This is a fresh tale of official practices, or perhaps of the actions of an inferior government.
When Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Ting Shou-chung (丁守中) asked National Development Council Minister Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) in the legislature if he was boycotting Ting Hsin International Group (頂新集團) products, Kuan answered: “I support a boycott and I have already taken action by not buying their products.”
What is this?
The question was posed by a legislator from the ruling party to a government minister. Could it be that neither knows that it is a basic responsibility of government to see to it that the public does not have to worry about having enough to eat?
The public is resorting to a boycott because they have no other choice. Could it really be that the same is true for the government? What is the KMT doing — does it not have any governmental powers at its disposal?
That the public is forced to resort to a boycott is tantamount to saying that the government is powerless, that it can do nothing and that we all have to fend for ourselves.
It is not surprising that a recent opinion poll showed that the campaign to boycott Ting Hsin was supported by 82 percent of respondents. What is surprising is that the cooking oil problem cannot be resolved. The political implications of Taiwanese now having to fend for themselves by boycotting tainted cooking oil is that they are in fact boycotting the inferior practices of the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
So is it an exaggeration to juxtapose the bad practices of Ting Hsin with the inferior government of the Ma administration? No. The two are closely connected. Without the government’s protection, Ting Hsin would never have been able to act with such impunity.
A comparison between the statements and actions of senior Ting Hsin executive Wei Ying-chun (魏應充) and Ma shows how similar they are. However, mere rhetoric proves nothing, so here is some hard evidence.
Both Ma and Wei are adept at delivering pretty lies. Ma has talked about a modus vivendi and “lasting values,” while Wei has talked about “treating everyone the same way” and a “conscientious life’s work.” What is the difference?
Ma’s election promises, such as the “6-3-3” promise and the promise that “everything will be fine as soon as Ma takes over,” are no different from Wei’s statements about the “we can” guarantee in the Wei Chuan (味全) song, which in effect is a response to Ma’s failed election promises.
Ma’s pledge that he would cut his salary by half if he did not deliver on the “6-3-3” promise and Wei’s way of handling the cooking oil scandal by pledging a compensation fund of NT$50 million (US$1.65 million) were issued in the same vein and failed with the same “pop.”
The difference is that Wei is a small-timer, while Ma is a big shot. When a small-timer’s tricks and games are over, they are over, but when a president is done, the effects continue to reverberate.
During the so-called Double Ten National Day celebrations last year, Ma said: “Remake the nation, identify our niche, find a viable way forward,” but he has led the nation down a dead-end street. Why else would he have a support rating of only 9 percent?
In the same speech, he talked about “grand liberalization, grand skill sets, grand stage and grand dreams” and said that “these are the grand pledges we make to our young people.”
The Sunflower movement made it clear that they also oppose the president, so how dare he go on with all his grand talk?
The most ridiculous part of the speech was when he said: “[To] my way of thinking, there are two indicators by which the degree of civilization in Taiwan’s society can be measured: its civil society and its concern for the disadvantaged.”
What kind of civil society do we have when we can be pushed about by a big manufacturer of tainted cooking oils? In what way does that display concern for the disadvantaged?
His statement that “the rule of law is thoroughly implemented, and the judiciary is independent and impartial” is particularly interesting against the backdrop of Wei’s talk about a “conscientious life’s work.”
Despite their intense dislike of Ting Hsin, the public have stood silently by as the government has run amok over the past six years. This year, though, Ma had barely finished delivering his National Day address before the pro-KMT United Daily News published an article headlined: “Watch out, Taiwan is moving backwards.”
It is easier to get rid of Ma and his gang than it is to deal with Ting Hsin — all we need to do is cast our votes.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS