If you were the owner of property built on or located at the bottom of a dip slope, wouldn’t you want to be informed about the probability of massive landslides that could put your safety and that of your loved ones at risk?
Some people would actually prefer not to be told, because that knowledge could have a negative impact on the valuation of their property and, if made public, could affect their chances of selling their property. Such people — call them penny pinchers — put their pocket book ahead of personal safety.
Let’s ask the question again, with a few modifications.
If you were the owner of property built on or located at the bottom of a dip slope, would you be at ease if friends who paid you a visit while you’re not home, or those who purchased and moved into your property, were buried in a landslide?
Most of us would feel guilty, even if the landslide were a natural disaster.
Still, some would again answer in the negative. While this may sound cold-hearted, it is nevertheless not illegal, as there are no laws prohibiting people from being cold-hearted.
Like cases involving drunk driving, however, putting your life or that of others at risk through negligence should be considered a criminal offense.
When the government uses fluctuations in property value as an excuse not to make public information about residences built on dangerous slopes, it is being hypocritical and irresponsible, or siding with construction companies by toying with innocent people’s lives.
This may not be a clear-cut case, but in all matters, priority should be given to human life.
What is also disturbing is that after the Sept. 21, 1999, earthquake, some legislators called on the government to make this type of information public.
To date, those efforts have proven fruitless.
A government of and for the people shouldn’t shirk its responsibility on minimizing the risk to the lives of its citizens — even if it is within one’s constitutional right to reside in a community that is located on or near a dangerous slope.
When the Taipei City Government discovered that 30 of 135 apartment complexes located on the city’s 20,000 slopes are built on dangerous dip slopes, it should have intervened immediately and refused to grant licenses to land developers or construction companies. Doing so would have saved a lot of money and prevented the development of potentially deadly property projects.
Furthermore, even local governments that have only recently realized the potential lethality of dip slopes to residential projects should be held accountable. Post-facto knowledge notwithstanding, construction licenses were granted and whoever seeks compensation from the government should have their wish granted when nature strikes.
Neither red tape, lack of initial information nor business interests or any other consideration can be placed ahead of human life. Outdated regulations should be amended as soon as possible so that the information that construction firms and residents need to make the proper assessments regarding a location’s safety is available to them — and made public — before a catastrophe occurs.
Once again, it took a disaster to make debate on that matter a hot issue. Thus is human nature. In the name of those who died on the Formosa Freeway, let us use this wake-up call to once and for all fix the system and make this country safer for all.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under