More than a month after the Chinese tainted milk powder scandal was exposed, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) was quoted as saying in an interview with the US journal Science: “We feel distressed about the milk powder incident. We think that although the incident occurred in an enterprise, the government is responsible, especially from the perspective of supervision.”
One wonders if the reason why it took Wen so long to make such remarks to the media was because some facts remain hidden. There also remains some doubt as to whether tthe Chinese authorities are sincere about their intention to address the matter.
In a Western democracy facing a similar incident, the government would usually apologize immediately and begin an investigation, followed by disbursement of appropriate compensation. But after the scandal occurred, only the Sanlu Group and the Shijiazhuang City Government stepped forward to apologize, while Li Changjiang (李長江), head of China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, and other officials stepped down. This may have given the impression that the Chinese government lacks sincerity.
The tainted milk powder has sickened more than 50,000 infants in many areas in China and affected Taiwan and many other countries. The level of the officials who have stepped down so far seems insufficient given the seriousness of the matter, nor will it be helpful in providing satisfying answers to the victims. Faced with rising public anger, Wen had to set the tone for the level of official “distress.” Hence his remarks.
More important, however, are the issues of an apology and compensation.
It is a moral and political responsibility for the government to apologize for its mistakes. Since the scandal broke, only company and city officials, no higher-ranking officials, have offered any apologies.
The reason no Chinese leaders at the state level have apologized is that the incident has spread to every corner of the world and become a hot potato, with heavier responsibilities and demands for compensation than they are prepared to deal with. The reason the Chinese government has not officially apologized is to ensure it has enough room to maneuver.
Wen was probably sincere in his remarks and there is a real possibility that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to address the problem responsibly. As such, China should apologize and show a willingness to pay compensation. This is what a powerful and responsible country should do.
It is a legal duty to pay compensation. Chinese tainted milk powder has sickened more than 50,000 infants and killed four children in China. Taiwanese are worried about food safety and many companies have suffered serious losses as a result. The situation is not much different in other countries.
Chinese products have been questioned by people around the world. This is a serious business risk for China. If the Chinese government fails to properly handle the matter, its reputation as “the world’s factory” will be severely challenged. This will also be an extremely heavy blow to overall Chinese economic development.
Wen’s comments before Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taiwan later this year or early next year have prompted expectations that Chen will show sincere concern for Taiwanese.
An apology by China could go a long way to resolve cross-strait misunderstanding. Why is it so hard to speak up?
Li Hua-chiu is a researcher with the National Policy Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS