After Carry Hi-tech was last week accused of importing 3.37 million nonmedical-grade masks from China and passing them off as locally produced products to sell as part of the nation’s mask rationing system, the Central Epidemic Command Center on Sunday announced that customs officers had uncovered an additional 838,320 imported masks. Such incidents merit legal amendments to more clearly define offenses and set stricter punishments.
Just a few days after the first case, a similar incident, which also purportedly began this past month, was revealed. This coincidence raises the question: How many such cases have not yet been discovered?
Under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (藥事法), those who import medical supplies that do not meet the standards set by health authorities face fines of NT$60,000 to NT$50 million (US$2,032 to US$1.7 million).
However, the act does not set a prison term for offenders, which for some might be hard to swallow, as Carry Hi-tech is suspected of selling bogus Chinese masks passed off as made in Taiwan during a pandemic.
If the allegations are true, this would be Carry Hi-tech’s second offense since March, for which it has been fined. This would also cement the popular belief that money-grubbing merchants are not deterred by fines, and that not until their personal freedom is at stake would they finally obey the law.
As legislation often goes hand-in-hand with social issues, when the new legislative session begins later this month, lawmakers across party lines are expected to propose legal amendments to deter unscrupulous businesspeople from importing substandard medical supplies, especially during a pandemic.
There are at least two ways in which lawmakers could address the matter: They could call for prison terms to be stipulated in the act, or they could add them in the Special Act on COVID-19 Prevention, Relief and Recovery (嚴重特殊傳染性肺炎防治及紓困振興特別條例), which only sets a fine for people who hoard medical supplies needed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
Unprincipled businesspeople who import and sell nonmedical-grade, Chinese-made masks not only hurt the government’s credibility, they also discredit the hard work of their fellow mask manufacturers enlisted by the rationing system. To the public, they are just more of those who would readily trade Taiwanese’s well-being for profit. However they are viewed, their actions have hurt the greater good for their own selfish purposes, and are therefore — to quote President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — “absolutely unforgivable.”
Of all types of crimes, none have infuriated Taiwanese more than those that harm public health for profit, such as the “gutter oil” and tainted lard scandals in 2014 implicating Ting Hsin Oil and Fat Industrial and Chang Guann.
Former Ting Hsin Oil and Fat chairman Wei Ying-chun (魏應充) was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison over the tainted lard scandal, which many considered too lenient. Such sentences are largely perceived as disproportionate to the crime committed and have led to negative impressions of the justice system.
If the judiciary wants to restore people’s faith in it, it must not allow those who have marred the nation’s disease prevention efforts with shoddy masks to get away with a slap on the wrist.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent