When reporters at a recent news conference asked Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) why Taiwan’s nucleic acid test for diagnosing COVID-19 is 19 times more expensive than China’s version, he said: “The reason is that our test is more accurate.”
Beijing was not going to let such an “impudent” remark go unpunished and China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokeswoman Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) duly took the matter up in the following TAO news conference, pointedly referring to Taiwan’s minister of health and welfare as simply “that man.”
Zhu said that large-scale government-administered COVID-19 tests are free of charge in China, and if individual nucleic acid tests are required according to personal needs, this costs the equivalent of NT$344 to NT$516.
Zhu proudly said that China’s screening for the virus is extremely accurate and advised “that man” to have an honest conversation with the public over the cost of Taiwan’s “expensive” nucleic acid test, which Zhu said cost about NT$7,000.
It should not be left up to the TAO to say whether China’s COVID-19 screening is accurate. Let us examine the facts:
At the end of March last year, the Czech Republic ordered 300,000 rapid kits from China.
However, Czech medical officials found that up to 80 percent of the testing kits were faulty.
When Beijing argued that the kits were being used incorrectly, the Czech Minister for Health revised down the defective rate to “only” 20 to 30 percent.
The Spanish Ministry of Health initially determined that 8,000 Chinese rapid testing kits it had purchased from China were defective, but the number of defective kits that had to be returned to the manufacturer later rose to 58,000.
At about the same time, Turkish health officials verified that a batch of testing kits they had received from a Chinese manufacturer were only 30 to 35 percent accurate and were abandoned.
Meanwhile, the British Department of Health and Social Care determined that the type of antibody test kits produced by China were unreliable in COVID-19 patients with only mild symptoms.
As the saying goes: “You get what you pay for.” By purchasing the cheapest product, you might be able to save a quick buck, but you will pay dearly in the fullness of time.
At the same time, you should always shop around to ensure you get the best price and are not being overcharged. These are the cardinal rules of shopping that savvy consumers intuitively understand.
COVID-19 testing kits cost about US$250 per test in the US; in the UK, they cost ￡130 to ￡200 (US$178 to US$273); and Japanese tests cost ￥25,000 to ￥50,000 (US$238 to US$476).
Put into context, as a consumer would you trust China’s discount tests? Would you believe the braggadocio of a Chinese official, or the words of “that man” who has established public credibility over the past year?
As a rational consumer should you believe the Chinese dictatorship with its track record of coverups and lies, or the transparent and accountable information provided by Taiwan’s democratic institutions?
The answer should be obvious to anyone with their head screwed on straight.
Chin Ching is an educator.
Translated by Edward Jones
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS