From May to November last year, the Health Promotion Administration commissioned the non-profit Consumers’ Foundation to operate “undercover observations” of 854 vendors across the nation’s 22 administrative regions.
They found that 26.9 percent of vendors did not ask customers to verify their age when buying tobacco products.
Of those observed, betel nut stalls were the most egregious violators of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act (菸害防制法), with close to 40 percent of those observed not asking for identification.
More than 20 percent of chain convenience store respondents also contravened the law.
When asked what the legal age to use tobacco is, many people might respond doubtfully, asking: “Is it 18 years old?”
I am responsible for tobacco control on a university campus and I often point students, parents and people in neighboring communities off campus in the direction of the latest amendment to the act, which came into effect on March 22, 2023.
Despite the revisions being in place for two years, many remain unaware that smoking is not allowed on university campuses, that the legal age for smoking is 20 years old, and that vaping and electronic cigarettes are banned. Some even disbelievingly retorted: “When did the law change?”
Amendments to the act have been in effect for two years at this point, and there are still many who remain unclear on the letter of the law, including Article 16, which states that “persons under the age of 20 and pregnant women shall not smoke,” in particular.
The ministry ought to use the media to bolster its nonsmoking messaging and tack on penalties for retailers, convenience stores and betel nut stands through sting operations.
If vendors contravene the law, then the government should hit the responsible parties with fines of NT$10,000 to NT$250,000.
When we can prevent vendors from pretending that they were unaware and would do better next time when they “unwittingly” sell tobacco and betel nut products to minors, then we would have achieved our public awareness goal to decrease access.
Chen Hung-hui is a military instructor and university life resource officer.
Translated by Tim Smith
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS