In response to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) on June 25 announced updated quarantine measures for inbound travelers.
All inbound travelers who have visited high-risk countries within 14 days of entry, even if in transit, must stay in a centralized quarantine facility for 14 days upon arrival, without having to pay for the quarantine stay or the testing fees.
Those who have visited countries not on the high-risk list must stay in a quarantine hotel or in a centralized quarantine center for 14 days at their own expense.
I do not understand the distinction, as both quarantine methods outlined on the lists require a two-week period of confinement upon entry, along with three negative tests, before the person is free to leave. The only difference is that the government pays the costs of the former. The cost of staying at a quarantine center is NT$2,000 per night per person, while the quarantine hotel fee ranges from NT$2,000 to NT$5,000. At a minimum, the cost is NT$30,000 for 15 nights.
It is easy to intuit that one could save a lot of money by taking a connecting flight in a high-risk country before entering. This has happened; it was reported that some people returning to Taiwan from the US intentionally transferred in the UK to save money on quarantine fees.
At the time, Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中), who also heads the center, only responded by rhetorically asking: “Is it worth it?” He implied that it was not — but the policy has not been changed.
This is an inappropriate attitude. The policy has created a clear sense of relative deprivation. In both cases, the person must accept the same quarantine measures, so why should one be free and the other expensive?
It also seems arrogant and cynical to respond by rhetorically asking if it is worth it, as not everyone is financially well-off. Many of the overseas students I know have student loans and try to save money on their daily expenses. To some people, NT$30,000 to NT$50,000 is a substantial sum of money.
Many people intentionally do not use this loophole when returning home because they do not want to put Taiwan’s prevention effort at risk — it has nothing to do with whether it is economically worth it to transit through a high-risk country, as Chen seems to think.
Successful disease prevention measures should be based on reasonable regulations, not human expectations. The existing quarantine measures have created a sense of relative deprivation in terms of cost, which might lead to more people transiting through high-risk countries.
The center should review how reasonable the quarantine charges are, and not use a flawed policy to test citizens’ resolve to maintain their integrity.
Yang Wen-ting is a law student at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath