Former Department of Health minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) went out with a bang when he revealed that the last official document he signed before stepping down on Monday last week was a lawsuit against TV pundits for allegedly spreading false comments about the A(H1N1) flu vaccine.
As the legal action was filed in the department’s name, Yaung’s move marked the first time TV pundits have been sued by a government agency. This, coupled with the online auction of Yaung’s autographed briefcase for charity — which drew a winning bid of more than NT$5 million (US$169,500) from Taiwanese tycoon Terry Gou (郭台銘) — allowed Yaung to exit in style.
President Ma Ying-jou (馬英九) has lauded Yaung, while Gou said he joined the auction to show his admiration for Yaung’s courage in defending his health policy and his love for the underprivileged. However, a closer look at Yaung’s 18-month in service leaves some wondering whether he has lived up to these comments about his strength of character — or whether it’s nothing more than political grandstanding.
Yaung has described the TV pundits’ discussions about the vaccine as sensationalism and cited them as a reason many Taiwanese are reluctant to get vaccinated. He also said the “vaccine does not differentiate between blue and green,” referring to pro-administration and opposition forces. That was a strange comment, coming from someone who rejected the invitation of those pundits, generally perceived as being pro-green, to go on their show to elaborate on the department’s vaccine policy.
Many may also recall the pledge made by Yaung when he became minister in August 2009. He said then that seeking payment from the Taipei City Government on the debt it owes to the National Health Insurance System was high on his agenda.
“The Taipei City Government must pay its debt or the National Health Insurance’s finances will collapse sooner or later,” Yaung said, adding that the city’s debt was the National Health Insurance Bureau’s biggest problem.
However, not only did Yaung shy away from going after Taipei’s debts, the department also remained silent when then-premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) waded into the controversy and said it could not seize the landholdings of local governments to pay for their insurance subsidy debts.
So much for one who prides himself on “sticking to his guns.”
Yaung has won accolades for donating the NT$5 million his briefcase drew, in addition to a personal donation of NT$500,000, to a special account set up by the Bureau of National Health Insurance to help those who cannot afford to pay their insurance premiums.
While the gesture is commendable, hasn’t Yaung thought of how much more he could have done if he had come up with more concrete and timely measures when he was in office to help those in need — some of whom lost their lives because they couldn’t afford to pay their health premiums and seek medical assistance?
On Tuesday, the Control Yuan censured the department for downplaying a probable case of death from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease last year. Asked for comment, Yaung said: “I can’t be bothered [by the Control Yuan’s report].”
This coming from someone praised by Gou as a public servant who is full of “courage and love.”
Indeed, Yaung has left his public service career with a bang, but it was a hollow bang that continues to be the subject of heated debate.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS