Not long ago, several Tainan residents posted a video on the Internet to promote a wine-making workshop. After somebody reported this to the Tainan Finance and Local Tax Bureau, the authorities issued a fine of NT$50,000 to the instructor/institute in accordance with the Tobacco and Alcohol Administration Act (菸酒管理法).
The bureau said in a press release that the decision was based on an interpretation of the law made by the National Treasury Administration, which says that the instructor/institute should apply for permission first if a wine-making workshop is not free of charge, even if only materials and instructor fees are needed.
Under this interpretation of the law, those who are enthusiastic about offering wine-making courses could be fined unreasonably, and a gap could appear in the handing down of traditional culinary skills.
Those who have participated in such wine-making workshops all know that attendees merely need to pay for their instructors and materials. How could the administration assume that such fees are consciously charged to make profit from alcohol sales?
If officials are able to interpret the law arbitrarily, those who teach others how to make sweet fermented rice should also apply for permission from the government beforehand, since the soup-like dish contains alcohol, and whoever offers such instruction without asking for permission should be punished with a heavy fine.
In terms of wine-making workshops, such courses teach a brewing and fermentation technique to make wine out of fruit or a variety of ingredients. Many housewives and older people are familiar with the technique.
Unfortunately, when you offer lessons on this culinary skill inherited from your ancestors to people for personal use only, you face two options if you charge them. First, you will have to spend time and money to apply for a permit from the related government agencies. If you do not, then you will be fined.
Under such circumstances, older Aboriginal people could be punished for teaching younger generations how to make traditional rice wine, or some government agencies could be punished for teaching the public how to pickle plums, because some home-made fruit wine is derived from such cooking techniques.
Will that result in a ban on alcohol, as the private sector is prohibited from learning how to make wine?
People’s memories in their kitchens, their cooking creativity and use of locally produced ingredients are all intangible skills steeped in tradition.
If instructors who try to pass such skills on to others are heavily fined by the authorities, who assume that all instructors are profit-seeking unethical businesspeople just because their products contain alcohol, gourmet dishes will not be handed down to future generations.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to avoid trouble, instructors could lose the stage on which they are able to shine. If this situation continues, it will not only benefit wine companies, but also cut the roots of traditional culinary arts.
Chang Hsun-ching is a freelance writer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS