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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS