In the wake of Typhoon Morakot, the A(H1N1) influenza has begun to spread and cause widespread concern.
Former health minister Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) predicts that 30 percent of the population in Taiwan will be infected. Having participated in the prevention of SARS in 2002, former Centers for Disease Control (CDC) director-general Su Ih-jen (蘇益仁) said 5,000 to 10,000 people could die. Su proposed putting off the year-end mayoral and county commissioner elections to prevent the flu from spreading.
Despite the fact that many middle schools have suspended classes and that flu vaccines in hospitals are insufficient to meet demand, the government has shown little interest in suggestions from experts.
Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) suggested in a recent disaster control meeting that military personnel, volunteers and residents in disaster zones wear masks while relief efforts continue.
However, it is puzzling that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) chose not to call a national security meeting of legislators from across party lines to initiate national security mechanisms. Instead, he met disease control experts to discuss measures to fight swine flu.
Ma said the reason for not calling a national security meeting was that H1N1 is still under control.
The question of preventing and controlling swine flu will require the best of health expertise.
It is ignorant of Ma to say H1N1 was under control and worrying that he assumes this attitude toward a disease that could threaten the lives of thousands of people.
The Cabinet should not dismiss the warnings and suggestions of experts as “alarmist.”
The victims of Morakot in central, southern and eastern Taiwan are living in bacteria-infested environments. Hundreds of soldiers and volunteers have contracted H1N1 and skin diseases. The government seems to be taking the same slack attitude toward the influenza as it did toward Morakot.
Although the typhoon caused tremendous losses, Ma delayed holding a high-level meeting until it was clear that several hundred people had died.
What are the chances, therefore, that Ma would call a national security meeting when “only” a few people have died of swine flu?
The standard for calling a national security meeting should not be the number of people who have died in a crisis. Ma seems unaware that threats against national security include everything from military invasion to unconventional threats. Natural disasters and plague may cause more loss of life than war. A foreign invasion could possibly be averted through talks, but natural disasters and diseases don’t sit down to negotiate.
The purpose of calling a national security meeting is to assess the risk of an epidemic.
The government should connect public healthcare systems at all levels to build a comprehensive disease control system.
It is important for the government to use all channels of communication, including schools and enterprises, to inform the public about how to avoid H1N1.
The government should inform the public how to seek medical attention if they contract H1N1 and how those who may be infected with the disease should isolate themselves.
These measures may seem tedious but are necessary.
If a national security meeting is not called, calls on the public to work together to prevent swine flu from spreading will only be empty talk.
Since the government first issued warnings of the virus, no comprehensive, aggressive disease control measures have been taken except for broadcasting a short informative clip from the Department of Health on TV and distributing flyers to advise the public to wash their hands frequently.
Ma may feel that national security meetings should not be called too often lest he abuse his powers. This way of thinking fits his back-seat approach to politics. But if Ma won’t use or does not know how to use security mechanisms — and given that National Security Council (NSC) officials are emulating Ma’s passivity — the question is whether there is any point in having the council.
It is pardonable that NSC staffers are not medical experts, but not that they seem to lack any sense of social and national security risks.
They must understand that threats to national security come in a variety of forms, both conventional and non-conventional.
Shu Chin-chiang is a former advisory committee member of the National Security Council.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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