The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an early test for China's new generation of leaders like President Hu Jintao (
If the epidemic is handled properly, the SARS storm will allow Hu and Wen to transform China's entrenched bureaucracy and red tape. China's political system will then be able to meet the efficiency requirements demanded by the globalized market economy. But SARS will be a governance crisis and a social disaster if it is not properly handled.
In recent years, China has proven able to deal with, or at least suppress, problems related to Falun Gong, AIDS and the protests of laid-off workers. Why should SARS be an exception? The challenge of the SARS crisis lies in, first, the nature of the problem and, second, the means to solve the problem.
The SARS problem is different from those of Falun Gong, AIDS and laid-off worker protests. China's social problems normally have clear and definite targets, a clear range of influence and often focus on particular social groups. As for SARS, no-one can be spared from its epidemic nature.
Even places such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Canada are at the end of their wits. Therefore, once the SARS epidemic spreads in China, people's anxiety and discontent will be understandable. This explains why Beijing took drastic measures to remove the health minister and Beijing city mayor to show the government's determination to fight SARS.
However, the key to the SARS problem is the required terms and conditions for fighting the disease, which happen to be China's Achilles heel. SARS cannot be dealt with by resorting to government authority, police and military armed forces, monetary resources or the control of information. There is no way to solve the SARS problem by money or armed force. Rather, the fight against SARS must rely on an efficient bureaucracy, a resourceful medical treatment system and the dissemination of open, accurate, detailed information. China lacks all of these prerequisites.
After more than 20 years of reforms, China now has adequate resources to meet urgent needs. However, its bureaucracy has gradually become departmentalized and localized. The gap between the rich and poor has become wider. The gap between social classes is growing.
SARS reveals the inability of China's bureaucracy and medical establishment to effectively deal with an emergency, as well as the lack of medical care for disadvantaged social groups.
The crisis reflects the defects in the power of the Chinese state. The contemporary Chinese state possesses considerable despotic power but lacks the infrastructural power for building effecive institutions in society. What Taiwanese businesspeople in China admire about China's state elite is that they have the autonomous power to undertake actions without negotiations with civil-society groups.
However, China's state power lacks the capacity to actually penetrate society and implement political decisions.
The prerequisites for coping with SARS is closely linked to a modern country's capacity for building effective institutions. The reform of China's political system and related institutions is already far behind its economic reform. In the face of SARS, whether Hu and Wen will successfully bring China out of the quagmire will not only affect the prestige and credibility of the new generation of leaders. The leadership of Hu and Wen will also test the communist government's ability to change itself inside out and deal with a new phase of globalization.
Chen Chih-jou is an assistant research fellow at Academia Sinica's Institute of Sociology.
Translated by Grace Shaw
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers