The government on Tuesday issued a presidential alert via mobile phone networks after China launched a satellite into orbit, with its launch vehicle passing over southern Taiwan.
The alert has been criticized for a number of reasons, including the anxiety it caused, the mistranslation of its content into English and the lack of useful instructions on what actions to take.
It was argued on social media that the alert was made to warn the public about possible falling debris from the launch vehicle. This was likely inferred from the Chinese text, which read: “If you encounter any unknown objects, report the sighting to police or fire personnel” (若發現不明物體，通報警消人員處理).
The window to warn the public was narrow — the rocket would have passed over Taiwan within 15 minutes of launch — but authorities could have determined which counties the rocket would most likely pass over and could have given some useful advice.
If falling debris was a concern, the alert could have instructed people to stay indoors for a certain time. Such information would also have been pertinent to English speakers.
Some might question why an alert was issued for this satellite launch and not for five other ones last month — especially the one on Dec. 10 when the launch vehicle similarly passed over Taiwan proper. Some international media reports have suggested that the alert was election-related. If that is the case, then why were no alerts issued when Chinese balloons were detected over Taiwan in recent weeks?
Authorities need to define a clear set of procedures for instances of Chinese objects flying over Taiwanese airspace and indicate what actions the public should take. Alerts such as the one on Tuesday serve no purpose and risk causing public unrest.
Perhaps the most egregious mistake in Tuesday’s alert was its mistranslation of “rocket” as “missile.” The Ministry of National Defense has issued an apology, but steps should be taken to ensure such an error does not recur. Rocket launches are routine and no cause for concern, while a missile launch could be a deliberate act of war. The translation also referred to the launch as an “air raid.” There was no attack on Taiwanese soil, and the launch vehicle had already left the atmosphere at the point the rocket crossed over the nation. One might question why the alert was translated in the first place if the target text offered no useful information.
Meanwhile, with Chinese incursions into Taiwanese airspace on the rise — in the form of drone and fighter jet maneuvers, and balloon flyovers — it seems apt for the authorities to conduct drills in public schools and recommend them for private companies. Drills could focus on the locations of shelters, how to take cover in the event of an air raid, and how to stay protected against blasts. Taiwan does hold annual drills in the form of the Wanan air defense exercise, but only officials practice useful techniques during the exercise such as seeking shelter, crouching down low and covering ears and eyes to limit the impact of blasts. Meanwhile, the public does nothing during the exercises except staying off the roads to avoid fines.
The Wanan exercises, like Tuesday’s alert, seem to be cases of officials simply going through the motions. Drills and alerts mean nothing if they do not ensure the public’s safety in the event of an attack. Oversight by an independent body might be helpful in adopting more effective early warning and disaster-prevention procedures.
Opposition candidates seized on the media attention surrounding Tuesday’s alert to criticize the government, but the issue should not be politicized, as it concerns everyone in Taiwan.
Efforts are needed to determine what actions by China should trigger an alert to the public, what information needs to be conveyed in Chinese and English, and what the public needs to do.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS