The Ministry of the Interior’s Construction and Planning Agency has just announced the results of the classification of hillside communities, with 509 locations nationwide now officially on an unsafe watch list. Of these, New Taipei City has the most — 109 — of any city or county, and nine of these were classed as level A, the highest risk level, but just how relevant is this watch list?
The agency expects people to seek out this information by themselves. What is it thinking? Does “public safety” not mean anything to the agency?
The agency has only announced the classification results, but has not identified the potentially unsafe hillside communities by name because it does not want to affect property values.
Can we be sure that the agency’s information is accurate, given that certain properties have been on the watch list for over a decade, despite weathering typhoons and heavy storms and remaining seemingly unscathed?
Also, it seems that these “unsafe” communities are simply put on the watch list, but nothing is done to address the problems.
Under pressure to announce this data about the unsafe communities, the agency is acting like the proverbial ostrich with its head firmly in the sand, and it is not being serious enough about measures to improve the safety of these properties.
The agency’s classification results are based upon a preliminary visual inspection form drawn up more than a decade ago. Far from involving a first-hand safety inspection of the actual communities, it is simply a set of results based entirely on the subjective deliberations of inspectors derived using incomplete survey data and a poorly devised evaluation system.
Even more worrying is that the publishing of these results will not only provoke an uproar, but will also turn the government and the hillside community disaster prevention field into an international laughing stock.
There is also a great deal of confusion around how communities come to be put on the official watch list.
In the wake of the 1997 Lincoln Mansions (林肯大郡) collapse in what is now New Taipei City, local governments nationwide put hillside communities that have been assessed onto watch lists if they are thought to be unsafe.
However, communities developed over the past 10 years, or those without management committees, can fall through the gaps in the system, and it is sometimes unclear whether they have actually been inspected firsthand using the current inspection form.
In addition, communities are removed from the watch list once the initial questions over their safety have been addressed, but the local geological and topographical conditions of these hillside areas could still change in the wake of a torrential rain or an earthquake. So does that mean that just because a community has been removed from the danger watch list that it can be deemed perfectly safe?
It is no easy task, deciding the level of risk to assign to hillside communities, but if the authorities think that they have done their duty simply by occasionally announcing the existence of a danger, then there is little to distinguish these officials from the pests that destroy the trees in the national parks.
The government should pay attention to the opinions of land conservation experts, and allow civil servants who actually understand land conservation to draw up policies, instead of having a bunch of politicians, who thought Beyond Beauty: Taiwan from Above was fascinating, make a mess of things and place people in danger.
Johnson Kung is chairman of the Engineers Times, published by the Taiwan Professional Civil Engineers’ Association.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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