With great fanfare, the government on Wednesday announced eight steps to increase oversight on food manufacturing, including tougher penalties for those who break the law, the establishment of a three-tier quality control system and an overhaul of the Good Manufacturing Practices system.
Premier Jiang Yi-huah’s (江宜樺) press conference announcing the measures came one day after he and members of his Cabinet came under intense bipartisan attack on the legislative floor over the tainted cooking oil scandal, the latest in a string of such public health scandals in recent years.
The gist of the legislators’ criticism was that after each incident, the government has promised reforms and action, but within a few months another scandal erupts — albeit usually in a different sector of the food-and-beverage industry.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Sun Ta-chien (孫大千) said that the nation has fewer than 1,000 food safety inspectors, adding that it is “a structural problem.”
The problem is that the devil is in the details.
Jiang, the president and other officials can make all the promises they want and draw up countless lists of steps to take, but unless they ensure that the necessary structural reforms are made and that the requisite number of qualified personnel are hired to implement the reforms, they are just blowing smoke.
After all, the Ministry of Health and Welfare promised in October last year — after a food scandal — to establish a “food safety safeguarding alliance” and recruit university students majoring in food and nutrition to help conduct inspections.
Leaving aside the question of whether an “alliance” was what was needed or whether student inspectors were a realistic option, it turns out that the ministry was not able to establish the alliance until Monday, nearly a year later. That says much about the bureaucracy’s ability to respond to a systemic crisis.
Also promised on Wednesday were increased rewards to informants, especially to current or former workers who spill the beans on their employers.
However, the Pingtung County farmer whose evidence led to the revelation of the tainted lard oil scandal was motivated by the pollution of his land by the factory allegedly at the center of the scandal.
He has been given a NT$2 million (US$66,200) award and a medal by the government, but he would probably prefer to have his unpolluted land back.
Rewarding those who provide viable tips is certainly one way to help find miscreants, although a more effective way would be to spend the money necessary to build and maintain an effective inspection system so that consumers do not have to rely on the government getting a tip to discover that something has gone wrong.
At the beginning of the week, officials said that the number of products suspected of having been processed with Chang Guann Co’s (強冠企業) questionable oil had reached 187. There could be more to come. Jiang said this scandal has caused an estimated NT$5 billion in economic losses. He did not say how much it would cost to repair lost public trust.
Saying that the Cabinet must prevent similar incidents, the premier urged government agencies to be proactive and praised the Greater Taichung police and Pingtung County prosecutors for their work in following up on the farmer’s complaints.
It was all part of the administration’s desperate attempt to put on its brave face, but why should the premier behave as if civil servants investigating a complaint is out of the ordinary?
It is called doing their job.
With such an attitude in the top ranks, it is no wonder that these scandals — whether in the food industry, the construction sector or in public infrastructure — continue to surface, or erupt with fatal consequences, as with the gas pipeline blasts in Greater Kaohsiung.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his