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.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS