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?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS