In the wee hours of the morning of April 19th, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was transferred from Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei to Taichung Prison’s Pei Teh Hospital.
The matter prompted Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members to block proceedings in the Legislative Yuan, while overseas Taiwanese groups and human rights activists lodged strong protests. Why did the case cause such an uproar?
There are two reasons: First, the way it was handled by the Ministry of Justice, and second, the fact that the new facilities are totally inadequate for treatment of the multiple medical and psychological issues from which Chen is suffering.
The sudden transfer, in the early hours of the morning, as well as that neither the family, nor the medical team treating him were notified by the ministry, were gregarious violations of Chen’s human rights and show the callous disregard of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government for Chen’s welfare and his medical condition.
The ministry’s argument that it wanted to avoid crowds trying to block the transfer is reminiscent of the martial law era and has no place in a modern, democratic and open society which values transparency in government.
The move also disregards the medical advice given by doctors at the Taipei Veterans General Hospital.
Just a couple of weeks earlier, one of Chen’s attending physicians, Chou Yuan-hua (周元華), a renowned and respected psychiatrist, recommended that Chen be allowed to receive treatment in a home environment or in a hospital with a specialized psychiatry ward, where he could receive adequate medical care. This hospital should be located close to his home so he can have close contact with his family, Chou said.
Another highly regarded doctor, Lai Chi-wan (賴其萬), said in a letter to the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) published on Tuesday that the sudden transfer constituted a serious violation of medical ethical standards.
He said that when a patient is transferred from one hospital to another, the patient and his or her family should be briefed in advance to ensure a smooth transfer that causes the least trauma to the patient, and that medical records and information are transferred between the doctors of the first hospital and those at the receiving hospital. According to Lai, none of this happened. The team at the Veterans was caught by total surprise, while Pei Teh Hospital did not have a team in place.
In the subsequent flow of propaganda emanating from the justice ministry, the Ma regime tried to imply that Chen was given “special privileges and perks as a former president.”
In documents with pictures it tried to portray the new environment as idyllic, with a hospital room seven times bigger than the cell he had in Taipei Prison, and access to open space with a lawn, as well as ample family visiting privileges.
All of this is meaningless if the medical care is inadequate. As Chen himself told DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) — who rushed to Taichung after learning of the transfer — the ample space is secondary, and what he needs is good medical care and medical facilities so he can recover.
The sad conclusion one must draw from the episode is that the Ma government’s refusal to listen to medical opinion is in contravention of Ma’s own pledges to adhere to international human rights standards.
The handling of the case also shows little inclination to bring about much-needed political reconciliation within Taiwan. Ma touts his cross-strait rapprochement, but is seriously widening the political gulf separating people in Taiwan.
Mei-chin Chen is a commentator in Washington.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would