After the hysteria of the bottle-throwing protests by quarantined medical workers at the Taipei Municipal Hoping Hospital on Friday, the suicide of a quarantined patient on Saturday and the attempted suicide of another yesterday, let us tell a historical story.
In 1665 London was engulfed by bubonic plague -- memorably recorded in Daniel Defoe's A Journal of the Plague Year. Nobody now can be sure what the connection between plague-stricken London and the remote lead-mining village of Eyam in Derbyshire was. The story handed down by posterity is that the plague first appeared in the village in late August or early September via a consignment of cloth, ordered from London by the village tailor, Alexander Hadfield. It is thought that the cloth was infested with plague-carrying fleas. The first person to die, on Sept. 7, 1665, was Hadfield's assistant George Vicars. The disease soon claimed most of Vicar's unfortunate family.
Plague was not, of course a new disease in those times. Since the great pandemic of 1347-50, which might have killed a third of Europe's population, people knew how to recognize the disease and how it progressed. What they didn't know was how the sickness was transmitted or how to cure it. They did, however, think that person-to-person contact played an important role.
With plague appearing in the village, the most obvious thing for anyone to do was to get out as fast as they could. For some, of course, this was impossible -- they simply had no means of survival outside the village. And for the other villages around Eyam, a mass flight would have been the worst possible state of affairs.
This was prevented by the hard work of the village rector, or priest, William Mompesson, and his predecessor Thomas Stanley. That Mompesson and Stanley could work together was something of a triumph in itself since they were radically divided on religious issues and Mompesson had in fact taken Stanley's job after the purges of radical clergy following the restoration of the monarchy and the end of the incredibly bitter civil-war period in 1661.
Nevertheless the two clergymen worked together to persuade the villagers that they should stay put, making use of the Gospel of St. John: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (15:13)."
The village agreed to establish a cordon sanitaire around it that nobody was to cross for any reason until the disease had burned itself out. Food was deposited by the surrounding villages at designated sites at the edge of the cordon, from which the people of Eyam collected it at different times to avoid cross-infection.
The village thus simply cut itself off from the world and throughout the winter of 1665 and the spring and summer of 1666 experienced an extraordinary, and extraordinarily harrowing, silent martyrdom. The parish register records 273 deaths from the plague, from Vicars' in September 1665 to that of Abraham Morton on Nov. 1, 1666. Since the village is thought to have had a population of around 350 at the beginning of the plague, this is a staggering mortality rate. Nobody outside the village, however, was infected. The clergymen's plan worked -- at a terrible cost.
We leave it up to readers to ponder what relevance this little-known story might have for modern Taiwan. Obviously there are worse things than being shut up at home or in Hoping Hospital for a couple of weeks. But are there bigger issues involved. Is Taiwan a society where self-indulgence and personal gratification have eroded values of moral responsibly? What other interpretation might we put on Friday's events?
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means