Is Taiwanese Healthcare a Model to Emulate?

Healthcare. That word in the United States draws controversy from all sides of the spectrum. Our nation’s healthcare reform debate is an ongoing political issue, as the United States is still the only industrialized democracy without universal health insurance.

Imagine a small island nation over seven thousand miles away. Here, residents may visit a clinic down the street and meet with a doctor they haven’t seen before, without scheduling an appointment. When meeting with the physician, they present a medical card that contains a chip with all their medical records. The doctor has immediate access to these patients’ medical history, any drugs they are taking, and other important health information.

Though quite different from what we’re used to in the United States, the above scenario depicts the healthcare system in Taiwan. When I visited last summer and stayed with my cousin and his family, I had the chance to learn more about how the country’s health insurance system works. Since 1995, Taiwan, with 23 million residents, has had a universal healthcare system called the National Health Insurance (NHI). This form of socialized medical care allows Taiwanese citizens and residents to enjoy the benefits of a single-payer health insurance system.

My first week in Taipei, where my cousin lives, his three-year old daughter came down with a cold. On a Saturday morning, I tagged along with his wife and the child to the hospital.

What first caught my attention was how no appointment had to be made; another that struck me was how little time we had to wait at the clinic. Within a few minutes, a pediatrician escorted us to her office and my cousin-in-law handed her a medical card. My cousin’s daughter was given a checkup and rescribed some medicine. What also surprised me was that the medicine only cost 100 NT, which is just over US$3.

Why not: the actor Jerry Yan in The Hospital, a popular Taiwanese television drama

Though Taiwanese citizens have equal access to healthcare, the country spends only about 6.6% of its GDP on health expenditures, while the United States spends more than 17%. Residents of Taiwan pay a monthly fee for the NHI themselves, and their companies pay for a portion of the fee. The vast majority of patients and doctors in Taiwan are satisfied with this convenient and affordable system.

Of course, there are also costs to having unlimited access to healthcare. With a lack of funds, the Taiwanese government has had to borrow money from banks. Additionally, with the convenience of healthcare, there is a large number of patients relying on too few doctors. When patients pay frequent visits to the doctor, it causes doctors to limit the amount of time each patient can be seen.

With a system that promises equal healthcare access, Taiwanese residents take care of each other. In the United States, healthcare is seen more as the responsibility of an individual. Perhaps these two nations’ different systems stem from this cultural disparity.

Where Do You Stand on Affirmative Action?

Recent talks surrounding affirmative action in college admissions have stirred up debates among racial and ethnic groups. Earlier this year, the proposed California Constitutional Amendment SCA 5 aimed to repeal Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996 and amended the state constitution by banning consideration of race, sex, and ethnicity in school admissions, public employment, and other areas in the public sector.

If passed, SCA 5 would have once again allow race-based affirmative action at public universities in California. However, the vote on SCA 5 was postponed.

In Michigan, the ban on affirmative action remains in effect after a Supreme Court ruling this past April. Though decisions regarding affirmative action have been made, its policies are still widely disputed and draw criticism from many members of the Asian-American community.

Affirmative action was proposed to promote equality and prevent discrimination namely among racial minorities, but a lot of people argue that race-conscious admissions hurt Asian-American students. For decades, Asian Americans have dealt with the “model minority” stereotype: the belief that they are the most successful group of students, excelling in academics and extracurricular activities while at school and then succeeding economically later on in life.

Where do you stand on affirmative action?

Race-conscious admissions draw swift opposition from the Asian-American community and students because their chances of being admitted to selective universities may be slashed. They agree that if students work hard in school and do well, they should have a chance of being admitted to selective institutions, no matter what.

However, the argument for affirmative action in college admissions persists.

For example, in California’s state universities, black, Latino, and Southeast Asian students are greatly underrepresented – but the East Asian student population is highly represented. Others argue that the “model minority stigma” is simply a myth: affirmative action caters to the educational needs of many Asian students, as a significant number of Asian-Americans do not excel at academics, and Southeast Asian subgroups are still underrepresented at many U.S. universities.

Proponents also assert that affirmative action creates a diverse environment for students to learn from each other. Additionally, the student body in many schools is not an accurate representation of the racial/ethnic population in surrounding areas. Affirmative action in college admissions gives hardworking individuals a chance to receive a high-quality education.

Indeed, deliberations over affirmative action have been hotly contested in the past few decades. Today, many people worry that race-conscious admissions would hurt people of color, whose acceptance into college may be seen as helped by these policies favoring them. Others propose that economic-based affirmative action may be a better way to create more diversity in schools. Though cases regarding affirmative action have been decided, there is no doubt that the education ruling will remain a controversial issue for years to come.

Boston University’s College of Communications Develops Program for International Students from China

Last month, Professor Stephen Quigley and his colleagues sat in a classroom at the College of Communication (COM) at Boston University with a few Chinese students and took notes on what they were talking about.

This July, the professors are planning to launch an online-to-offline program called the Digital Learning Initiative to help incoming international students from China prepare for the new environment of studying at COM and in the U.S.

The College of Communications at Boston University

“It seems like over the last five years or so, COM has seen a fairly dramatic uptake of international students, and Chinese language-speaking students in particular,” said Quigley, during an interview. Quigley is an Associate Professor in the Public Relations program at COM.

In an overview of BU, in the fall of 2008, 42 of 4,131 freshman came from China. Five years later, the number of Chinese freshman grew to 410 of 3,807 freshmen, and is one-third of the whole international student pool.

Quigley started to develop a concern that there was an imbalance emerging. “COM has been benefiting from all these students. But are we investing sufficiently in those students?”

“A Chinese-language speaking student who is extremely bright and gets great grades comes to COM, does really well, and graduates; he or she may get to work in the U.S. for couple of years. And perhaps they struggle to get that job, not because they aren’t smart, not because they’re not motivated enough, but because of fundamental language challenges,” he said. “And that makes me really sad.”

Then, he found a breakthrough to launch a program to help those students.

The project combines online and face-to-face discussion. The content will be heavily focused on writing and will touch upon the culture of the classrooms at COM, at BU, and in the U.S. Through the Internet, current Chinese students will participate in the project by helping new, incoming students with information or questions they may have. With the help of professors, training on writing skills will be provided.

Once the students arrive at BU, the online meetings will switch to face-to-face. “I love that idea,” said Quigley.

This program is not the first effort made by COM professors to help international students accustom themselves to American culture and English-centric studies. Christopher Daly, an Associate Professor in the Journalism department, has been running a program for about 15 years for newly arrived international graduate students from other countries. The program is a one-semester class for journalism students to learn about the American culture and to resolve any question about their studies. Daly also participates in COM’s new seed program.

The program for Chinese students will last for one year. More details have yet to be settled.

Main image: China Photos/Getty Images

Making Sense of the Recent Attacks in China

There have been three assaults on civilians in China in the past three months, the last two having occurred within a week of each other. The Chinese government has labeled these incidents terrorist attacks.

Photo: The Guardian

The most recent killing involved an assailant who stabbed six people on May 6 at a railway station in the southern city of Guangzhou. There were no fatalities, but the six victims were injured and the suspect was shot and wounded by Chinese police.

The violence occurred less than a week after three were killed and 79 injured in a knife and bomb attack at the railway station in Urumqi, the capital of the northwestern region of Xinjiang.

However, the government first became alarmed in March when five attackers with knives and machetes killed 29 and injured more than 140 at a station in the southwestern city of Kunming.

Twenty-nine people were killed in a knife attack at Kunming rail station, southwest China, in early March. More than 140 others were injured when assailants, thought to be Xinjiang separatists from the west, began hacking at people apparently at random. Four attackers were shot dead by police at the scene.

Officials have blamed the incidents in Urumqi and Kunming on separatist terrorists from Xinjiang. It is suspected that the region’s Uighur minority is unhappy with the regulation and seeks to form an independent state, East Turkestan. While the most recent attack has not been officially linked to the earlier two, it is highly suspected they are related.

Before the attack in Guangzhou, President Xi Jinping had travelled to Xinjiang to address the ongoing issue of violence. There he announced plans to arm Chinese police officers with guns. He said that as China’s westernmost border region, the city of Kashgar in Xinjiang is at the frontline in the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, he ordered the army to help local government deliver a “crushing blow” to terrorists.

However, Xi’s visit also involved visiting a mosque and directly addressing the issue of religion in the region. This could be seen as more indirect measures of dealing with the issue because the ongoing violence has been associated with the Turkic Uighur Muslim population of Xinjiang.

Xi visited a 120-year-old mosque and sat with a group of religious leaders and listened to their views about regional issues. He made a comment that maintained his view that religion needs to adapt to social developments, but acknowledged that religious publications contain wisdom that can help guide people toward tolerance and acts of kindness.

These efforts are significant especially when considering China’s history with religious freedom and regional minorities. Nevertheless, the Chinese government will have to continue to find ways of preventing future violent events and protect its citizens.

Repealing Affirmative Action in California: Discrimination or Diversity?

If there’s any particular issue of contention among the Asian-American community lately, it’s the issue of the return of affirmative action.

California’s Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) seeks to remove the provisions of California Proposition 209 and allow state universities to consider race, gender, color, ethnicity, and national origin as factors in the admission process. When the amendment passed in the California Senate on January 30, it reignited this highly controversial topic, particularly among the Asian-American community. This is a highly simplified breakdown of the chief arguments:

• Supporters of the bill, led by its author, State Senator Edward Hernandez, believe that SCA-5 would allow the percentages of Latino, African American, and Native American students in California public universities to grow. He stated that these numbers had significantly declined following implementation of Proposition 209 and that the removal of the relevant provisions would promote diversity within the California public university system.

• Critics of the bill argue that it is a form of discrimination and advocates preferential treatment for certain racial groups. It logically follows that this preference comes at the expense of other groups, perhaps contributing to racial tensions in California. They also argue that Senator Hernandez’s data supporting a post-Proposition 209 decline in diversity was skewed and contradicts public records, which conversely demonstrate an increase in minority populations among the University of California (UC) system.

A colorblind system?

Historically speaking, the Asian-American community has typically been relatively politically passive. On February 28, however, opposition to the bill incensed more than 500 Chinese-Americans to gather in protest before the office building of State Assemblymember Ed Chau in Sacramento, urging him to vote against SCA-5 in the State Assembly. Opponents called the bill “Skin Color Act 5”, citing significantly higher admissions criteria for Asian-Americans than their counterparts.

Asian-Americans protest affirmative action

(Photo: AALDEF)

Asian-Americans constitute less than 5% of the U.S. population, significantly less than the percentages of African Americans and Latinos. Despite their minority status, race-based admissions programs would actually work against the Asian community because of disproportionately high test scores and general scholarship. In California, the population is larger, with 14.9% of the population being of Asian origins. In admissions, however, Asians constitute 36%. The implementation of a “quota”, so to speak, would decrease the current Asian presence in the UCs and other public schools. It’s because of this process that many Asian-Americans feel that they are being unfairly penalized for their high rates of success.

It is a dialogue driven by fear. Many of the protestors are afraid of the impact SCA-5 would have on them and their children’s prospects at entering the highly competitive UCs. Fear easily converts to anger, which resulted in political activism. Currently, the Change.org petition against SCA-5 has gathered more than 100,000 supporters within 3 weeks.

The broader issue here is the issue of “positive discrimination”, or “reverse racism”, as some call it, which, for many, have become synonymous with affirmative action. The current discourse on affirmative actions ranges from dismissive to apoplectic. This is the debate that I plan to address in the near future, though delving into such a controversial topic requires careful diligence.

President Obama Meets with the Dalai Lama at the White House

On Friday, February 21st, President Barack Obama met with the 14th Dalai Lama in the Map Room of the White House, despite fervent protest from Beijing. This was not the first encounter between President Obama and the Dalai Lama, who already met twice: in February 2010 and July 2011. Both times, the Chinese government rebuked President Obama’s involvement in the Tibetan issue, claiming such meetings with the Dalai Lama gravely jeopardized Sino-America relations.

Dalai Lama tossing snow at reporters in D.C., 2010

Outside the People’s Republic of China, the 14th Dalai Lama is acknowledged as the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. In 1951, after ratifying the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, the Dalai Lama worked briefly with the Chinese government; he was even elected as a delegate in the National People’s Congress and met Mao Zedong in Beijing. After the failure of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, the Dalai Lama fled Potala Palace in Lhasa with his supporters for India, where he established the government of Tibet in exile in Dharamsala.

In recent years, many world leaders – the late Czech President Vaclav Havel, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofsadt, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – have met with the Dalai Lama, all to angry opposition from Beijing.

Sometimes, the exchange of diplomatic disapprobation resulted in punishment: the Chinese government canceled the EU-China Summit planned in December 2008 in Lyon, France. The reason? Then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s meeting with the Dalai Lama in Poland at the 25th-anniversary commemoration of the Dalai Lama’s Nobel Peace Prize.

The Dalai Lama with Carla Bruni, Sarkozy’s surprise of a third wife

France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had rebuffed the warning of the Chinese government, saying that even “[France] cannot have foreign policies dictated, even by our friends.”

Compared to France’s approach, the White House’s attitude towards the Tibetan issue during the Friday meeting was more cautious and ambivalent. A carefully worded announcement read,

“The United States supports the Dalai Lama’s ‘middle way’ approach of neither assimilation nor independence for Tibetans in China. The United States recognizes Tibet to be a part of the People’s Republic of China and we do not support Tibetan independence. The United States strongly supports human rights and religious freedom in China.”

In response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry described the Dalai Lama as a “separatist” and claimed that the “‘middle way’ approach is deceptive, and in nature is a political guideline for ‘Tibet independence’, which the Chinese government will absolutely not tolerate.” Beijing interpreted President Obama’s encounter with Dalai Lama as a “gross interference” into Chinese internal affairs; pundits saw this as Washington’s reaction against China’s establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea, which escalated the already high tensions with Japan over disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

China is a trading partner with many EU countries, and possess enormous holdings in the American market. With deepening Chinese-U.S. political and economic links, the White House managed – this time – to kept the meeting low-key (the event wasn’t even announced until Thursday) and to sidestep from the central Tibetan question by denouncing Tibetan independence. But every action demands a reaction – the issue, at this point, is still outstanding.

Chinese Scholars and the Dream of a Second Child

In 2011, I met Dr. Yuan in Boston. He was a visiting scholar from Shanghai, China and worked at the Boston General Hospital’s clinic. His wife was in her sixth month of pregnancy; at that time, they already had a 9-year-old son.

Doctor Yuan said he was pretty lucky: during their second month in the U.S., his wife became pregnant. Their baby would be an American, born during their length of stay in the States; they wouldn’t have expected this– a second child– if they were in China.

In comparison, Zhiqi Cai, who was teaching in South China University of Technology, was fired recently for allegedly breaching the one-child policy. Cai and his wife’s first child, now a 6-year-old girl, was born when he was a Post-Doctorate candidate at Ohio State University, in 2007. As the child was an American citizen, Cai assumed it would be legitimate to have a second child in China– their first in the country– since his family hadn’t “met” China’s one-child quota.

Cai’s second child was born in Tianjin, in northern China. Later, a whistle-blower exposed the family, and Cai received a notice from his place of employment (the South China University of Technology) that he was in violation of the one-child policy and would be fired according to Guangdong’s family planning regulations. Mainland Chinese scholars aren’t supposed to have a child during their one-year study period in the United States; or, to Cai’s situation, despite whatever other citizenship his first child held, he wasn’t “allowed” another Chinese-citizenship child.

Cai is starting a lawsuit against the University’s Office of Family Planning. To illustrate the difficulty faced by Chinese academics, Tingbing Cao, the head of the Department of Chemistry at Renmin University, who’d conducted research at Harvard University from 2002 to 2005, jumped to his death from the ninth floor of a campus building in March after being threatened with dismissal for having a second child. His colleague, Jianxin Li, a Beijing University professor, attributed his death to extreme pressures brought on by his colleagues’ accusations on Weibo of having another child.

Under such circumstances, if Dr. Yuan wanted to back to China, he’d be fired for violating the three-decades long family planning policy, even though the easing of the policy is just around the corner.

Dr. Yuan is lucky: he’d already found a job in Boston, and he said he would quit teaching in China.

For many scholars with short study periods in the U.S. or abroad, it’s tempting (and risky) to flout the one-child policy. After overseas studies, these academics tend to enjoy higher reputation and better employment prospects. Adding to that a freer social environment, a more convenient passport, better social welfare systems, and modern education– many of them choose to take the risk. Sometimes, this means possibly losing almost everything back in China and starting from scratch.

Dr. Yuan told me, “I’m not doing anything good for myself here; I’m doing something good for my kids.” His nine-year-old son was standing by his mom. He showed her his first award: ranking number one in the class, in English.