Milk powder
from China sparks scare
NOT FOR CONSUMPTION: As much
as 25 tonnes of the toxic powder has entered the Taiwanese market and been sold
to 10 distributors in many parts of the country
By Shelley
Huang
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Sep 14, 2008, Page 1
“We are concerned that some of the finished products [made from the toxic
milk powder] have been sold to consumers.”— Lin Fang-yue, health minister
The Department of Health confirmed yesterday that potentially toxic milk powder
imported from China’s Sanlu Group has been sold to 10 distributors in nine
cities and counties in Taiwan. There are fears that some of the milk powder may
have found its way into processed or packaged foods such as coffee beverages.
The products were imported by Fonterra (ING) Ltd’s Taiwan branch on June 26. The
milk powder is believed to contain melamine, a chemical used in plastic
utensils, glue and fabrics. Adding melamine can increase the amount of protein
contained in the powder.
The department said last night that 25 tonnes of the milk powder, packaged in
1,000 packs each containing 25kg, had been sold to 10 distributors in Taipei,
Taoyuan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung, Hualien, Yunlin and Chiayi counties, as well as
Taipei and Taichung cities. Of these, 605 have been distributed.
The department said local authorities were trying to locate 130 packs sold to
Royal Fun Food Corp, which then sold them to other companies in Taipei County. A
company in Pingtung has already sold the powder to farmers for agricultural
purposes, while in Hualien 20 packs have beenused in other products, it said.
Two packs in Yunlin have been sold to a company in Chiayi, where some of the
powder has been made into semi-finished products, the department said, adding
that the products had been traced and sealed by authorities. Health officials
have also traced and sealed 20 packs in Kaohsiung that were sold to a processed
food factory in Changhua County and had been used in finished products such as
milk coffee beverages.
Almost 400 packs were found at a warehouse in Taoyuan yesterday and were sealed
by health officials, who stamped the words “Not for human consumption” on each
pack.
“We are concerned that some of the finished products [made from the milk powder]
have been sold to consumers,” Health Minister Lin Fang-yue (林芳郁) told a press
conference yesterday.
He said local health authorities were still trying to track down the remaining
milk powder, adding that “all toxic milk powder will be sealed up and destroyed
at a later date.”
Lin said the department had notified the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and
Inspection to ensure that the import of Sanlu products be prohibited. Only
products that have tested negative for melamine will be allowed in, he said.
Dissident
derides US as being ‘as crooked as China’
DPA, TAIPEI
Sunday, Sep 14, 2008, Page 3
A Taiwan-based Chinese dissident yesterday blasted the US, calling the country
“as crooked as China” for rejecting an asylum request made by him and two other
Chinese dissidents.
Cai Lujun (蔡陸軍) made the denouncement in an open letter, following the rejection
of his asylum request by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT).
AIT said it turned down the application because “Taiwan has well-established and
reliable mechanisms to assist asylum-seekers and to protect their rights,” so
the case should be handled by Taiwan.
However, Cai said he disagreed that Taiwan has sound mechanisms to assist asylum
seekers, citing numerous delays and difficulties he experienced in finding work
and money to cover his expenses.
“We are like half-ghost and half-human being and like spiritual beggars, yet the
US calls this a ‘well-established and reliable mechanism.’ Even Taiwanese
officials will blush when they hear this,” he wrote in the open letter.
Cai, 40, a businessman in Hebei Province, China, was jailed for three years for
criticizing the government. He arrived in Taiwan in July last year to seek
asylum.
“I never expected that the so-called democratic Taiwan and democratic US would
be the same as China. If Taiwan and the US are just as crooked and shameless as
China, why do they support the fight against dictatorship?” he said.
He and four other Chinese dissidents, three of whom arrived four years ago,
asked to be allowed to remain in Taiwan or to seek asylum in a third country.
Taiwan has kept delaying granting them asylum on the grounds that the
legislature has yet to pass an asylum law.
Taipei also agreed to assist them in finding asylum in a third country, but the
effort has been futile because most countries recognize China and do not want to
offend Beijing.
The five men’s patience is running out because without an ID card, they cannot
find work or take advantage of government benefits.
On Thursday, Cai and two other Chinese dissidents Wu Yalin (吳亞林), 49, and Chen
Rongli (陳榮利), 39, went to the AIT office in Taipei to apply for asylum from
Washington.
Cai and Wu on Wednesday climbed over the wall into the AIT compound while Chen
waited outside. Cai and Wu were later apprehended for trespassing by AIT
security staff and taken to an adjoining police station for questioning.
On Thursday, the AIT’s press officer Lawrence Walker said the case should be
settled by Taiwan.
President
is confused as ever on PRC relationship
By Yeh Chin-Fong 葉金鳳
Sunday, Sep 14, 2008, Page 8
The First National Assembly held its eighth meeting in 1991. At the session I
hosted on April 22 that year, the delegates completed two major constitutional
achievements: They added 10 Articles to the Constitution of the Republic of
China and abolished the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of
Communist Rebellion.
On May 1, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) officially announced that the period
had ended. The media quoted the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou
(馬英九) in what has become a famous statement: “I don’t know anymore what kind of
relationship the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have.”
On Feb. 23 that year, not long before Lee’s announcement, the National
Unification Council proposed the National Unification Guidelines. On March 14,
the Cabinet passed the guidelines, which have been the fundamental principle for
Taiwan’s China policy. It also issued a statement, “The Meaning of ‘One China,’”
in which it made the pragmatic concession that the Republic of China (ROC) only
has jurisdiction over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, despite its “de jure
sovereignty” over China.
The statement said that “each side of the Taiwan Strait is administered by a
separate political entity.” As far as the KMT is concerned, this statement still
stands.
Political scientists generally hold that “political entity” and “state” are
synonymous. Since cross-strait relations are indeed different from relations
between two independent states, the government used the term “political entity”
instead of “state” to show China its goodwill. Unfortunately, Beijing condemned
the guidelines because of their implications.
During his interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico on Aug 26 this year,
Ma defined cross-strait relations as “special relations,” but not a
“state-to-state” relationship, and stressed this “very important point.”
But if cross-strait relations are not considered state-to-state, can they still
be described as special relations between two separate political entities? If
cross-strait relations are now neither, Ma’s definition would seem to have
strayed from the National Unification Guidelines.
As private cross-strait exchanges multiply, more problems are arising.
Additional Article 11 of the Constitution states that: “Rights and obligations
between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and
the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.”
This is the constitutional basis for separate treatment of the people on each
side of the Taiwan Strait. To regulate cross-strait exchanges, the legislature
later passed the Act Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan
Area and Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which is the basis for judging certain
legal cases.
The “Chinese mainland area and free area” in the ROC Constitution and the
“Taiwan area and mainland area” in the law are terms used to distinguish the two
regions in discussing the rights and obligations of their inhabitants, as well
as legal cases. Such terms are unrelated to the definition of cross-strait
relations.
On Sept. 4, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) made the surprising
claim that Ma’s remarks had been based on the ROC Constitution and the above
act. Calling the two sides of the Strait “Taiwan” and “the mainland area”
indicates equal status, Wang said. But if the new definition of cross-strait
relations is an “area-to-area” relationship, isn’t the dignified ROC president
nothing but a local ruler?
Yeh Chin-fong is a former vice
chairwoman of the Cabinet’s Mainland Affairs Council.