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.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS