After five years of preparation, the new system for determining who is physically and mentally disabled and for evaluating the needs of the disabled will take effect on July 11.
On June 11, the League of Welfare Organizations for the Disabled opened an information hotline, and most of the disabled people or their family members who have called in have asked why they need to have their disability reappraised, since they have already been determined to have a permanent disability. That is a question we cannot answer, because the new system has lost its legal rationale.
In the past, someone who was functionally impaired or suffered from an anatomical loss or abnormality was considered disabled, thus basing the assessment on medical standards. However, the new system uses the WHO’s definition, which in addition to looking at bodily organs and mental impairment also wants to understand the impact on a person’s activities and social participation, in addition to measuring environmental factors.
Simply put, the international community is of the opinion that if a person cannot easily perform activities due to a physical impairment and therefore has problems participating in society, providing support in the living environment will diminish the obstacles raised by the disability.
The change of this concept has changed our view of disabled people. In the past, we thought that disabled people required constant rehabilitation and stressed that people can overcome nature with individual effort. However, the new system acknowledges that individual efforts at rehabilitation can be exhausted, and the government must look at the relationship between external environmental and social factors and the disabled individual. It is also responsible for building an obstacle-free living environment to diminish the factors interfering with the social lives of the disabled to give them the opportunity to live an independent and dignified life.
Implementing the new system for determining disability is valuable in that it reshapes our perception and makes us understand that anyone is at risk of becoming disabled. It is also valuable because it highlights the special characteristics of being disabled and stresses that the behavior of every person can be a factor in creating obstacles for the disabled.
For example, a visually impaired person with a guide dog is able to move around freely and live an independent life, but as soon as he or she encounters a prejudiced person, that individual creates an obstacle to the visually impaired person’s social participation.
However, the Ministry of the Interior and the Department of Health are only focusing on how to create an assessment tool and on the assessment process, without doing any overall planning or making policies for dealing with obstacles created by environmental factors. Instead, they are making massive cuts to the evaluation part of the system, thus coming up with an inferior solution.
Originally, the new assessment system offered an opportunity for reviewing the obstacles in our living environment. We also need a comprehensive review of laws and systems and to compile environmental factors that are a hindrance to disabled people living free and independent lives.
If the government does not take action, try to inform the public about the obstacles to the disabled, investigate environmental factors that create obstacles and does not eliminate them, then the new certificate for the physically and mentally disabled would have to list the government as the biggest of all environmental obstacles.
Wang Yuling is secretary-general of the League of Welfare Organizations for the Disabled.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers