Taiwan has reacted swiftly to the global spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and local transmission remains thankfully limited. As of Monday, only 45 of Taiwan’s 306 cases are believed to be local infections, according to the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC).
But the country is hardly out of the woods. As President Tsai Ing-wen 蔡英文 and her administration perform the delicate balancing act between preventing a community outbreak and maintaining calm, it is the actions of individuals—just as in every country—that will make or break the effort.
Like most people, I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about the coronavirus, particularly in Taiwan. How people are adjusting their everyday activities, and how is the risk of the community spread being perceived? Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve observed an apparent tendency in some parts of society to believe that non-Taiwanese pose a greater risk—despite there being no logical grounds to do so. Taiwan closed its borders to non-residents on March 19, and anyone entering the country from abroad—Taiwanese or not—now goes into mandatory 14-day quarantine.
This reality hasn’t resonated in all corners. Last Wednesday, I tweeted the following observation:
Failure to properly assess risk by the public is a possible issue in Taiwan. Ignoring the discrimination issue, this backs up my anecdotal impression that TW public are making the mistake of considering CoVid19 as a ‘foreign’ problem, and may let their guard down but note… (1) pic.twitter.com/IT9NQtXTTb
— Cat Thomas (@tientienkaixin) March 25, 2020
The mini-thread seemed to pass innocuously enough; I’m hardly a person with a mass following and I tweet irregularly. I was careful (or so I thought) to focus the attention on what the Facebook post exposed about public thinking, rather than the venue itself, and I explained why I decided to block out the name of the bar.
Of course, some people replied mentioning other cases of discrimination. This was interesting in that it confirmed a pattern—but, as I had tried to make clear, it wasn’t quite what I was getting at.
By the evening, I watched aghast as a link to the original post by the bar was posted in a popular Facebook group for foreigners in Taiwan, accompanied by a heated discussion. Predictably, given the full details, the venue’s original Facebook post was flooded with angry reactions. (When I took a screenshot of the post, it was already one week old and had around 30 likes.) Within 24 hours of the post being shared, however, it had over 100 comments, many complaining the policy was racist, discriminatory or xenophobic, and 200-plus reactions, many of them “angry.” The bar was flooded with zero-star reviews and incensed commenters urging people not to patronize the bar.
It should be noted that, among the comments, there were attempts by what appear to be both Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese observers to point out the fallacy, in a simple and factual way. “It’s mostly traveling Taiwanese who are bringing the virus into Taiwan,” read one comment. “Wouldn’t it be just [as] if not more likely that a [Taiwanese] citizen has traveled recently?” read another. “Why not ask them for flight details too?”
On Thursday, the day after the online brouhaha, the bar from the original post posted a note retracting the policy and apologizing for any harm to Taiwan’s international community.
In recent weeks, there has been a spattering of incidents of discrimination against non-Taiwanese in misguided attempts to stave off community infection. Yes, discrimination is abhorrent. Yes, it is an underlying issue within Taiwanese society—Taiwan’s appalling record on human rights for migrant workers proves that without a shadow of a doubt.
But these incidents expose a far more pertinent problem: a failure by members of the public to correctly assess the risk facing Taiwan in terms of a possible domestic outbreak. This failure to apply logic threatens to cost Taiwan its successes in containing the virus domestically.
The vast majority of the 86,000 people currently in quarantine are Taiwanese. Those who either break quarantine or do not carry it out effectively—for example, allowing extended family members or friends to visit the place of quarantine—pose a high risk. Taiwan administers tests largely based on assessing the risk of exposure, such as a recent overseas travel history or having been in contact with a diagnosed case, leading to concerns that local cases may be going undetected.
On Sunday, a Taiwanese man tested positive for the coronavirus. He had repeatedly sought treatment for symptoms beginning February 28, but had not been tested. In the meantime, he visited busy tourist spots such as Jiufen and Wulai. The CECC identified 449 people he had been in contact with and released the man’s travel details with hopes of finding more.
Taiwan, of course, is not the only country where illogical behavior such as breaking quarantine or throwing up barriers against (presumed) “foreigners” has been observed, nor is it alone in having a poor record on human rights for certain segments of society. It is a reoccurring theme as humans go into the equally dangerous modes of either underestimation or panic around the world. Few countries, if any, will manage to get through this without discrimination and selfishness rearing their ugly heads.
That being said, this article is not in any way meant to diminish the experiences of those who have experienced the effects of such reprehensible behavior.
That a few places of entertainment, such as restaurants, pubs, hotels or clubs have launched ill-thought out bans or restrictions on foreigners using their facilities should be recognized for what it is: a panicked attempt to hold on to their business in an extremely worrying time. The (deeply flawed) logic is that non-Taiwanese pose a higher risk of infection and the venues have a duty to protect their patrons.
On March 26, Lao Ren Cha, a blog run by a U.S. national living in Taiwan (and Ketagalan Media contributor), posted an entry “calling out” businesses who had posted discriminatory policies along the same lines and suggesting that people go to the mentioned social media posts and complain. (The entry is still online, but it has been frequently updated since being posted.) Readers did as suggested, which in several cases led to the policies being retracted.
The concerns of discrimination are entirely understandable. But, instead of anger, they should create room for empathy and education. The aim of these venues is not necessarily to exclude foreigners, but rather to reassure Taiwanese customers that this venue is taking the coronavirus seriously and being proactive to provide a safe environment.
However, as the situation stands, the measures are misguided—and that’s the real problem. With the borders closed to all but nationals and residents, the highest risk by far, by volume alone, is community infection spreading from a Taiwanese national. A simple assessment of the daily released figures shows this quite succinctly—of the total recorded infections, foreign nationals account for only around 5%. (The government itself, presumably to avoid such scapegoating, does not make the number of cases by nationality easy to find without wading through daily press releases).
It is worrying that the same flawed logic used by these venues is surely being applied by others in wider society. If not, these notices would not exist—as they would not serve their intended purpose of reassuring Taiwanese customers.
It is understandable, and essential, that the government differentiates between “imported” and “local” infections in order to maintain calm and continue its course of open governance.
But it appears that the perceived lack of local infections, perhaps combined with the praise that Taiwan has received internationally for its response to the pandemic, has caused society to rest slightly on its laurels and lulled it into a false sense of security.
These notices and various anecdotes of ill-conceived heightened fear of infection from “obvious” presumed foreigners, regardless of their actual status, suggest that there is currently a tendency to consider this pandemic “foreign” among some segments of Taiwanese society. It is possible that this is down to the way that some local news stations put focus on foreigners who test positive. There may be a simple misunderstanding that, since local 本土病例 cases are low and imported 境外移入 cases are high, the risk lies entirely with non-Taiwanese. Perhaps
“imported” is simply mistakenly conflated with “foreigners” by some members of society.
The issue of discrimination will need to be addressed, but is now the time? The root here is actually a misguided attempt at promoting public safety, and it is critical to promote safety first and foremost, so it may be better to focus on the reasoning behind it and address the fallacy instead and suggest how an effective policy would work. Taiwan, along with the rest of the world is fighting a pandemic. We all have a responsibility to keep our eye on the ball.
What matters right now is getting these misguided souls to reevaluate, to correctly assess the risk. We must ask: What is the best way to achieve this?
Is there much point in bombarding a small bar or business with outraged messages? It might get an immediate fix on the discrimination matter in the single venue, but approaching the matter with compassion and gentle reasoning is more likely to have a more beneficial and wide-spread effect. Gathering a few screenshots, submitting them to the appropriate city government and requesting that they issue a statement pointing out the flawed logic would be a better move overall, and the official response would also reach the general public.
The issue needs compassion and well laid out reasoning backed up with facts and figures to convince the owners that change is necessary, not out of a fear of losing business but because it is the logical response in the face of a pandemic. The threat of never darkening a businesses’ doors again or shaming them on social media are moot. Quite simply, if the pandemic takes hold domestically, all bets are off anyway. We are living in unusual times and responses need to adjust accordingly.
Convincing members of society to reevaluate the way they handle the risk of community infection will help stop the wider gap as that knowledge is applied to the behavior outside of the business and the owners and staff discuss it with family and friends. Fix the logic, ignore the discrimination. Fighting the discrimination in the usual manner in short risks putting up backs and walls Taiwan can ill afford right now.
Complacency and a lack of correctly identifying risks is how the coronavirus gets hold, right alongside willful disregard for the public health which has been seen in the cases of quarantine breakers in Taiwan, which is again caused by faulty logic on the part of the culprits.
In general, the government approach to domestic fallacies has been rapid and responsive: Panic buying in the supermarkets? Get out a video showing the rice reserves and capacity of the noodle manufacturers. People flouting quarantine? Hefty fines, payable within seven days, and explanations of why this behavior is dangerous to society.
However, as Premier Su Tseng-chang 蘇貞昌 said in a press conference on March 26, the government can only do so much. It is up to the citizens and residents of Taiwan to gather up the remaining slack and adjust their behavior and thinking to maintain the defenses within the country. As can been seen throughout the course of this pandemic, it is societies that act as though the coronavirus is not among them already that suffer the most.
These incidents of discrimination therefore ought to be considered in the context of the threat of the pandemic as the canary in the mine that alerts us to a weakness in the public’s understanding of the way the novel coronavirus may yet get a foothold in Taiwan.
(Cover photo by Tomas Forgac on Flickr)
