I have written earlier in the Taipei Times (“Rights must be preserved even during a pandemic,” April 18, page 8) that rights must be preserved even during a pandemic. In principle, authorities are entitled to subject people to restrictions such as mandatory quarantine. However, they must never forget the fundamental democratic principles of proportionality, necessity and human rights concerns.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, numerous international and regional organizations have issued valuable statements and advice to states on how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic while remaining a democratic state respecting the rule of law. They encouraged states to adopt human rights sensitive approaches and avoid cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the implementation of public health emergency measures.
In particular, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has emphasized in the context of COVID-19 that mandatory quarantine must be used as a last resort. Moreover, living conditions and treatment in quarantine places must respect human dignity and the principle of normality.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has implemented a stringent quarantine policy to tackle the risk of COVID-19 transmission. For several months, all arrivals had to be detained in quarantine hotels or government quarantine centers. Even those who could be effectively isolated at home were not allowed to do so. They were subjected to surveillance by the authorities, must comply with mandatory testing, had no social contact and even had to bear the expenses of quarantine. Even a minor violation of quarantine rules was severely punished by heavy fines.
While I could agree that the quarantine policy toward travelers from high-risk countries and travelers at the time of the outbreak of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 seems to be a legitimate measure, maintaining the same policy once the virus slows down and mutates to the less severe Omicron variant is highly problematic.
Although quarantine could be viewed as a suitable tool, it has not been used (on most occasions) as a measure of last resort. For example, people were not allowed to isolate at home and were forced to stay in and pay for hotel quarantine. No exceptions were made for families with little children, fully vaccinated people, and even vulnerable people such as pregnant women or the elderly. Such a policy can hardly be seen as proportional and compliant with the principles of the rule of law.
Besides the disproportional quarantine policy, one must not overlook a fundamental right to be treated in a human way as stipulated by the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a binding document in Taiwan. Furthermore, the best interest of children must always be taken into account. Detention of a child for 14 or more days would also be very problematic under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is also binding in Taiwan.
There are plenty of allegations of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in news and social media that illustrate the above concerns. Following are a few examples (information used with the consent of these people):
One person wrote that while she tested positive, but had no symptoms, she was taken into hospital quarantine. She was allowed to take only one piece of clothing and was separated from her luggage. Even though she tested negative twice after the positive test, she had to stay in quarantine for 10 additional days. She emphasized the poor equipment and living conditions in the hospital room. As it was such a stressful experience, she had to start psychological therapy after her release from quarantine. “It was an ordeal,” she said.
Another person shared her experience in a government quarantine facility, where it was cold (she was quarantined in winter), but was not allowed to bring a heater. To warm herself, she sometimes had to stay in the bathroom with the hot water running and often had to fill a bucket with hot water to soak her feet.
These gloomy conditions may affect both adults and children, as another person pointed out. She said she had to stay with her children for 14 days in a room with no windows to get natural light and fresh air (only one small window to the elevator lobby). Lack of direct access to fresh air and natural light is a condition below human rights standards, especially when it concerns children. On a side note, daily access to fresh air and natural light is routinely recommended as a basic human right for prisoners.
Taiwanese authorities must be aware of these allegations, as many quarantined people have filed complaints with the CDC. However, it appears that no effective redress was provided. Moreover, these are not isolated incidents, as it would take only minutes to reveal tens of similar stories on social media; hence, it relates more to a systematic failure to safeguard human rights in quarantine places.
As one quarantined person aptly noted: “You’re still dealing with human beings, not rats in cages.”
Taiwanese authorities should be encouraged to promptly start an inquiry into these abusive practices.
International law speaks clearly that all persons who were subjected to mandatory quarantine which did not respect the above criteria have a right to ask the government for financial compensation. The CDC should promptly introduce a policy which recognizes this right in practice.
Although some restrictions have been relaxed recently, mandatory quarantine has not yet been completely lifted. I believe that besides situations where detention of a person is strictly necessary, no blanket quarantine rule is today legitimately justified in Taiwan.
Pavel Doubek is a Czech human rights lawyer and postdoctoral researcher at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own