The tainted oil scandals involving Chang Guann Co and Ting Hsin Oil and Fat Industrial Co have had a major negative effect on the nation’s food industry.
When the heavy 22-year prison sentence meted out to Yeh Wen-hsiang (葉文祥), chairman of the old and well-established oil brand Chang Guann, was finalized, he drank detergent in an apparent attempt to take his life, although the hospital reported that he was not in a critical condition.
Leaving aside speculation about whether Yeh was trying to postpone the start of his sentence, there is another interesting aspect of the case.
Former Ting Hsin chairman Wei Ying-chung (魏應充) was also accused of mixing inferior oil into the company’s products, but while Yeh was sentenced to 22 years in prison, Wei was given a not-guilty verdict.
The discrepancy raises concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary.
Yeh and Wei were accused of mixing inferior oil into their company’s products and of violating Article 15 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (食品安全衛生管理法), which stipulates that foods or food additives that, among other things, have been adulterated or counterfeited should not be manufactured, processed, prepared, packaged, transported, stored, sold, imported, exported, presented as a gift or publicly displayed.
Yeh’s sentence was based on this article and on the fraud regulations in the Criminal Code.
However, in the case against Wei — who served as vice chairman of the National Business and Industrial Leaders’ Support Group for former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — the court raised the prosecutors’ burden of proof by demanding evidence that the oil “could be suspected to have a negative effect on physical health,” a requirement with no legal basis.
Although the two cases were similar, the court came to the conclusion that Wei was not guilty.
In Chang Guann’s case, the court ruled that Yeh’s actions violated fraud regulations in Article 339-4 of the Criminal Code and articles 15 and 49 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation.
However, in Ting Hsin’s case, the court ruled that the prosecutor had not provided substantive evidence showing that the Vietnamese company Dai Hanh Phuc Co had bought and used oil from individual contractors that was made from uninspected pigs that had died from disease, which was then imported by Ting Hsin.
Therefore, Wei and others who stood accused of having violated Article 49 of the food safety act by selling adulterated or counterfeited products were not guilty.
Yeh and Wei were both charged with mixing inferior oil into their products, yet Wei was set free, while Yeh was sentenced to 22 years in prison.
Yeh is probably not the only one to question whether the scales of justice lean toward the rich and powerful.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS