Some local governments have once again refused to follow the central government's prevention measures to stop severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). I'm afraid that the responsibility for the ruptured anti-SARS network may trigger another "war of words" among political parties or between the central and local governments.
The purpose of clarifying this matter is not to levy responsibility on those government decision-making bodies. Instead, even when dealing with the best of people, only when the authority-responsibility relationship is clear can such problems be solved efficiently.
The main characteristics of a major contagion, and the reason behind its becoming a significant and emergent national crisis, lies in its rapid and boundless spread.
Therefore, the central governments in the world's advanced countries are fully responsible for making administrative decisions and issuing orders from both the systematic aspect, which involves the Constitution and laws, and that of substance, which involves operational issues.
The spread of "mad cow disease" (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE) in the UK serves as a perfect example. In 1986, British veterinarians detected the disease when dissecting some infected cows.
However, both the central and local governments were not aware of the seriousness of the disease, taking it as a minor veterinary discovery.
As the infected area expanded, the situation became worse in 1988 when farmers continued to sell those ill cows and thereby hastened the outbreak of the disease.
The situation eventually spun out of control.
The British government was not determined to eliminate the disease until 1996. About 11 million ill cows were destroyed in the next six years. Meanwhile, the government publicly apologized to the world and was forced to ban the export of meat products.
Thus, at the massive cost of tens of billions of pounds, it obtained an overall disease prevention experience that was extremely valuable to every nation in the world.
In the face of the crisis, not only did the central government of Britain not take the chance to attack local governments in order to gain political recognition, it actually took all political and administrative responsibilities upon itself.
Because it understood that inappropriate disease prevention would damage both the nation's overall interests and the public -- not just a party or a city.
Similarly, when the US was hit by the Sept. 11 incident and the anthrax attacks afterward, the federal government also stood up and guided the public to respond to the attacks.
We should actively learn from such mature experiences in an effort to better Taiwan's disease warning system, as well as its epidemic control team, building an all-round, multidimensional and multilevel system for epidemic crisis management.
Recently, the former director of Taipei City's Bureau of Health Yeh Chin-chuan (葉金川) -- who voluntarily entered Taipei Municipal Hoping Hospital to handle the SARS outbreak -- said that "the situation is pessimistic if the central government still refuses to bear the full responsibility, and still can't come up with concrete and effective policy on SARS prevention, especially against possible local infections."
This is indeed the most urgent task of the nation's SARS prevention in this phase.
Liao I-ming is an assistant professor in the department of government and law at National University of Kaohsiung.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS