Poisoning response strange
Doubts about the Taipei City Department of Health’s response to the Polam Kopitiam (寶林茶室) food poisoning are growing. It started on March 24 on the day of the poisonings when the bureau began its investigation. When inspectors arrived at the restaurant, they did not collect food for testing. They missed their chance to secure valuable evidence. The department said that the guidelines did not require inspectors to collect food samples during an investigation’s first stage, but is this true?
Article 4 of the Food and Drug Administration’s “Key handling procedures for suspected food poisoning incidents” (疑似食品中毒事件處理要點) states that if there are divisions of sampling labor for specimens in suspected food poisoning incidents, local health departments bear responsibility for collecting food samples, as well as conducting environmental testing on cutlery, chopping boards, potable water, dishwashing water, etc.
When Taipei’s health department was taking samples, they sooner or later would have discovered that there were no food remnants left to be collected. The procedural guidelines include the collection of grain and noodle products, black wood ear mushrooms, cabbage, bean sprouts, hongxi mushrooms and pandan leaves, as well as all the restaurant’s sauces suspected of causing the poisoning.
How could the department say that current guidelines do not require inspectors to collect samples in an investigation’s first stage?
More ridiculous is that Department Commissioner Chen Yen-yuen (陳彥元) said that the Food and Drug Administration did not stipulate that the city health department has to take samples of all food items, and that central and local government specialists could discuss amending the procedural guidelines.
Does the city health department really need to take samples of all the food items in the first stage of the investigation? If this is true, then more inspectors would need to be on the case.
The problem with their excuse is that in the collection of “suspected food products,” inspectors only need to take samples from “suspected problematic ingredients” used in the affected dishes consumed by food poisoning victims. What does this tell us about Chen’s explanation? What reason is there to expand the number of inspectors on the case?
The more the city health department says, the worse off it looks.
Yu Meng-tie
Taipei
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