On Feb. 12, a magnitude 4 earthquake hit northern Taiwan. Since the quake’s epicenter was in Taipei’s Shilin District (士林), a rare occurrence, and occurred after midnight, it caused much public panic. The Ministry of the Interior therefore re-emphasized that 66,000 old buildings in the city have poor earthquake resistance, taking this opportunity to promote urban renewal for the sake of disaster prevention.
The problem is that since the Geology Act (地質法) was passed in late 2010, the government has used the excuse that it is trying to stabilize the real-estate market and avoid creating public panic to ignore Article 5 of the act, which states: “The central competent authority shall publicly announce areas with special geologic scenery, special geological environments, or potential geological hazards to be geologically sensitive areas.”
Why is the government only promoting urban renewal focused on disaster prevention? Is it helping construction companies to profit through urban renewal of old buildings with a low floor-area ratio?
There were many explanations as to the cause of the earthquake. Although the Central Weather Bureau immediately said that the quake was a stress adjustment that occurred as a result of lava cooling, most academics and experts disagreed, because the bureau did not provide concrete data to back up its statement. Disaster prevention is crucial to the safety of Taiwanese lives and wealth, and it is therefore a matter of great significance. However, it is necessary to clarify the causes of disasters so that the government can adapt its response correctly.
Whenever an earthquake has occurred in recent years, the government has tried to promote urban renewal to improve disaster prevention, targeting old buildings with a low floor-area ratio.
Looking back at the magnitude 7.3 921 Earthquake on Sept. 21, 1999, and the magnitude 6.8 earthquake on March 31, 2002, they both caused serious damage across the nation. Further examination of the types of buildings that collapsed or were damaged in the earthquakes, especially old buildings in Taipei and New Taipei City, found that most damaged buildings were 10 to 20 years old, with 10 to 14 stories. On the contrary, the ministry claimed that 30-to-50-year-old buildings were in most need of urban renewal to improve disaster prevention, but such buildings actually had better earthquake resistance since they were lower and usually built side-by-side. As a result, the damage to such buildings was insignificant.
Urban renewal to improve disaster prevention should be supported. As Article 7 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) clearly states, to prevent major disasters, “The municipal, county [city] authority should designate the renewal area based on the existing situation to draw or revise the urban renewal plan.”
The act serves as the legal basis for urban renewal for disaster prevention. The problem is that we do not know in which areas natural disasters are more likely to strike.
Obviously, the basis for evaluating this issue lies in the geographic conditions of an area, instead of the age of a building. Take the Taipei 101 building for example: If we move the building to the top of the Chelungpu (車籠埔) fault in central Taiwan, even a strong building like that would be unable to withstand a big earthquake capable of moving a mountain. For example, the almost century-old Presidential Office Building withstood both earthquakes better than all the 10-to-20-year-old buildings. It is thus evident that the age of a building is not the problem.
It could be a problem if a building is poorly constructed with inferior materials, but the real problem still lies in the geographic conditions of the area.
Under such circumstances, if the government truly and sincerely wants to protect lives and wealth rather than enrich construction companies, the Cabinet should first urge the Ministry of Economic Affairs to publicly announce geologically sensitive areas promptly in accordance with Article 5 of the Geology Act. Next, local governments should designate renewal areas in accordance with Article 7 of the Urban Renewal Act — especially geologically sensitive areas with larger concentrations of buildings. The government should also take the lead in planning for large-scale public urban renewal projects to win public trust. By doing so, it would be able to avoid criticism.
Chan Shun-kuei is a lawyer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers