The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis.
Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections.
The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered international aviation, shipping and railroad networks, contributing to mobility — both people and commodities — and popularizing tourism.
Yet, the institutional drivers and mechanisms propelling globalization have made the world “flat” — to borrow from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — and spread the pandemic in a short period.
In reaping the material benefits of globalization, people often overlook the invisible risk of emerging infections, which can spread across continents, affecting people in vulnerable conditions and destabilizing economies worldwide.
Many nations have invoked the vocabulary of war to characterize their struggle against the coronavirus, the archenemy of humankind. As the first epicenter of the pandemic, China mobilized all of its medical and bureaucratic resources to confront what President Xi Jinping (習近平) called a “people’s war” against COVID-19, echoing mass health movements and social programs of the Mao Zedong (毛澤東) era.
The mighty Chinese Communist Party state relied on its longstanding system of urban and rural neighborhood surveillance to restrict mobility. Local party cadres and police officers set up roadblocks on major roads and at public squares, guarding the entrances to government offices, medical facilities, schools and apartment buildings.
These officials continually checked temperatures, disinfected residences and stopped outsiders from entering their territory. This combination of top-down rigorous surveillance and community cooperation is thought by Beijing to have slowed down the spread of the coronavirus outside of Wuhan.
The rhetoric of combatting the coronavirus is not unique to China. Once a localized outbreak, this pandemic has invaded the rest of the world, with consequences that boggle the imagination.
The surge in confirmed infections and deaths has prompted countries in the Global North to implement similar tactics: suspending public gatherings, closing national borders and imposing lockdowns on billions of people.
With global connectivity and viral transmission reinforcing each other, the overlapping social, economic and political risks posed by the pandemic demand radical intervention by government officials, medical personnel and businesspeople at all levels.
Taiwan deserves credit for its bold, decisive and systematic efforts to handle the crisis. Even without being a WHO member, the nation, led by highly educated and competent policymakers who have faith in medical science and reason, has implemented aggressive crisis management. Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) is a respected epidemiologist, while his successor, vice president-elect William Lai (賴清德), specializes in public health and rehabilitative medicine.
The nation has employed communications networks driven by artificial intelligence to identify, isolate and monitor infected people and trace their contacts — a use of technology that serves the common good.
By adopting a case-by-case tracking system to test elderly people and those with chronic medical conditions, officials have carefully identified locals and visitors thought to have come into contact with COVID-19, and contained high-risk groups to slow down the virus’ spread.
The government has canceled public gatherings, implemented mandatory quarantines, and promoted the importance of personal hygiene through the media and public health education. Since early February, it has also enforced effective border controls, keeping travelers from China, Hong Kong, Macau and other hard-hit areas out of Taiwan.
Hong Kong and Macau might not have seen as many cases as Wuhan, but their international ports can serve as major conduits of viral infection. Since January, their borders have been open to countless high-risk travelers, including daily commuters who reside in China’s Shenzhen and Zhuhai, but cross into the territories for work.
Infected travelers who early on passed through the territories’ ports and airports allegedly increased the rate of transmission to the rest of the world.
At a time when many countries are still developing measures to cope with the pandemic, Taiwan has much to offer to the outside world. Its logical, comprehensive and balanced measures not only benefit its own population, but also serve as a model of disease prevention and control.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is a history professor at Pace University in New York City.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS