While reporting on the COVID-19 situation last week, Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) said that the 1922 SMS Contact Tracing System would gradually be replaced by the Taiwan Social Distancing app, but a precondition for scrapping the 1922 system is that at least 12 million people must have downloaded the app.
While the policy change is based on practical considerations, the Ministry of Health and Welfare should take into account the following issues and propose complementary measures.
First, when customers enter a commercial establishment, will the staff have to check them one by one as to whether they have installed the app?
Should staff also have to make sure that customers have the Bluetooth function on their smartphone or other mobile device switched on?
If a consumer only turns on Bluetooth when entering the store to show the staff that they are complying with the regulations, but then turns it off — to save power or for some other reason — would that not be a loophole in the implementation of the policy?
Second, when people use public transport, such as the MRT, train or bus, if there is no way to ensure that passengers have Bluetooth switched on, what can be done about the resulting loophole?
Third, from the start of the policy to wear a mask when not at home, the majority of people have come to understand the common sense of wearing a mask in public places, but one still sees some people pulling down their masks when they think no one is looking, or wearing them on their chins, or not fully covering their mouths and noses.
You can tell at a glance whether someone is wearing a mask properly, but some people still do not. By contrast, you obviously cannot tell at a glance whether someone has installed the app or whether they have turned on Bluetooth on their mobile device.
If some people do not comply with the regulations, what feasible measures does the Ministry of Health and Welfare have in mind to deal with it?
At present there is a twin-track system whereby people have to use either the SMS system or handwritten registration when entering commercial premises or using public transport. Even if the app becomes the norm, there are practical reasons why the alternative method of handwritten registration cannot be abolished.
If this change of policy leads to a situation where all three systems — the app, the SMS system and handwritten registration — are all being used, could it lead to shortcomings arising from the existence of these parallel systems?
These are all questions that the ministry should seriously consider.
Jian Bo-ren is a lawyer and a doctoral student at National Taiwan Normal University’s Department of Civic Education and Leadership.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS