The tainted cooking oil scandal caused by Ting Hsin International Group (頂新集團) is perhaps the timeliest “National Day gift” Taiwanese could have given the Republic of China (ROC), this nation that does not seem to quite be a nation.
Newspaper editorials have condemned the Wei (魏) family who run the group as “rich, but cruel.” However, are they the only rich, but cruel family in Taiwan?
Business tycoons have manipulated the nation’s political and business circles in recent years, dominating national policies to profit from the hardworking public. Many of the tycoons belong to cross-strait political and business groups and believe that “merchants have no country,” treating Taiwan as a Chinese province instead of a nation. They usually behave themselves in China, while trying to profit from Taiwan.
Do these businesspeople really have no country? Israeli businesspeople love their nation deeply and businesspeople from the leading sovereign states all have a strong “motherland awareness.” Only Taiwanese businesspeople insist on claiming that “merchants have no country.” Since these businesspeople have no country, they care only about their own interests and attach no importance to Taiwan or Taiwanese.
The Wei family dared to sell cooking oil products made with animal feed oil to Taiwanese because they did not have the nation’s best interests at heart. On Oct. 9, renowned chef Cheng Yen-chi (鄭衍基), known as A-chi Shih (阿基師), angrily questioned whether senior Ting Hsin executive Wei Ying-chun (魏應充) sleeps well at night. Unfortunately, the answer is likely “yes.”
The government is partially responsible for encouraging the view that “merchants have no country.” It has belittled Taiwan to the status of a Chinese province and dares not directly tell Beijing that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state. Economically, the government provides preferential treatment to conglomerates that invest in China, encouraging them to make a “salmon run” as the Ministry of Economic Affairs has called it — to return to Taiwan to be listed on the nation’s stock market or to establish operations centers here.
It also proposes policies concerned only with the interests of cross-strait political and business groups, while disregarding the life-and-death struggles of Taiwanese. Every economic policy in recent years has been like this, including the cross-strait service trade agreement, the cross-strait trade in goods agreement and the establishment of free economic pilot zones. They have served only to nurture special interest groups.
Last month, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Vice President Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) attended a Mid-Autumn Festival celebration hosted by Taiwanese businesspeople with investments in China. Their group seems large enough to intervene in Taiwanese politics. It harms the nation’s democracy and the fairness of elections and it will be difficult to remedy. Eventually, such influences could lead to the nation’s ruin, as freedom and democracy collapse. This is a much greater threat than tainted oil.
This is why Taiwanese must not overlook the cultural background of businesspeople’s misbehavior: Taiwan has not been able to normalize its national status and thus remains a country that does not quite seem to be a country, which has resulted in the public’s weak national identity.
Taiwanese must also be more cautious with the potential damage to the nation caused by businesspeople who travel back and forth across the Taiwan Strait, claiming that “merchants have no country.”
Huang Tien-lin is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS