Following allegations that the National Defense University expelled a student after he tested positive for HIV, the Ministry of Health and Welfare fined the Ministry of National Defense for discriminating against people with HIV.
The health ministry said that its decision was in line with the HIV Infection Control and Patient Rights Protection Act (人類免疫缺乏病毒傳染防治及感染者權益保障條例). However, another look at the spirit of related local legislation after reviewing how similar cases have been handled in other countries, as well as the special requirements of various professions, it seems that the health ministry’s complaints against the defense ministry — on the basis violating human rights — are unhelpful for building true equality, and its decision is neither fair nor just.
The key reason for this is the high risk of infection military personnel face on the battlefield, as suggested by empirical research carried out on battlefields around the world.
Military combat personnel, due to the nature of their work, are exposed to a high risk of HIV infection. On one hand, soldiers on the front line who are infected with HIV typically do not have access to customized medical supplies, which means they are at risk of not having access to appropriate medical support. In addition, on the battlefield medics usually have to provide first aid without gloves, goggles or other medical equipment, exposing the patient and rescuers — usually provisional personnel — to high risks of infection through direct contact with bodily fluids.
Asking HIV-infected people to take part in battles in the name of equality is no different from murdering them.
That is also why many countries, including the UK, the US, Switzerland and South Korea, ban people infected with HIV from joining the military.
Take the US — a country sensitive to human rights issues — for instance. The White House has a National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which takes care of people living with HIV and protects them from discrimination. However, there are special instructions for implementing the strategy in the military. New recruits and reservists who test positive for HIV are disqualified from the army as per US Army Regulation AR 600-100. All military personnel are screened for HIV every two years, and those who test positive are banned from combat units and must be reassigned and may even be discharged. Administrative personnel are not affected. The goal of the strategy is to strike a balance between special work requirements and civil rights.
In contrast, Taiwanese laws regarding HIV often confuse human rights with civil rights, causing confusion and disputes between civic groups, the media and government agencies.
Taiwan’s HIV act creates the same problem, whereby the two concepts are not distinguished from each other and requirements for different vocations are not taken into consideration. The failure to take into account the special demands of various professions and apply the same rules across the board has caused an impasse.
People living with HIV do not need sympathy; rather society should support people to lead a healthy and unfettered life. Officials must also consider practical matters and exempt certain work places and promote flexibility in order to strike a balance and achieve the best outcome.
The Israel Defense Forces, last year decided to allow HIV-positive people to serve in non-combat units during compulsory military service, but volunteers are still excluded. This is a balanced policy that takes into account medical care, personnel requirements and the nature of the job; it might serve as a useful reference for Taiwan.
Su Tzu-yun is chief executive officer of Tamkang University’s center for advanced technology.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with