The Conscription Agency recently proved once again that the government is behind the times when it comes to an individual’s right to privacy. In this case, civil servants in charge of conscripting soldiers have been guilty of devastating the families of young people with HIV/AIDS by revealing their condition to their parents.
Although this is clearly a violation of regulations regarding the privacy rights of people with such diseases, and goes against a Ministry of the Interior instruction of how to treat the privacy of those who are exempted from military service for being HIV positive, some of the bureaucrats involved have defended their actions by saying “parents have the right to know about the health of their children.”
What this basically says is that some civil servants feel they have the right to break a rule if they disagree with it. Is that how a legalistic society is formed, by power-hungry, moralistic functionaries who don’t mind trampling on regulations?
The government has a long history of treating people with HIV/AIDS as if they were internationally wanted criminals who somehow slipped through the cracks of Taiwan’s oh-so-envious criminal justice and medical system. For years, police raids on drug parties or gay establishments have been followed by newspaper reports with the names and faces of all those who were forced by the police to give urine or blood samples and turned out to be HIV-positive.
Just the fact that they also test everybody at a party busted for drugs for infectious diseases is already a travesty of justice, but the way regulations are worded in the AIDS Prevention and Control Act (後天免疫缺乏症候群防治條例), police can test people based on dubious measures such the fact that they were near other people taking drugs, or they might be gay. The act also states that the records of people with HIV/AIDS should not be publicized unless it is to stop transmission of the disease. This is a questionable safeguard, because police can argue that they are stopping HIV transmission by working with reporters to out people with HIV/AIDS whenever possible.
Foreigners with HIV/AIDS in Taiwan also have scant rights. With few exceptions — those with a local spouse can apply for an exemption — a foreigner who tests positive for HIV/AIDS is given a short period of time — a matter of days really — to leave the country. That’s a pretty harsh punishment for somebody who has committed no crime. What’s more, countries like China, Japan and South Korea, which Taiwan often measures its progress against, have already dropped their embargo on allowing foreigners with HIV/AIDS from entering their borders. Taiwan still enforces this embargo. Even former NBA Lakers player Magic Johnson was barred, ostensibly for fear he would engage in a little off-court action.
In the recent cases of Hsiao Pan and Hsiao Mi (小班 and 小米, both pseudonyms), who were “outed” by conscription officials to their parents, they had each said they would personally pick up their exemptions to avoid upsetting their families. It’s already hard that at such a young age they must face a lifetime of coping with the disease, but now one has been thrown out of the family home and the other has to face a heartbroken mother.
The officials responsible either pleaded ignorance of the privacy regulations or showed defiance. Can a person simply ignore a law or pretend he or she didn’t know it existed? Courts usually don’t find that a valid defense for flouting traffic laws or anything else. So why is it acceptable when it comes to HIV/AIDS?
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS