Q & A about Losheng

■苦勞論壇2007/04/01

◎作者：Liu Han-Chi、Liu Kwangyin、Cheng Huang-Yaw

Q1: What kind of a place is Lo-Sheng Sanatorium?

In 1927, the General Governor of Taiwan started to build Losheng Sanatorium for the quarantine and treatment of lepers. With the force of sanitary police and the medical officers, the general investigation, quarantine, and imprisonment of the lepers were conducted thoroughly in the period from1934 till the end of colonial governance of Japan. As a result, Losheng Sanatorium became the institution of compulsory quarantine as well as life-long imprisonment for the leprosy patients. Now, we consider Losheng Sanatorium as the epitome of the hundred-year sanitary history in Taiwan. It is the only historical mark that can testify the epidemic prevention history of Taiwan, and it is also the best place for us to do the introspection of the human rights of the patients.

Q2: What is the Hansen's disease?

Leprosy, also called the Hansen's disease，is a chronic bacterial disease infecting the skin and nerves in the hands and feet and, in some cases, the respiratory system. In 1873, a Norwegian doctor, Hansen, discovered the pathogenesis of this disease, hence the name Hansen's disease. Leprosy virus is hard to cultivate even in the lab, so the contagiousness is extremely weak. Almost everyone (90% of the human beings) has the natural immunity against leprosy virus. Human is the main infection source of the Hansen's disease, and the upper respiratory tract is the major route of infection. The latent period is spans from three to five years, but could be as long as 40 years. The Hansen's disease is easier to spread in the environment with poor public sanitation facilities. Currently, the good sanitary condition in Taiwan ensures that the Hansen's disease almost has no contagiousness, and there is also effective cure for the disease.

Q3 Why was there a compulsory quarantine policy in the past?

At the beginning of the 20th century, because of the improvement in sanitary condition, the Hansen's disease was almost extinct in Europe and America. However, the Japanese government desired to imitate the militarism of German government, so when they faced the large amount of the domestic leprosy patients, they regarded those patients as "the national humiliation", and began to draw up "the prevention law of Leprosy "in 1907. They planned to isolate the lepers from the society, trying to create the illusion in which the Hansen's disease was extinct.

Q4 What is the influence of the compulsory quarantine policy?

In order to justify its compulsory quarantine policy, the Japanese government exaggerated the contagiousness of the Hansen's disease, and propagandized it to the society with force. They educated people that leprosy was extremely horrible, and used the police force and the spy system to "arrest" the patients and put them in hospitalization. This discriminating experience of being arrested in front of their families, friends, neighbors as well as the ingrained infamy of this policy prevented the Hansen's patients from going back to the society even after the compulsory quarantine policy was relieved. It was a tragedy for those patients to have homes they dared not return to.

Q5 Why is Taiwanese government tearing down the Losheng Sanatorium？

In 1994, Taipei City's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System has planned to build a depot on the site where now the Sanatorium is. Chen Jing-Chuan, (陳京川) the ex-director of Losheng was opposed to this decision, and did three surveys among the patients to see what they thought and needed, shortly before he got demoted and reprimanded. Ever since then, the patients had no access to the MRT construction plans and its related discussions.

Q6 Why is it a mistake to build the depot on the Losheng site？

The MRT depot was originally planned to be built on the mountains behind Fu-Jen Catholic University(輔仁大學), but the plan was changed by local politicians. This is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Waste of money: 3/5 of the depot site needs to be built on flatland; therefore $90 million (USD) will be spent on flatting and improving the soil.
2. Disaster for the environment: What comes after flatting the mountains is a ten-story-tall retaining wall, which destroys the natural environment.
3. Safety concern: the future depot will be situated upon earth faults.
4. Ravaged historical site: the Losheng Sanatorium is an important cultural asset for people in East Asia. The depot construction will turn all this treasure into dust.
5. Ordeal for patients: the patients are forced to leave the place they spent their lives, suffering mentally and physically from the displacement.
6. Autocratic decision-making: the MRT Department never inquired the needs of Losheng patients--the 'residents' of the site—which is a violation of fundamental human rights.

Q7 Why should the Losheng Sanatorium be a World Heritage?

1. The Losheng Sanatorium has witnessed the inhumane treatment (such as discrimination and compulsory quarantine) the lepers had undergone through 70 years of governmental oppression. It is a live showcase of Taiwan's colonial past, history of public health and suppressed human rights.
2. The Losheng Sanatorium is one among the few leprosy sanatoriums left. Its architecture has a mixture of Japanese and Gothic style, along with houses and Buddhist shrines built by the patients. The Sanatorium retains its painfully organised structure as an embodiment of its colonial past.
3. The Losheng Sanatorium has met many requirements for World Heritage. One UNESCO committee member who visited Losheng has commented that the Sanatorium is qualified at a World Heritage site. He mentioned one World Heritage site, the Robben Island, where Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years, to exemplify the value of human rights.
4. The international trend of cultural assets conservation emphasizes an 'organic' perspective of preserving, which means not only the architecture is preserved, but also its relationship established by people who lived in it. The Losheng Sanatorium is embedded with history and lifelong memory of the patients, therefore partial preservation would tarnish the integrity of its value. Moreover, the Losheng Sanatorium is a reminder of inhumane quarantine and mistaken political measures for the world to see. Forced displacement is nothing less than another persecution for human rights.

Q8 How does the Taiwanese government plan to settle the patients?

In 2002, the new housing projects was initiated, but instead of 'houses' which were earlier promised to the patients, the new director gave them two tall buildings with modern hospital facilities. It became clear that the new administration team intended to run a hospital business and make money. The patients had no choice but to be removed to another place designed for quarantine.
The skyscraper-ish hospital buildings were designed mainly for housing short-term patients; therefore it has inadequate space for residents to move around freely. Moreover, the hospital management team forbids the patients from bringing with them personal belongings, from cooking, and from coming over to the front building—a discriminative policy.

Q9 How are lepers treated in other countries?

In 2001, the Japanese government formally apologised to the maltreated lepers, and devised reimbursement laws to give them the justice and honor they long missed. Take the example of National Sanatorium Nagashima Aiseien (日本長島愛生園): it retains its old architecture and natural environment for educational purposes; the patients live in well-organised houses; intercom facilities were implemented in the sanatorium for patients who have lost their sight. Every patient has nearly two nurses to take good care of them.

Q10 How come we did not speak out in the initial stages of planning? Why stand out now?

In fact, the depot plan has received severe critiques through the decade, from scholars and social groups alike. In 1994, the Taiwanese Bureau of Health has decided the project would brutally disrupt the patients' lives, or even pose life threatens. In the same year, the Losheng residents started their perpetual war against the violence.
Long before the depot construction was initiated, Loshen's ex-director and history professionals have demanded a large-scale inspection of Losheng's position as a historical site. The scholars appealed to the MRT Department that they should spare the Losheng Sanatorium, while they unanimously agreed the entire site should be preserved. However, the officials were rough enough to terminate the process of inspection, and decided the Sanatorium should be torn down entirely.
It was not until 2004, when Prof. John K.C. Liu (劉可強教授) came up with a symbiosis plan, and when the Concil of Cultural Affairs (文建會) has deemed the Sanatorium a historical spot, that the MRT Department was pressured to rethink the possibilities of preservation.
We sincerely appeal to the governmental officials that they should take the problems seriously. People have eyes to see and ears to listen; we will not be fooled or threatened for life.

Q11. Will MRT Shin-Jhong line not able to function if Losheng sanatorium is not torn down?

A11: Liu, Ko-Chiang, a professor in the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning in National Taiwan University (NTU), has long proposed a "Concurrent Construction Program of Losheng Sanatorium and MRT" in December, 2004. This plan not only proposes to preserve the whole area in Losheng, but let the MRT function well. It achieves the four-win situation for the historical site, the MRT, the patients in Losheng, and the HuiLong community. Also, this plan has been evaluated by the Taipei MRT bureau as "technically applicable". However, after the resignation of the whole Cabinet, no more committees were to be hold, the government commissioner in charge of this plan denied it with an official document without any negotiation, and the concurrent construction program has been put aside ever since.
In 2006, the 90% reserve plan proposed by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) was evaluate as applicable by Mott MacDonald Group. (欣陸工程顧問公司) However, the Executive Yuan turn down this proposal from CCA without any explanation in less than one month.
If we reserve Losheng sanatorium, it will not necessarily be the obstacle which hinders the MRT service. What we are upset about is the governmental monopoly of technical resources and legal rights behind the curtain, and they blame the Losheng patients for delaying the MRT. If the government keeps ignoring its flawed policy, sweeping things under the rug, and putting off its own political duty, the government will wipe out the entire historical Losheng sanatorium. Such unwise arrogance from our government only damages the rights of patients in Losheng and every citizen.

Q12. According to the Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), curved rail in the 90% plan will cause derailment, is it true?

A12: The altered curvature in 90% plan has no connection with the commuters. What the 90% plan affects is the allocation of the workshop; more specifically, the plan only changes the curvature of rails which vacant carriages may go in and out. Unless the DORTS intends to make carriages enter the workshop with a high speed, or they want some passengers to participate parties held in the workshop occasionally; otherwise security is not the issue in this plan. In fact, this is exactly why the government does not want to discuss the 90% plan openly. Besides, when Frank Chang-ting Hsieh (謝長廷) was the minister of Executive Yuan, the 90% was evaluated as an applicable plan.

Q13. According to the media and Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), the 90% preservation plan will delay the construction of MRT for two to three years and result in a two to three hundred billion NTD (approx. 760 million USD) increase in budget, is that true?

A13. In the press release issued by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) in Jan. 23, 2007, it was mentioned: "according to recent news, some local representatives and organizations in Taipei City and Taipei County claimed that the 90% Losheng preservation plan proposed by CCA will severely delay the MRT construction. Hereby CCA reiterates that the 90% preservation plan, evaluated by Hsin-Lu cooperation, will lengthen the construction period for about four months, and appends a three billion budget to it. It is not true to say the MRT construction will be delayed for two to three years."

Q14. The Losheng sanatorium has its own value to be preserved, and the human rights of the patients are also important; but what about the rights of other citizens?

A14. The Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局) constantly uses phrases such as "Significant National Construction", "Asserting the Public Interests", and "One Million People's Rights of Using MRT", all of which portray the Losheng sanatorium as a troublemaker consisting of a tiny group of people, who aim at obstructing the construction of MRT. Such tactics downplay the issue of Losheng, simplifying the problem here as "the majority matters." However, we are surprised that our ruling party, who has been proud of its concern about human rights, should say such things.
If we acknowledge that the Losheng sanatorium is an important asset that not only belongs to people in Taiwan, but also to all other countries where quarantine on Hanson disease was ever imposed. The Losheng sanatorium, therefore, becomes heirloom for the entire humanity. If the Taiwanese government is willing to change its attitude and positively promote human rights, then Losheng sanatorium can not only provide another greenbelt for the citizens, but also help transform the HuiLong community into an emblem of human rights.
History repeats itself. If today we turn a deaf ear to the plights of Losheng patients, tomorrow we might ourselves experience governmental violence. In democratic countries, such as Japan, the society would usually wait till all-round plans are devised, so that the disadvantaged minority could be attended of their needs. Likewise, we urge the government in Taiwan to be responsible enough to handle the Losheng dispute with due respect to culture, history, and human rights; not only those of the patients, but also of us people.

Source: 苦勞網
http://www.coolloud.org.tw/news/database/Interface/Detailstander.asp?ID=121952