what was going on.
Chang Chi imported its cottonseed oil through a big company, and once again, the authorities have no plans to investigate that firm’s culpability.
In both these cases, the cooperation between manufacturers committing the violations and big listed companies had been going on for more than a decade, but the large companies claim they were unaware of what the offending firm was up to. This hard to believe and makes it clear that these big firms only care about profits and lack even the faintest sense of social responsibility.
The government repeatedly fails to detect problems, delays its announcements and fails to investigate government officials or big business. What is the use of encouraging the reporting of violations when the government is unable to manage its agencies, only acts perfunctorily and only calls for “strict investigations and heavy fines” for small and medium-sized enterprises?
Julian Kuo is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past