Some local governments have once again refused to follow the central government's prevention measures to stop severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). I'm afraid that the responsibility for the ruptured anti-SARS network may trigger another "war of words" among political parties or between the central and local governments.
The purpose of clarifying this matter is not to levy responsibility on those government decision-making bodies. Instead, even when dealing with the best of people, only when the authority-responsibility relationship is clear can such problems be solved efficiently.
The main characteristics of a major contagion, and the reason behind its becoming a significant and emergent national crisis, lies in its rapid and boundless spread.
Therefore, the central governments in the world's advanced countries are fully responsible for making administrative decisions and issuing orders from both the systematic aspect, which involves the Constitution and laws, and that of substance, which involves operational issues.
The spread of "mad cow disease" (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE) in the UK serves as a perfect example. In 1986, British veterinarians detected the disease when dissecting some infected cows.
However, both the central and local governments were not aware of the seriousness of the disease, taking it as a minor veterinary discovery.
As the infected area expanded, the situation became worse in 1988 when farmers continued to sell those ill cows and thereby hastened the outbreak of the disease.
The situation eventually spun out of control.
The British government was not determined to eliminate the disease until 1996. About 11 million ill cows were destroyed in the next six years. Meanwhile, the government publicly apologized to the world and was forced to ban the export of meat products.
Thus, at the massive cost of tens of billions of pounds, it obtained an overall disease prevention experience that was extremely valuable to every nation in the world.
In the face of the crisis, not only did the central government of Britain not take the chance to attack local governments in order to gain political recognition, it actually took all political and administrative responsibilities upon itself.
Because it understood that inappropriate disease prevention would damage both the nation's overall interests and the public -- not just a party or a city.
Similarly, when the US was hit by the Sept. 11 incident and the anthrax attacks afterward, the federal government also stood up and guided the public to respond to the attacks.
We should actively learn from such mature experiences in an effort to better Taiwan's disease warning system, as well as its epidemic control team, building an all-round, multidimensional and multilevel system for epidemic crisis management.
Recently, the former director of Taipei City's Bureau of Health Yeh Chin-chuan (葉金川) -- who voluntarily entered Taipei Municipal Hoping Hospital to handle the SARS outbreak -- said that "the situation is pessimistic if the central government still refuses to bear the full responsibility, and still can't come up with concrete and effective policy on SARS prevention, especially against possible local infections."
This is indeed the most urgent task of the nation's SARS prevention in this phase.
Liao I-ming is an assistant professor in the department of government and law at National University of Kaohsiung.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing