On Tuesday, the legislature approved amendments to the Animal Protection Act (動物保護法) that increased the tariff for existing crimes of animal abuse and banned sales and consumption of dog and cat meat.
The move was met with applause both in Taiwan and overseas, not just for bringing the nation more in line with international trends in animal protection, but for taking what many agree is a landmark step and a first in Asia.
The changes double the maximum sentence for cruelty and injury to animals from one year to two and the fine from NT$100,000 to NT$1 million (US$3,289 to US$32,895) to between NT$200,000 and NT$2 million. In addition — to prevent recidivism — repeat offenders can now be imprisoned for up to five years.
The amendments also allow for fines of NT$3,000 to NT$15,000 for the ignorant, lazy, dangerous and often cruel practice of walking pets on a leash attached to a vehicle.
Pet ownership has increased in Taiwan in the past few years. With this has come the need for better education about how to treat animals, what to expect from pet ownership, the importance of neutering and the problem of abandoning animals after the initial excitement of pet ownership has worn off.
Numerous animal abuse cases have made headlines over the past few years. In addition to a video released online in 2012 that called attention to dubious practices in slaughterhouses, there have been other disturbing incidents, including the killing of stray cats by a National Taiwan University student and of a stray dog by members of the Republic of China Marine Corps.
This week’s amendments were deemed necessary as existing punishments were thought to be insufficiently prohibitive. However, the aspect that has attracted the most international media attention and been hailed as a landmark change is the banning of dog and cat meat for human consumption.
Anyone found purchasing, eating or possessing dog or cat meat, or any products containing such meats, will now not only be subject to a fine of up to NT$250,000, but may also be publicly named and shamed, with the new law giving authorities the right to disclose names and pictures of violators.
People have held up Taiwan as an example of how to end what is increasingly regarded as a barbaric tradition with a long history in the region, comparing Taiwan favorably with other Asian countries, such as China, South Korea and the Philippines, where the consumption of dog and cat meat is still legal.
There are hopes that Taiwan’s example would make it easier for animal welfare activists to push for similar bans in other Asian nations.
Online commentators questioned the rationale of banning dog and cat meat when the meat of other animals is still allowed and asked whether there was an inherent contradiction based on a “cuteness index.”
One possible refutation might be that domesticated animals are capable of having relationships with humans that bring people joy. While this might seem like a subjective, sentimental argument, where the more rational approach is to argue that all life should be treated equally, it does show a more civilized approach to other sentient life.
What these new amendments represent is official recognition of a shared value in this society that we should respect animals and treat them humanely. This includes how animals are treated in slaughterhouses.
More than anything, this development should be viewed as one step in the ongoing movement toward a more civilized approach to all forms of sentient life. It is a symbol of progress, of Taiwan joining the ranks of more progressive nations, and the nation should take pride in the news being picked up by the international media.
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS