Not a part of China
What's interesting to note in this outbreak of SARS is how Taiwan has been treated as a part of China, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by neighboring countries.
Today, top SARS-related news included Thailand's mandate that visitors from Taiwan wear surgical masks for the first 14 days of their visits to Thailand; and Singapore's Ministry of Health's listing of Taiwan as a place that Singaporeans should avoid visiting.
The Department of Health has protested these measures taken against Taiwan, stating that Taiwan was not on the WHO's list of "off-limits" areas for travel and that "the WHO has recognized Taiwan's efficiency in its quarantine and disinfection drive."
So far, there have only been suspected cases of SARS in Taiwan; there have not been any confirmed SARS-related deaths in Taiwan. The highest SARS death tolls have been in Hong Kong, China and Vietnam. Officials in Taiwan are protesting the Thai and Singaporean measures.
Ironically, Singapore is on the WHO's list of affected areas, along with China, Canada and Vietnam. An affected area is defined by the WHO as an area in which local chain(s) of transmission of SARS is/are occurring as reported by the national public health authorities. So it is Taiwan that should be taking tougher measures against travelers from Singapore or China.
Unfortunately, Taiwan has been lumped in with China by the WHO which has listed Taiwan under China as "Taiwan Province," though Taiwan has been taking its own measures to contain SARS without the influence or assistance of China.
The WHO's listing of Taiwan as "Taiwan Province" is not only incorrect because it does not reflect the reality of health management in Taiwan and China, but dangerous because China cannot vouch for and is not responsible for Taiwan's public health.
The only thing that Taiwan can give credit to China for in this epidemic is its denials and lack of complete disclosure.
Felicia Lin
Kaohsiung
Worthy of praise
I think that the Government Information Office (GIO) should be praised rather than criticized for printing Shelley Rigger's article in the Taipei Review ("US academic's article hits a nerve," April 3, page 3).
Although I don't know Dr. Rigger well, I am somewhat familiar with her work. It is characterized by careful study and objective analysis. What is offered in the Taipei Review article is constructive criticism from someone who is supportive of Taiwan's democratization.
In years past, the DPP has criticized the KMT for its efforts at censorship. It would be tragic if, once in power, the DPP began to exhibit similar behavior.
June Teufel Dreyer
University of Miami, Florida
I was disappointed to read of legislator Hsiao Bi-khim's (
The best propaganda is the truth, and the DPP would be well served to nurture a forum where all views are honored. As a dissident party, the DPP should know this more than anyone.
Many US publications are supported and sponsored by the government and feature critical views. These publications state that the views presented do not reflect the position of the government, and the matter is solved. I suppose we can now look forward to GIO publications only parroting the DPP party line, just like the old days.
As the DPP continues to model its administrative style on the KMT's excessive centralism, Hsiao should little wonder why most Taiwan voters see no difference between the parties. If Hsiao had any constituents who actually lived in Taiwan, she might be more aware of how ridiculous and, frankly, undemocratic her criticism appears.
Even more importantly, Shelly Rigger's piece was a lucid, accurate, and objective example of research. I would challenge Hsiao to demonstrate one word of the article that was inaccurate or misleading.
Despite her degree from Columbia University and her documented passion for the DPP's democratic ideals, it is clear that Hsiao has a lot to learn about democracy.
Rob Duval
Herndon, Virginia
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with