For a mere tropical storm, Mindulle brought considerable rain. Once again the people suf-
fered and everyone from students taking the university entrance examinations to landslide victims will blame the government. Whoever is to blame, taxpayers have the right to hold the government responsible.
During this disaster we saw none of the inertia or passing of the buck that we saw among government officials at the time of the Pachang Creek tragedy. Members of the central government traveled to inspect affected areas, and though there were complaints that legislators from different parties were not given equal opportunity to visit, and though there was anger over Minister of the Interior Su Jia-chyuan's (
Su's comments are not what one would expect from an elected official, but we could also question the wisdom of agreeing to provide cash relief upon mere inspection of burst embankments without having more detailed information. Naturally, such relief was exactly what local residents and officials wanted -- government officials happily promising subsidies after seeing the disaster with their own eyes.
This calamity, however, has brought to light serious problems in the way the government makes decisions. It is not the slow reactions of a handful of politicians; it is problems with thinking and the system.
According to Taipower, several hydroelectric power plants along the Tachia River were damaged, with the cost estimated at NT$3 billion (US$88.9 million). The total cost of the damage was NT$10 billion. This amount is equal to one-sixtieth of the proposed budget for military purchases from the US, an expenditure that has stirred up controversy.
In light of the 921 Earthquake and Typhoon Toraji, why didn't Taipower prepare for a potential expenditure of NT$10 billion, knowing that another disaster could strike at any time?
In the aftermath of Mindulle's flooding, some officials in water resource agencies talking privately to the press have criticized the continued application of ecological engineering in areas affected by the 921 Earthquake, saying it has contributed to the landslides. This is very interesting indeed. Post-921 reconstruction has been going on for over four years. Has the lid been kept on criticism of eco-engineering, or have those that oppose it been guilty of dereliction of duty?
The public may not understand the pros and cons of eco-engineering, but can't we rest easy that the government gave it careful consideration before deciding to pursue it? Or could it be that the Ministry of the Interior failed to solicit expert advice?
It also could be that the fault does not lie in eco-engineering, but that some people who do not agree with the concept are using the situation as an opportunity to stir things up.
The College Entrance Examination Center, in explaining why it had vacillated about how to handle the examinations, said that this was the first typhoon situation it had dealt with and that it did not have a precedent to follow. More importantly, however, the center resorted to appeals of "fairness" that were in fact unfair, while educational reformers were complaining about the excessive influence of exams on education and were calling for more diversified enrollment procedures.
In the wake of Mindulle we have not had particular people blamed for deaths, as in the Pachang Creek tragedy. What we have had, however, is amateurism and a lack of accountability within the government as a whole and in the thinking that informs decision-making.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry