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.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was on Monday last week invited to give a talk to students of Soochow University, but her responses to questions raised by students and lecturers became a controversial incident and sparked public discussion over the following days. The student association of the university’s Department of Political Science, which hosted the event, on Saturday issued a statement urging people to stop “doxxing,” harassing and attacking the students who raised questions at the event, and called for rational discussion of the talk. Criticism should be directed at viewpoints, opinions or policies, not students, they said, adding