Typhoon Bilis provided an occasion for an overall check-up of Taiwan's disaster prevention and rescue mechanisms. Some people were buried alive in a mudslide while trying to pick fruit. Rescuers were kept busy by people stranded in danger zones, while a volunteer firefighter went missing during a rescue effort. What's more, some residents rejected rescue help because they mistakenly believed they would have to pay for the rescue costs.
All these are indications that many areas in Taiwan's disaster relief and prevention system still need improvement.
Because residents often ignore their own safety and put themselves in danger, causing a waste of disaster rescue resources, many people have recently advocated that those rescued be slapped with fines or charged rescue fees.
In fact, the Disaster Prevention and Relief Law (災害防救法) already endows the disaster rescue commander with considerable authority. He or she can levy massive fines as a means to persuade people to evacuate dangerous areas. Of course, the "user pays" principle -- the idea of asking people who have placed themselves in dangerous situations to pay for the rescue -- is also worth considering.
However, this author would like to warn that there are many variable factors in the above-mentioned measures. For example, disputes can easily break out over the standards used for fines and fees. Also, what should we do when the residents decline to be rescued? Or, if the residents say they are not paying, then are the rescuers to look on and not do their job? Even after regulations are set up, they may not be applicable to all cases in practice.
Above all, it is doubtful whether the "user pays" principle can be applied to the Disaster Prevention and Relief Act. Demanding payments from people who put themselves in dangerous situations seems to be a controversial issue.
In fact, policymakers can achieve the goal of minimizing disasters simply by focusing on prevention. Take organization issues, for example. The Disaster Prevention and Relief Law stipulates that the government should set up a Cabinet-level Disaster Prevention Commission. But the commission's work should not be limited to policy-making, supervision and inspection. It should also organize professional talent pools and carry out an all-round analysis of danger zones. Then it should announce the areas in danger of mudslides, rockfalls and flooding and with administrative coordination forcibly evacuate residents from the areas. Only then can we effectively prevent a repeat of incidents like the eight people being buried alive in Nantou County, or such as people insisting that they are staying on a sand dune and rejecting rescue help.
If the government wants to reorganize the National Fire Administration into a "Fire and Disaster Prevention and Rescue Administration," then we should raise the status of its director-general within the Disaster Prevention Commission. This will allow someone who is in charge of the actual implementation to promote policies.
During a visit to Japan, this author was surprised by the speed of personnel mobilization in that country's disaster relief and reconstruction work. The rescuers and engineers do not rely on orders from their superiors to mobilize. Instead, they are trained in normal times to know exactly what to do in which kind or level of disaster. Once a disaster occurs, rescuers take positions without any orders from above. They do not fall into disarray like headless chickens. This kind of mobilization relies on emergency response manuals meticulously prepared by all relevant agencies.
RSS