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?
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
RSS