I have written earlier in the Taipei Times (“Rights must be preserved even during a pandemic,” April 18, page 8) that rights must be preserved even during a pandemic. In principle, authorities are entitled to subject people to restrictions such as mandatory quarantine. However, they must never forget the fundamental democratic principles of proportionality, necessity and human rights concerns.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, numerous international and regional organizations have issued valuable statements and advice to states on how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic while remaining a democratic state respecting the rule of law. They encouraged states to adopt human rights sensitive approaches and avoid cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the implementation of public health emergency measures.
In particular, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has emphasized in the context of COVID-19 that mandatory quarantine must be used as a last resort. Moreover, living conditions and treatment in quarantine places must respect human dignity and the principle of normality.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has implemented a stringent quarantine policy to tackle the risk of COVID-19 transmission. For several months, all arrivals had to be detained in quarantine hotels or government quarantine centers. Even those who could be effectively isolated at home were not allowed to do so. They were subjected to surveillance by the authorities, must comply with mandatory testing, had no social contact and even had to bear the expenses of quarantine. Even a minor violation of quarantine rules was severely punished by heavy fines.
While I could agree that the quarantine policy toward travelers from high-risk countries and travelers at the time of the outbreak of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 seems to be a legitimate measure, maintaining the same policy once the virus slows down and mutates to the less severe Omicron variant is highly problematic.
Although quarantine could be viewed as a suitable tool, it has not been used (on most occasions) as a measure of last resort. For example, people were not allowed to isolate at home and were forced to stay in and pay for hotel quarantine. No exceptions were made for families with little children, fully vaccinated people, and even vulnerable people such as pregnant women or the elderly. Such a policy can hardly be seen as proportional and compliant with the principles of the rule of law.
Besides the disproportional quarantine policy, one must not overlook a fundamental right to be treated in a human way as stipulated by the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a binding document in Taiwan. Furthermore, the best interest of children must always be taken into account. Detention of a child for 14 or more days would also be very problematic under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is also binding in Taiwan.
There are plenty of allegations of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in news and social media that illustrate the above concerns. Following are a few examples (information used with the consent of these people):
One person wrote that while she tested positive, but had no symptoms, she was taken into hospital quarantine. She was allowed to take only one piece of clothing and was separated from her luggage. Even though she tested negative twice after the positive test, she had to stay in quarantine for 10 additional days. She emphasized the poor equipment and living conditions in the hospital room. As it was such a stressful experience, she had to start psychological therapy after her release from quarantine. “It was an ordeal,” she said.
Another person shared her experience in a government quarantine facility, where it was cold (she was quarantined in winter), but was not allowed to bring a heater. To warm herself, she sometimes had to stay in the bathroom with the hot water running and often had to fill a bucket with hot water to soak her feet.
These gloomy conditions may affect both adults and children, as another person pointed out. She said she had to stay with her children for 14 days in a room with no windows to get natural light and fresh air (only one small window to the elevator lobby). Lack of direct access to fresh air and natural light is a condition below human rights standards, especially when it concerns children. On a side note, daily access to fresh air and natural light is routinely recommended as a basic human right for prisoners.
Taiwanese authorities must be aware of these allegations, as many quarantined people have filed complaints with the CDC. However, it appears that no effective redress was provided. Moreover, these are not isolated incidents, as it would take only minutes to reveal tens of similar stories on social media; hence, it relates more to a systematic failure to safeguard human rights in quarantine places.
As one quarantined person aptly noted: “You’re still dealing with human beings, not rats in cages.”
Taiwanese authorities should be encouraged to promptly start an inquiry into these abusive practices.
International law speaks clearly that all persons who were subjected to mandatory quarantine which did not respect the above criteria have a right to ask the government for financial compensation. The CDC should promptly introduce a policy which recognizes this right in practice.
Although some restrictions have been relaxed recently, mandatory quarantine has not yet been completely lifted. I believe that besides situations where detention of a person is strictly necessary, no blanket quarantine rule is today legitimately justified in Taiwan.
Pavel Doubek is a Czech human rights lawyer and postdoctoral researcher at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS