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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS