While many other nations have evacuated their citizens from China’s Hubei Province, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, hundreds of Taiwanese, many of them members of the expatriate business community, remain trapped inside the quarantine zone.
Those who wish to return to Taiwan have become frustrated that the government has not organized additional charter flights to bring them home.
Reports began to surface on Monday that stranded Taiwanese have formed a “self-help group” and have hired a lawyer to assist in bringing a suit against the government for allegedly violating their constitutional rights.
While every sympathy goes out to any Taiwanese who have had to endure more than a month of isolation in what must be incredibly trying circumstances, they are venting their spleens at the wrong government.
The administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) last month chartered an evacuation flight from Wuhan. However, after the flight touched down in Taiwan on Feb. 3, it quickly became apparent that the passenger list, previously agreed by the Chinese government and the Mainland Affairs Council, contained serious anomalies.
The council had asked China to prioritize vulnerable Taiwanese: those on short trips who lacked resources for a long stay, as well as children, the elderly and anyone suffering from chronic diseases, who would be at a higher risk of infection.
As the passengers disembarked, health officials discovered that Taiwanese who should have been given priority had been replaced by the Chinese spouses of Taiwanese or their family members. Three of the passengers were not even on the original list, one of whom was confirmed to have COVID-19 on arrival.
Given the bungling of that flight, it is understandable that the government is wary of agreeing to a second.
Taiwan has, to date, defied expectations by limiting the spread of the coronavirus and preventing community outbreaks. This is in no small part due to the prudence and circumspection of health officials — in particular, their willingness to take difficult and often unpopular decisions to protect the health of the wider public.
Of course, the government has a duty to look after its citizens in need of assistance wherever they are in the world, but the rights of those requesting repatriation must always be balanced against the duty to protect the safety of Taiwanese at home.
The primary reason for the botched flight — and the delay in organizing further flights — is Beijing’s decision to sever direct communication channels with the government following Tsai winning the presidency in 2016. As a result, the organization of evacuation flights had to be carried out at arm’s length through the council.
The Tsai administration has not ruled out arranging another charter flight. Discussions are ongoing with China and the government has said that it is ready to organize a flight if specific criteria are met.
After the self-help group announced its intention to sue the government, Taiwanese lawyer Huang Di-ying (黃帝穎) posted an angry missive on Facebook.
“It was the Chinese government who suppressed evidence of the virus and muzzled whistle-blower doctor Li Wenliang (李文亮), the Chinese government who quarantined entire cities and Chinese officials who placed an infected person onto the evacuation flight,” he wrote. “They have not a single word of criticism for Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), yet they want to sue our government... They are colluding with Beijing to make mischief.”
It is unclear whether the lawsuit is a political act or motivated out of genuine frustration, but we should be clear which side is preventing further evacuation of Taiwanese.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,