The facade of an aggressive, take-no-prisoners consumer advocacy group that the Consumers’ Foundation has carefully built over the years is surely close to collapse after the latest developments this week on the US beef controversy.
On Thursday, a petition sponsored by the foundation passed the Cabinet Referendum Screening Committee by unanimous vote. The petition seeks to canvass voters on whether the government should reverse its decision to accept new categories of beef products from the US and whether the government should enter into new negotiations with Washington on the matter.
Let’s sidestep the coherence of a referendum question that has no constitutional value, no evidence to support its attacks on US beef products and involves a subject that is rightly the responsibility of the executive and, if necessary, the legislature.
Instead, it is worth noting the credibility of an organization that would proceed with such a poll given that the government has already backtracked, that the legislature has already legislated on the matter and that, inevitably, the government will restart negotiations with the US at some point.
In short, it has none.
All of this represents another low in the misuse of the referendum process, a delicate but vital tool that allows every citizen to directly address matters of substance.
US beef is not one of those matters, but that is not the point. For the Consumers’ Foundation, invigorated by the elevation of a former foundation president to the Control Yuan, power and fame is the game.
Never mind that the Control Yuan continues to make a mockery of itself with asinine probes into cooking oil at restaurants and imported tea blends, all the while allowing several negligent top officials who contributed to the Typhoon Morakot debacle to continue in their posts unchallenged, or that Control Yuan President Wang Chien-shien (王建煊) yesterday revealed himself to be a racist oaf when he said Aborigines were less intelligent than ethnic Chinese.
The sad truth is that if these self-titled champions of consumer affairs had a real impact on not just the supposed malfeasance of individual government officials, but also the antiquated processes that plague all public servants, they would not for one second be considered for the position. That would pose a threat to the hands that feed them.
From any balanced assessment of food safety and consumer rights, the legislative lynching of US beef imports and the foundation’s quixotic campaign to render US beef public enemy No. 1 through a plebiscite have nothing to do with protecting consumers from dangerous imports and everything to do with political strategy and furthering the career prospects of foundation officials.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the biggest victim of this charade is the quality and conduct of public debate in general. With faux consumer advocates, mercenary legislators and grotesquely ill-informed media outlets running the show, the truth of the matter has been squashed, not helped by reputational intimidation and sheer cowardice among those with access to the facts.
In the end, only the American Institute in Taiwan’s press release spoke the truth on this matter with the force and exposure that it deserved, and that is this: Science lost.
In other words, referendum or no referendum, the mischievous won.
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
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
RSS