Normal sleep is affected by many factors, such as the body’s physiological, psychological and biological rhythms, and is also directly affected by environmental and climatological factors. Having an appropriate mattress and bedding can help eliminate a lot of the fatigue produced during the day and improve the quality of one’s sleep.
The most important component in ensuring a good night’s sleep is the bed. When selecting a bed, one should give careful consideration to its length and width, if it is smooth and flat, as well as whether it gives good support and is comfortable.
The bed’s height is also important, but there is no consensus on what constitutes the ideal height. In principle, it should be at least 40cm high, but even if the number is agreed upon, there is still the issue of how to define it.
Some people think the height should be defined as the distance from the top bedding cover to the floor, and that it should be between 46cm and 50cm. The reason for this is that the ideal height of a chair is 40cm and when a person sits on the bed, they compress the mattress, thereby reducing the bed’s height to about 40cm.
Furthermore, it is critical to have a bed that is raised off the floor because Taiwan is very humid and mattresses easily absorb moisture. In addition, dust, dirt, hair and other material on the floor attract bacteria, which are stirred up into the air as people walk around. Anyone who sleeps directly on the floor can inhale this dust, which will have a pejorative effect on their health.
These reasons firmly establish the physical and psychological importance of sleeping in a bed that is raised above the ground, which is why the US’ Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners approved by the American Bar Association in 2010 states that “[c]orrectional authorities should provide each prisoner, at a minimum, with a bed and mattress off the floor.”
By contrast, Taiwan’s prisons do not provide prisoners with beds, subjecting them to even worse sleeping conditions than those experienced by their counterparts in China.
In 2011, China announced article 28 of its prison building standard, which stipulated the size and height of prison beds.
According to this article, inmates’ beds should not be narrower than 80cm. It further states that bunk beds must not be in a room with a ceiling lower than 3.4m, single beds must be in rooms with a height of more than 2.8m. If there are cells on both sides of a corridor in the prison dormitories, the corridor must be at least 2.4m wide, and if there are cells on only one side, the corridor must be at least 2m wide, the article says. It also requires that the window-to-floor ratio not be less than 1:7.
Even in Japan — a country that is more densely populated than Taiwan — inmates receive far more humane treatment than in Taiwan. Japanese prisons provide 4.125m2 of dormitory space per person and 6.6m2 of individual cell space. In comparison, dormitory space in the US is approx. 2.75m2 per prisoner, while individual cell space is 7.39m2.
China has even higher standards. The average communal space per prisoner in medium-security prisons is 21.41m2, 21.16m2 and 20.96m2 in small, medium and large insitutitions respectively. In small and medium-sized high-security prisons, the space per prisoner is 27.09m2 and 26.80m2 respectively.
In Taiwan, there are more than 60,000 prisoners and they must all sleep on the floor. When the Democratic Progressive Party asked for preferential treatment for former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), why did it not think about all the other prisoners? Why does the Presidential Office’s National Human Rights Report not give them a single mention?
When the government lacks funds, it joins hands with religious and charitable organizations, and when there is a shortage of prison space, it uses empty military camps. When it lacks jail staff, it uses unoccupied military staff as guards, and staff from religious and charitable organizations to supervise and reform minor criminals. It is time to put a stop to all excuses and give all Taiwanese prisoners their own bed.
Liu Kung-chung is a research fellow at the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS