After delays in debating the Human Rights Protection and Compensation for Hansen’s Disease Patients Act (漢生病病患人權保障及補償條例), the legislature finally passed and enacted the Act last year, though with less than satisfactory content.
Since the Act came into force, the Department of Health has been so inactive in directing local health authorities to help people with Hansen’s disease — also known as leprosy — to apply for compensation that many patients have had to turn to churches and human rights groups for help.
Some of these people still don’t know their rights or how to apply.
There have even been cases in which local health bureaus misused the medical histories of patients while handling their applications, and in which health personnel have taken inappropriate measures based on misconceptions and fear of the disease, and this has caused distress among patients and their families.
The health authorities have simply ignored the law and neglected their duties.
Worse, there have been several cases in which patients died before the department completed its reviews of their applications.
In these cases, the department went on to reject the applications, citing Article 5 of the Act, which stipulates that only living people, and not their next of kin, are covered by the law.
It is astonishing that the department would assume such a patronizing and careless attitude in handling applications.
The compensation in the Act was intended to address the physical and mental hardship that Hansen’s disease sufferers have experienced.
Although the entitlements apply to the individual and cannot be transferred, inherited or used as security, the intent of the law is that once a plaintiff has expressed to the authorities his or her intention to apply for compensation, his or her right transforms from one of non-property damages to a claim for monetary compensation.
Consequently, it becomes an inheritable property right. A similar regulation exists in Article 195, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code (民法).
That being the case, the legislative intention of the words “living survivors” in Article 5 and “exclusive right” in Article 9 of the Act is that the claimant must be living at the time that the claim is made, and that the right to make a claim does not extend to the heirs of someone who has died before exercising it.
The department’s review of applications should not be thought of as having the power to decide whether leprosy patients should receive compensation; this right is mandated by the Act itself and the department has no authority to interpret it.
The department is only responsible for confirming whether a claimant contracted Hansen’s disease “between Oct. 25, 1945, and the enactment of the provision” or “whether they have been hospitalized at a certain period of time.”
Even if the applicant dies, the department should fulfill its administrative responsibility. After verifying that an applicant suffered from Hansen’s disease, the department should pay compensation to the applicant or his or her heirs in accordance with the law.
This should not be affected by an applicant dying after submitting an application.
Is the Department of Health incapable of carrying out such a simple task? If so, it makes us wonder about the government’s sincerity in respecting the rights of those with Hansen’s disease.
Liu Ching-yi is an associate professor of law in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG AND JULIAN CLEGG
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs