Food Safety Act Amendment Process Reveals Defects in Taiwan Style Democracy

Food Safety Act Amendment Process Reveals Defects in Taiwan Style Democracy
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 29, 2014

Executive Summary: Taiwan urgently needs to establish a long term food safety management system. This requires examining the experience of other countries. It requires understanding the food production chain. It requires cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, as well as civic groups to rectify the problem of food safety. , We have seen the defects in Taiwan style democracy. It has plenty of partisan power struggles, but little partisan cooperation. It has the outward appearance of democracy, but it lacks its transparency. It has free elections, but little long-term planning or careful decision-making. Taiwan style democracy truly needs to undergo major review, and major renovation.

Full Text Below:

Food safety crises erupt endlessly. They have seriously impacted Taiwan society. Now people hear the term "food safety," and immediately become anxious. They have no idea how many ticking time bombs are about to go off. They cannot tell how many toxins they and their families have have been exposed to. They are even less sure about the impact of these toxins on their physical health.

Western scholars speak of the impact of globalization on contemporary society. They speak of an "age of anxiety." Workers approaching retirement age worry about pensions. Young people entering the marketplace cannot find jobs. Even those with jobs may only be temp workers with no job security. Parents worry about their childrens' safety. They worry about toxic foods, toxic toys, and toxic household items. Certain issues are seen as remote. In fact they extremely vital and affect their daily lives. These issues include international oil prices, global warming, GMFs, and free trade agreements.

The "age of anxiety" has arrived. At a deeper level, it means that people have lost faith in their political and economic systems. They hold diminishing expectations, and increasing suspicions. Take food safety. Many years ago, people on Taiwan watched as merchants on the Mainland foisted toxic foodstuffs and dangerous products on the public. They blasted the Mainland for its lack of moral character and its political and social system. They assumed that toxic foodstuffs was a direct consequence of undemocratic politics, lack of information transparency, and collusion between power and money. They patted themselves on the back, glad that Taiwan enjoyed democracy and better way of life. Even if they were unable to become an economically wealthy and militarily powerful nation, the could at least take comfort in being "small but beautiful." Who knew the day would come when the people on Taiwan, so proud of their small but beautiful lifestyle, would repeatedly find themselves the victims of food safety crises.

When the rancid cooking oil crisis erupted, the ruling and opposition parties began to talk about amending the "food safety and health management law." On October 24, the Legislative Yuan decided it would address this bill, which had attracted so much attention. The KMT legislative caucus put the food safety law first on the agenda. The KMT and DPP legislative caucuses each issued Class A caucus mobilization orders. One might say that the two parties put on an elaborate show for the voters.

However when DPP legislative whip Ker Chien-ming was interviewed outside the legislature, he said "The probability that the legislature will pass the bill today is zero." The excuse Ker Chien-ming gave was that "the KMT did not even bother to convene ruling and opposition party consultations." He accused the KMT of "fundamental disregard for the food safety law." The ruling and opposition parties pay lip service to "the people's livelihood before politics," but in fact put politics first. They link the food safety law with other issues such as legislative consent. They each have their own calculations. The result is the amending of the law gets repeatedly postponed. Will the Food Safety Act be successfully amended by the end of October? That is still a huge question mark. This is an illustration of how under Taiwan style democracy partisan interests override the interests of general public.

That said, the Food Safety Act draft law has many controversial provisions. The Legislative Yuan social welfare, health, and environment committee convened five meetings, and examined 37 provisions. It eventually adopted eight amendments, rejected another eight, and shelved another 21 for caucus consideration. The ratio was as high as 56%. These provisions contained many controversial elements. For example, the burden of proof, how to establish food security police, as well as double-indemnity and decriminalization of disputes. Many citizens' groups have been accused ruling and opposition party caucus negotiations is "under the table negotiations." The negotiation process is completely hidden from the outside world. No one knows whether legislators are covering for manufacturers. In the event of disputes, it becomes difficult to establish accountability. In the end, the result is likely to be mutual recriminations, shirking of responsibility, and the truth being kept from the public. These criticisms by citizen groups are not without foundation. Taiwan style democracy is "phony transparency, genuine secrecy." The food safety act amendment process has revealed the incestuous relationship between money and power.

As we all know, whenever a food safety crises erupts the public will demand that the food safety act be amended. In six years it has been amended six times. Yet food safety crises continue to erupt. Merely authoring or amending food safety laws demonstrates a lack of long-term vision. It fails to address the actual situation. Hence the farce of repeatedly amending the law. This underscores the futility of past amendments to the law, when the legislature failed to achieve its purported goals. It also reflects the undue haste with which the ruling and opposition parties amended the law. They failed to conduct thorough investigations or study the actual problems. They failed to solicit expert opinions or heed public concerns. They failed to develop long term policies. They lacked efficiency. They lacked circumspectiion. They lacked the capacity for pactical decision-making. This sort of "bidding war, sloganeering" behavior is another defect in Taiwan style democracy.

Taiwan urgently needs to establish a long term food safety management system. This requires examining the experience of other countries. It requires understanding the food production chain. It requires cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, as well as civic groups to rectify the problem of food safety. , We have seen the defects in Taiwan style democracy. It has plenty of partisan power struggles, but little partisan cooperation. It has the outward appearance of democracy, but it lacks its transparency. It has free elections, but little long-term planning or careful decision-making. Taiwan style democracy truly needs to undergo major review, and major renovation.

社論－食安修法看盡台式民主弊病
2014年10月29日 04:10
本報訊

食安議題層出不窮，已經嚴重衝擊台灣社會人心，人人聞食安問題而自危，不知還有多少未爆彈，無法追溯自己和家人親友已經承受多少毒害，更無法確知對自己身體健康安全的影響。

西方學者形容當代社會在全球化衝擊下，是一個「不安全的時代」，逼近退休年齡的勞工，擔心退休金沒著落。剛進入社會的年輕人，可能找不到工作，找到工作也可能是不穩定的派遣勞動。對家長而言，時常擔心子女出外時的安全，擔心是否會買到有毒食品、含毒玩具和生活用品。大多數的民眾，還被看似遙遠卻非常切身的課題影響，例如國際油價、全球暖化、基因改造食品、自由貿易協定等等。

所謂「不安全時代」的降臨，一個更深層次的意義，就是人們對既有政治經濟體制的信心與期待日漸降低，懷疑日漸增加。以食安問題來說，多年以前，台灣民眾目睹大陸黑心食品、黑心商品氾濫，曾一方面嚴詞批判大陸的道德人心與政治社會體制，認為黑心食品氾濫和政治不民主、資訊不公開，以及權與錢的勾結有密不可分的關係，另一方面也慶幸台灣的民主體制和生活方式，縱使無法「富國強兵」，至少能確保我們的「小確幸」。沒想到，曾幾何時，台灣民眾引以為傲的生活方式和珍惜的小確幸，竟然一再受到食安風暴衝擊。

食油風暴發生後，朝野政黨又開始大談《食品安全衛生管理法》的修法，10月24日，立法院院會預定處理這項大家矚目的法案，國民黨立院黨團將食安法排在院會討論事項的第一案，國、民兩黨團更分別發出甲級動員令，兩黨黨團可以說是在選民面前做足了姿態。

然而，民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘在院會前受訪時就表明，「今天院會通過的機會是零」，柯建銘的理由是「國民黨根本不召集朝野協商」，「對食安法根本漠視」。朝野口說「先民生後政治」，卻把政治擺在前面，把食安法修法和監委同意權等問題捆綁在一起，各懷盤算，結果就是修法日期一再延宕，食安法能否在10月底前順利修正通過，變數還是很大。這是台式民主「黨派私利壓過全民利益」的一大例證。

另一方面，食安法此次修法草案中有不少爭議性條文，立法院社福衛環委員會一共召開5次會議，審查了37條條文，最後有8條修正通過，8條不予修正，另有21條保留黨團協商，比例高達56％。這些保留條文中包含不少爭議性內容，例如舉證責任問題、食安警察如何增設，以及「一罪不兩罰」和「法人除罪化」的糾葛等等。不少公民團體就批評，朝野黨團協商是「密室協商」，協商過程外界完全無從得知，無法得知是否有立委為廠商護航，事後若有爭議也難以追究責任，最後很有可能淪為各黨互相指責、推卸責任，民眾卻無法知道真相。公民團體的批評並非無的放矢，台式民主的「假開放、真封閉」，以及金權政治疑慮在食安法修法過程中也有所暴露。

眾所周知，每當食安問題爆發，輿論就會要求修改食安法，6年來已修正了6次，最後卻還是一再爆發食安問題，顯示食安法的制定與修改完全沒有長遠眼光，也不符合實際狀況，才會有這種需要一再修法的荒謬戲碼上演。這不但凸顯過去修法過程中，國會根本沒有發揮功能，也反映朝野政黨倉促立法、修法，未能針對實際問題進行深入的調查研究，廣納專家意見與民間心聲，一步到位，制定可長可久的法案政策。缺乏效率，不夠周延，決策和實際脫節，這也是台灣「喊價式、口號式」民主的一大流弊。

台灣急需建立可長可久的食品安全管理體制，這需要參考其他國家的經驗，需要實際掌握食品產業鏈的生態，更需要朝野政黨和公民團體的通力合作。從整頓食安問題治絲益棼現象，我們看到台式民主的弊端：有黨派鬥爭卻少有黨派合作，有形式民主，卻不能落實陽光透明，有投票表決，卻少有決策的長遠規畫與周詳考慮，台式民主的確需要大檢討、大翻修。