Cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) were first discovered last November in Guangzhou -- the capital city of Guangdong Province. However, typical Chinese-style political operations have allowed the epidemic to spread virtually unchecked.
Meanwhile, people have witnessed many characteristics of China's politics, such as the government's isolationism and its traditional thinking about the majority and minorities, not to mention the media's eager attempts to cover up the SARS problem for the sake of China's image.
The first characteristic of Chinese politics is perhaps the closed value system. As the deadly epidemic expanded, the local media in Guangdong ran a series of reports in February. A newspaper even published an interview with a medical expert, urging China to cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO) to battle against the fatal contagion.
But the newspaper was warned by the government when China's annual "two conferences" took place last month. Beijing's resistance to the West for the sake of its image is self-evident. In fact, this an important characteristic of China.
Although Beijing has vowed to get on track with the world, it still insists on its anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism on human rights, religion and certain issues.
The second characteristic of Chinese politics is the government's traditional thinking about the majority and minorities. The statements of Long Yongtu (
"We should panic if half a million of the almost 7 million people in Hong Kong were infected with SARS," he added. "But we shouldn't make a fuss over this trifling matter since only a few hundred people are infected with the disease."
Chinese officials often selectively believe that whatever is advantageous to them is in the interest of "the majority" and whatever is disadvantageous to them belongs to "minorities."
Due to this selective thinking, Chinese officials are usually unaware of (or unwilling to know) the truth.
The third characteristic of Chinese politics is glossing over a problem with official statements and media while the crisis starts to expand. Due to the growing epidemic, Beijing had no choice but to allow medical experts from the WHO to inspect the situation in China. During the Ministry of Health's first press conference on China's SARS problem, then minister of health Zhang Wenkang (
"After the WHO experts arrived in Beijing, they witnessed the safe and harmonious atmosphere, as well as the effective efforts of our medical experts," Zhang said. His words were widely reported by the media.
However, the next day, Li Liming (李立明) -- director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention -- and some health authorities also held a press conference on the matter.
He apologized to the public for the poor cooperation between the government health agencies and the media, which led to the media's insufficient coverage of the contagion, affecting the public's awareness of the disease and their ability protect themselves. Li's apology attracted only the international media's attention, while China's public media and Web sites completely ignored it.
Although the epidemic and the public's fear have constantly risen, the Chinese media have started using their two-faced tactic. On the one hand, they follow the government's official statements. On the other hand, the media overreported the recovery cases in Beijing.
For example, the Xinhua News Agency commented in an editorial that "unity, respect and friendliness will lead to victory." It claimed that Chinese health experts' handling of the outbreak has been highly praised by the WHO experts, and that China's handling of the situation has won the international community's understanding and trust.
Such characteristics of Chinese politics have caused unspeakable fear among the public, because their lives seem to be insignificant when they are living without knowing the truth. They have also caused substantial damage to China's neighbors, especially Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam.
The Washington Post said recently that the SARS outbreak is a harsh test of Beijing's new leadership.
For Taiwan, shouldn't this serve as a vote of non-confidence in China?
Taiwan desired the WHO's assistance when the disease was first reported here. But it was disappointed by political factors. In contrast, the WHO wished to assist China but was repeatedly refused.
Hasn't China's handling of SARS highlighted once again the fundamental difference between Taiwan and China?
Hsu Tung-ming is a freelance writer based in Beijing.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
RSS