One of the four referendums that are to be put to the vote on Dec. 18 is about opposing imports of pork that contains traces of leanness-enhancing agents. The rationale behind the proposal is that such substances are harmful to human health. At first glance this seems reasonable, but it actually has no medical or scientific basis. The real purpose of the referendum is to lay the groundwork for next year’s local government elections, and the presidential and legislative elections that are to take place in 2024.
The referendum’s proposers think that opposing imports of US pork on the grounds of safeguarding Taiwanese’s health would enable them to win these elections, but at its core, the proposal is all about cozying up to communist China while opposing the US. The proposers think they can only beat the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is on the same team as the US, by teaming up with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
If they do not change this kind of pig-headed thinking, voters will dump them in the pigsty and leave them there for good.
When US pork is imported to Taiwan, the government requires importers and downstream vendors to label it with the country of origin, with heavy fines for those who fail to do so.
Consumers who do not want to buy US pork can buy pork that comes from somewhere else, so why worry about US pork imports?
Besides, the Legislative Yuan approved a maximum residue limit for ractopamine in US beef of 0.01 parts per million and agreed for it to be imported as such. Similarly, US pork can only be imported if its leanness enhancer content is below this safety limit.
Taiwanese pork is so competitive that US pork only accounts for 1 percent of the market. The motive for hyping this issue, then, is not a question of food safety, but a political one for the express purpose of opposing the DPP.
Whenever Taiwan asks the US to sell it sophisticated or offensive weapons to meet its national defense requirements, the US complies. No matter whether it does so to help Taiwan or make a profit, the US sells the nation what it needs, and on top of that, has sent Taiwan plenty of COVID-19 vaccines. The US also supports Taiwan’s bid to join UN events. It really does treat the nation as an ally.
If the US wants to sell pork to Taiwan, but Taiwanese oppose it for specious reasons, how can they call themselves friends of the US? How can you call yourself a friend if you always want your friends to do things, but never do what they want?
Common sense tells that Taiwanese who study in the US, as well as Americans themselves, eat US pork year after year, but who among them has turned pig-headed or experienced any other related health problem?
Did late president Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) wife, Soong Mayling (宋美齡), not eat US pork when she lived there? She lived to the ripe age of 105, so did US pork shorten her life or harm her health? Of course not.
Some of those who have returned to Taiwan after studying in the US have gone on to become presidents, legislators, mayors or county commissioners. Have you heard of any of them suffering health consequences from eating US pork?
Taiwan has been a member of the WTO since 2002. If it banned imports of US pork containing leanness agents, it would seriously contravene the principle of equality and reciprocity in trade. Could it bear the retaliatory trade measures that would be imposed on it?
All this goes to show that the referendum’s proposers are opposing US pork imports for opposition’s sake, without scientific evidence or rational thought. They are selling their souls and betraying their ideals to win a few votes, but they will certainly not win the confidence of intelligent voters. They can only fool the ignorant.
Aside from electoral considerations, they are projecting their nature of siding with the CCP and opposing the US. There is nothing admirable about their reasoning.
This referendum proposal serves no purpose, but to knock Taiwan’s friend — the US — on behalf of the nation’s enemy: the CCP. With parties and legislators like these, what need does Taiwan have of enemies?
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS