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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS