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
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS