Anti-nuclear food public opinion was reversed overnight by the DPP, and the Taiwan media questioned: Do the people still have the right to say "no"?

The Spring Festival holidays have only ended, and before the "New Year" is over, the DPP authorities have given all Taiwanese a "big gift" and lifted the ban on food in the area around Fukushima, Japan, during the recess of the legislature. Tsai Ing-wen, the leader of the DPP authorities, has successively posted on Facebook and spoken at regular meetings of the DPP, stressing that she will never import "nuclear food." She also claimed on the grounds of last year's "referendum" result that "the people of Taiwan have expressed to the world that Taiwan is willing to accept international standards, is determined to solve difficult trade problems, and is facing a high-standard international economic and trade system." Taiwan's "Wind Media" commented that as the basis for opening up the "blessed food," not only did it forcibly cross the Guanshan Mountains, but the light boat had already passed through the Ten Thousand Heavy Mountains, a "major policy" that had caused great controversy and was opposed by 7.19 million votes, and was so lightly reversed.

The article mentions that Tsai Ing-wen, the Democratic Progressive Party, and even the DPP authorities can use the anti-Lai pig "referendum" as the basis for opening up Fukushima food, not just to "steal the concept", but to cook two different policies in one pot, which is a logical misplacing; strangely, according to the network voice survey, the rebound volume of opening "welfare food" is less than one-fifth of last year's opening of Lai pig, in short, public opinion seems to be "acquiescing", just a month ago the "Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation" released polls, public opinion against the opening of Fukushima food is still 54%. In less than a month, public opinion has changed so much? Is it an endorsement policy? Or is it useless based on opposition?

Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-che said, "It is okay to open up the blessed food, but it is not okay to scare the people.", he advocates "source management, clear labeling", which is consistent with his position on opening up the US pig, the problem lies in the DPP authorities' tactics to promote the policy, always net hegemony first, bluffing and then, "anti-Lai pig" was accused of being "pro-China and anti-US pig", anti-Lai pig can not join the CPTPP, the reality is to eat Lai (US) pigs, the United States and Taiwan can not sign the FTA, announced the import of nuclear food, Japan directly said and joined the CPTPP are two different things.

The article believes that it is even more regrettable that the current "rule of law system" in the Taiwan region cannot completely check and balance the forcible promotion of the controversial policy, and the DPP's dismantling of the "referendum" to tie the "general election" is to remove the big stone of the check and balance policy. It is difficult to cross the threshold of the "referendum" that does not tie the "general election", taking Japan's nuclear food imports as an example, and former leader of the Taiwan region Ma Ying-jeou advocated another "referendum", which was immediately ridiculed by the Green Camp and had to wait for 2023. Because according to the "referendum law" forcibly passed by the DPP, a limited-time "referendum" can only be held once every two years, and there is no doubt about how much energy there will be to urge the public opinion that can cross the threshold to go out to vote.

It is worth asking why a "major policy" that was once opposed by 7.19 million votes has become a "measure" that can be reversed in less than four years by executive order alone, and it does not have to be "referendum" or reported to the legislature? The DPP is indeed a political party that is proficient in ruling technology, and at the same time that the administrative organs announced the opening of the import of welfare food, they also directly reduced the announcement period of food safety measures from 6 months to 10 days, not asking how much time the 10-day announcement can strive for to improve the policy, and the 6-month announcement period is clearly set in the "Food Safety Management Law", and the administrative organs have created a space for themselves to "not administer according to law" with one sentence. Why 10 days? Not 15 days? Quite simply, according to the DPP general summons Ke Jianming, the new session of the legislature will be held in late February, and when the legislature convenes, the announcement period will pass, and even if the "opposition" people's representatives have any objections, it will be difficult to salvage the new measures and put them into effect.

Not only this is debatable, but the Taiwan media article pointed out that at the same time as announcing the opening of Japan's nuclear food, the administrative organ declared that from March 1, the county and municipal governments' "Food Safety Autonomy Regulations" were invalid for those who contradicted the DPP authorities. This is not the first time that the DPP authorities have declared the "Local Autonomy Regulations" invalid, and the "Coal-Fired Autonomy Regulations (most of which are still stipulated during the term of office of the DPP's county mayors)" have set a precedent; local anti-Lai pigs have also been declared invalid, and the counties and cities that have established the "Food Safety Autonomy Regulations" have also regulated the prohibition of food imports in the five counties and cities around Fukushima in the "Autonomy Regulations".

In fact, the city councils of Taipei, Tainan and Taichung have put forward a case of "constitutional interpretation" against the anti-Lai pig declared invalid by the DPP authorities, and the "Constitutional Court of the Chief Justice" will hold a speech debate on February 22, although with the current structure, it is not optimistic to expect to make an explanation favorable to the county and municipal governments, but the results of its interpretation are difficult to avoid affecting the intensity of the county and municipal government's food control on Fukushima. If the explanation is not conducive to "local autonomy", do the counties and municipal governments still have room for stricter control of people's food safety? For example, to demand more delicate signs than the norms of the DPP authorities? Take more frequent spot checks? Or limit the source of nutritious lunch ingredients for at least students in the jurisdiction? If not, what else is there to call for "local self-government"?

Even if it is difficult to force the labeling of external food and almost escape, what the DPP authorities have completely disappointed people is not to open up controversial food in a tricky way, but to forcibly open up the process of democracy and the rule of law. Tsai Ing-wen, who claims that she will not eat nuclear food, the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a majority in the legislature under her rule, and the "opposition" party that "does not know how to win", have greatly reduced the people's right to say "no" to the authorities, which is not too far from "authoritarian rule". (Lin Jingxian/Editor)