According to reports, Tainan City Council Speaker Lee Chuan-chiao (李全教) on Oct. 13 announced that the council had accepted a public petition to provide national compensation for the dengue fever outbreak.
On Oct. 15, a meeting was convened, during which a participant said that “the compensation for dengue fever outbreak should be a social compensation,” and that “in accordance with distributive justice, there should be a limit to the amount of compensation.”
Another said that “the out-of-control dengue fever outbreak in Tainan is of human origin and it is only fair that the victims should be granted compensation.”
The question of whether dengue fever qualifies for compensation as a natural disaster or as an artificial one depends on the legal basis for compensation, the distribution of the nation’s fiscal resources and whether government officials have acted illegally and irresponsibly. The issues must first be clarified.
First, whether an event is a natural or an artificial disaster should be determined by its cause. Typhoons, earthquakes and other disasters caused by the forces of nature are natural disasters, whereas events caused by people are artificial. One obvious example of an artificial disaster is the explosion and the ensuing fire at the Formosa Fun Coast (八仙海岸) water park in New Taipei City.
It is equally obvious that the cause of dengue fever is not artificial, but natural. As to the effectiveness of preventive measures, that would depend on disaster management after the event takes place and therefore should not be confused with the cause.
Second, the effectiveness of preventive measures is not necessarily the result of government officials being careless. The effectiveness of the Tainan City Government’s preventive measures depends not only on whether the central and local government’s resources are effectively integrated and applied, but also on whether the public is cooperative in maintaining environmental hygiene and protecting themselves from mosquito bites.
Solely using the outcomes of preventive measures to determine whether government officials are doing their jobs is clearly subjective and therefore not a fair judgement.
Third, dengue fever should qualify for natural disaster compensation rather than national compensation.
When the public is suffering, the government should provide assistance. Article 2 of the Public Assistance Act (社會救助法) says that “the public assistance referred to in this act is divided into living support, medical subsidies, and emergency and disaster aid.” According to Article 2, Tainan residents who have suffered from flooding, fire, hail, typhoons, droughts, earthquakes and other disasters should be provided with disaster relief assistance.
However, it is not clear what kind of disasters qualify as “other disasters.”
Even the Disaster Prevention and Rescue Act (災害防救法) introduced by the central government does not give a clear definition. Although a revision to Article 2 was proposed by the Ministry of the Interior in 2011 to include disasters caused by pathogens, animal and plant plagues, radiation and so on, the revision has not been passed to this day. Since there are no clear regulations in current legislation, perhaps the regulations on emergency assistance in the Public Assistance Act can be applied to provide aid.
In the face of ruthless attacks from nature, what should be done is to do all that can be done with humility to alleviate the after-effects, instead of capitalizing on the public’s misery to gain political advantage.
Hsu Hui-feng is a professor of law at the Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Taiwan’s status in the world community is experiencing something really different; it’s being treated like a normal country. And not just a “normal” country, more like a valuable, constructive, democratic and generous country. This is not simply an artifact of Taiwan’s successes in combatting the novel coronavirus. It is a new attitude, weighing Taiwan’s democracy against China’s lack of it. Before I continue, I should apologize to the readers of the Taipei Times. I have not visited Taipei since the opening of the American Institute in Taiwan’s new chancery building in Neihu last year, so I was unprepared for the photograph
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian
At a June 12 news conference held by the Talent Circulation Alliance to announce the release of its white paper for this year, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) emphasized that, in this era of globalization, Taiwan should focus on improving foreign language and digital abilities when cultivating talent, so that it stands out from global competitors. I suggest the government should consider building a professional translation industry. If the public believes that there is a relationship between learning English and national competitiveness, then the nation must consider the social cost of language education. This should be assessed to maximise educational effectiveness: Is
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a