The Conscription Agency recently proved once again that the government is behind the times when it comes to an individual’s right to privacy. In this case, civil servants in charge of conscripting soldiers have been guilty of devastating the families of young people with HIV/AIDS by revealing their condition to their parents.
Although this is clearly a violation of regulations regarding the privacy rights of people with such diseases, and goes against a Ministry of the Interior instruction of how to treat the privacy of those who are exempted from military service for being HIV positive, some of the bureaucrats involved have defended their actions by saying “parents have the right to know about the health of their children.”
What this basically says is that some civil servants feel they have the right to break a rule if they disagree with it. Is that how a legalistic society is formed, by power-hungry, moralistic functionaries who don’t mind trampling on regulations?
The government has a long history of treating people with HIV/AIDS as if they were internationally wanted criminals who somehow slipped through the cracks of Taiwan’s oh-so-envious criminal justice and medical system. For years, police raids on drug parties or gay establishments have been followed by newspaper reports with the names and faces of all those who were forced by the police to give urine or blood samples and turned out to be HIV-positive.
Just the fact that they also test everybody at a party busted for drugs for infectious diseases is already a travesty of justice, but the way regulations are worded in the AIDS Prevention and Control Act (後天免疫缺乏症候群防治條例), police can test people based on dubious measures such the fact that they were near other people taking drugs, or they might be gay. The act also states that the records of people with HIV/AIDS should not be publicized unless it is to stop transmission of the disease. This is a questionable safeguard, because police can argue that they are stopping HIV transmission by working with reporters to out people with HIV/AIDS whenever possible.
Foreigners with HIV/AIDS in Taiwan also have scant rights. With few exceptions — those with a local spouse can apply for an exemption — a foreigner who tests positive for HIV/AIDS is given a short period of time — a matter of days really — to leave the country. That’s a pretty harsh punishment for somebody who has committed no crime. What’s more, countries like China, Japan and South Korea, which Taiwan often measures its progress against, have already dropped their embargo on allowing foreigners with HIV/AIDS from entering their borders. Taiwan still enforces this embargo. Even former NBA Lakers player Magic Johnson was barred, ostensibly for fear he would engage in a little off-court action.
In the recent cases of Hsiao Pan and Hsiao Mi (小班 and 小米, both pseudonyms), who were “outed” by conscription officials to their parents, they had each said they would personally pick up their exemptions to avoid upsetting their families. It’s already hard that at such a young age they must face a lifetime of coping with the disease, but now one has been thrown out of the family home and the other has to face a heartbroken mother.
The officials responsible either pleaded ignorance of the privacy regulations or showed defiance. Can a person simply ignore a law or pretend he or she didn’t know it existed? Courts usually don’t find that a valid defense for flouting traffic laws or anything else. So why is it acceptable when it comes to HIV/AIDS?
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS