Human civilization is fairly short-lived and having undergone several wars, humans have only just begun to understand that democracy is a more acceptable social system.
Taiwanese voted for a reliable and trustworthy government so that they do not have to worry about food safety, security or the quality of healthcare, and least of all eggs.
Even if there were no eggs on the shelves for a few days, people would not panic, because they know they are living in a free society, and that eggs would be back on the shelves as soon as the government responds to the shortage. After all, eggs are not everyday essentials and any food that contains amino acids can be an alternative.
However, Taiwan has been plagued by egg-related controversies since the beginning of this year.
It all started with a legislator questioning the government’s egg import program, then snowballed into a nationwide furor of people having qualms about eggs, with some even calling for Minister of Agriculture Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) to resign from his post. In response to the controversy, the government has offered many explanations to reassure people.
Nevertheless, anyone who searches for “eggs” on the Internet would see a series of misleading news reports. For two months certain media outlets have been issuing reports lambasting the Ministry of Agriculture for several things, such as how the government was “overfunding” egg import companies and the dangers of expired imported eggs, while giving a slap on the wrist to hoarders who caused shortage in the first place.
This kind of overwhelming and biased reporting aims to destroy consumers’ trust in the government’s agricultural policies. The same playbook can be seen in last year’s local elections, when there were waves of attacks on plagiarism and academic credentials or the government’s strategy to curb the COVID-19 pandemic.
The high volume of one-sided news reporting aims to brainwash the public by sowing mistrust, and creating social division through coercive persuasion and cognitive manipulation. I believe Taiwanese, with their educated background and sophisticated grasp of common knowledge, have the media literacy to tell the true from the false, and not fall for these ideological fallacies.
Chen Chiao-chicy is a psychiatrist at Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei and an adjunct professor.
Translated by Rita Wang
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS