H5N2 and politics
Recent issues involving ractopamine, US beef, lean-meat additives and now H5N2 in chickens and a possible cover-up point to a problem at the heart of Taiwanese society: promotion of economic interests over the safety of the general public by a leadership and government to secure its political ambitions.
It is interesting that ractopamine and H5N2 are not being understood predominantly in a political context since the issues seem to have developed during an election campaign.
It is eerily similar to how the Chinese milk scandal was pushed aside during an important event — the 2008 Beijing Olympics. For Taiwan, it was the Jan. 14 elections.
The latest outbreak of H5N2 seems to have started in December last year. This was at the moment the campaign was revving up and the notorious Yu Chang Biologics case emerged.
If the outbreak had been made public during the election, it could have turned the “soft capital” of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) socially-oriented pledges into hard capital, as they would have been potentially transformed into a narrative of a threat to families.
When reading about academics protesting against ractopamine, it makes one wonder why they have not been directing this kind of energy at the behavior of the Council of Agriculture over the H5N2 issue — not just this specific Cabinet agency, or simply only this level of government. Rather, they should be directing their energy toward how the media orientates itself and engages other representational entities across Taiwanese society to make real change.
The reality is that such an ambitious move would likely threaten their access to resources, if not their position within universities — as the universities know all too well they must toe the political line or risk censure. The logical outcome is to attack an easy external threat. It is easy as it has been replicated in other countries and similar issues have also had a history in Taiwan.
If you remember, during the election, other ministries sought to preserve and expand the political capital of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration. Former Council for Economic Planning and Development minister Christina Liu (劉憶如) is now infamous for implicating Tsai using inaccurate documentation during the election campaign. It all started when the Legislative Yuan voted to open sealed documents, the contents of which they, curiously, had no idea about.
The information was presented by Liu and later she simply brushed aside inaccuracies by saying her office had too few resources for the amount of data involved — yet she was willing to rush out a conclusion before accessing all the information.
This week, we find another government body has failed to fulfill its bureaucratic responsibilities.
Or has it? The H5N2 issue did not come up during the election.
This is part of a historical pattern found within the Taiwanese government. A legacy of political ambition and goals reflected in the bureaucracy. Political goals are pushed downward, shaping behavior in a way that reinforces the ambitions of leaders in power, rather than bureaucratic competency being the primary goal.
It is very rare for a department within the government to offer direction to the political elite. Take Academia Sinica and its relocation to Taiwan — its most influential department was Chinese literature when it was re-established, which is a curious thing for a country of new immigrants needing to make a new life for themselves. The reason? The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership’s ideological message was that it was the rightful protector of Chinese history and culture, in combating the evils of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army.
The next curious event was the shift to science, technology and research and development, after messages from the leadership previously ignored such aspects. The reason? China had become a nuclear power, outstripping the KMT on the global stage. This cemented what would become part of former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s legacy. The Republic of China needed to reconceptualize its message as the “better” China, through technology and industry. What has happened over the past few months has everything to do with these major events in Taiwan’s modern history — the establishment of political corporatism.
One should not forget that the post-secondary system is also very much part of the bureaucratic apparatus in Taiwan. It is very different from say Europe or North America, as the top-down pressure is quite visible and pronounced, when political messages translate into rapid implementation at the university level, leading to a cascading effect on academic departments.
These are not spaces where apolitical, abstract or contentious ideas can be generated and thrive. Rather they are spaces where political goals and ambitions are to be promoted, pushing aside anything that does not serve political ambition. The purpose of these academic offices, which academics are all too familiar with — the generation of ideas — are secondary.
The H5N2 issue is directly linked to the ractopamine issue and the political ambitions of those holding office, and has very little to do with ensuring Taiwanese are safe.
Philippe McKay
Pingtung
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS