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.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS