A day before China marked its first annual Disaster Prevention and Reduction Day — declared to mark the anniversary of last year’s catastrophic Sichuan earthquake — the country confirmed its first case of the A(H1N1) swine flu outside Hong Kong. Chinese authorities were quick to respond by quarantining the patient, a man who returned from the US last week, and seeking contact with hundreds of passengers who traveled on the same Tokyo-St Paul, Minnesota, and Beijing-Chengdu flights.
Unlike China’s infamous mishandling of the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003, no attempt was made to hide the case — a small victory for transparency. The promptness with which it was reported is appreciated in Taiwan, where authorities lost no time in tracking down travelers who had boarded the cross-Pacific flight with the Chinese man. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health was able to locate most of the 23 Taiwanese passengers to inform them of their possible exposure to the virus.
This exercise in Chinese transparency came the same day that Beijing released a white paper on disaster relief efforts. On the eve of the first anniversary of the May 12 temblor that left tens of thousands dead or missing, the paper, entitled China’s Actions for Disaster Prevention and Reduction, was another show of transparency, but one less likely to win praise.
Although it recognizes the potential for increased frequency and severity of natural disasters and the need for effective safety measures, the paper is largely show. Beijing pats itself on the back, listing legislation and other action over the past decades to address various aspects of natural calamities. Its lavish self-praise would read as a cruel joke to the thousands of parents whose children died in shoddily built schools: “Always placing people first, the Chinese government has all along put the security of people’s lives and property on the top of its work.”
Conspicuously absent from the paper, which lists strategies for reducing the financial and human toll of disasters, is any mention of corruption. A key lesson learned from the devastation in Sichuan was the role that fighting graft must play in reducing the casualties of future disasters. Chinese authorities remain tight-lipped on the greed that led to hundreds of schools referred to as “tofu-dreg constructions” crumbling in the quake.
The topic has the potential to drag down scores of local officials in criminal liability and compensation suits, increase domestic discontent and international embarrassment over unscrupulous administration, and highlight jerry-built public construction that is ubiquitous in China.
Side-stepping this elephant in the room, the paper says only that the government spent 9 billion yuan (US$1.32 billion) between 2001 and 2005 to renovate 40,000 schools. It also mentions a new program to ensure that schools meet earthquake safety standards.
The paper is also silent on the rights of victims to seek compensation in disasters where official incompetence or corruption results in loss of life. The omission is a slap in the face of the grieving parents. More than just ignoring them, authorities including police have punished those who seek redress with physical and psychological threats and harassed the lawyers who try to help them.
If Beijing has learned something of the value of government accountability and openness from the Sichuan disaster, it has refrained from sharing it in its white paper. Instead, it indulges in self-congratulation while continuing to silence bereaved parents. Rather than illustrating transparency, the only thing China has highlighted is the utter lack of it.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and