A natural disaster quickly reveals the true state of things. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of Tainan’s big earthquake. How much have we learned from the disaster response and the reconstruction process, and how many changes have we implemented because of those insights?
We have faltered this past year and things remain the same: a difficult-to-implement Disaster Prevention and Protection Act (災害防救法), an illogical disaster prevention and protection system, command systems lacking any concept of authority, a series of educational exercises lacking a scenario, partners that are unable to pull together, unclear rights and responsibilities and drills that are carried out annually without any sense of urgency.
Issues such as forward-looking strategic goals, learning from experience, vertical and horizontal communication and coordination, division of responsibilities among those affected, professional management, core governmental values and beliefs are rarely taken seriously. Any talk about earthquake epicenters, excessive development, the tolerance levels of local resources or loads exceeding the environmental carrying capacity are treated as alarmist.
Disasters are a reflection of imbalance between humans and the environment; they are a reflection of social problems and a response to the intent of decisionmakers.
The National Development Council has clearly pointed out the trend toward a declining population and that urban development plans already far exceeds actual demand. Despite that, great expectations have been placed on land development to boost the economy. The government brings forward a never-ending series of plans and projects, resulting in the development of areas that should not be developed, reducing water and soil-retention areas, while neglecting the different types and potential for disaster when determining different focal points for different periods based on feasibility studies, site selection, planning, design, maintenance and management.
Following a disaster, the politically and socially vicious circles once again come into play as blame is assigned and people and organizations struggle for power, sometimes attacking those who hold differing opinions and focus on exploiting the problem at hand rather than working to find ways to avoid future disasters. During this process, high-risk groups or people living in areas with a high potential of natural disasters are ignored. However, disaster management is never about assigning blame, nor should it be about political infighting.
In disaster politics, a disaster site might be a place of grief for residents, but politicians secretly rejoice at having been given a stage. Politicians think about nothing but politics, but they lack political courage. They defer to experts, but do not respect their expertise. Government leaders at different levels have almost never received any command training and most of what they know about disaster management is experience based. Still, when disaster strikes, they take the commander’s seat without being able to grasp the details of the situation. They are unaware of what resources remain and where they are and even create the illusion that only their superiors can provide them. Perhaps driven by populism or the media, government leaders always hurry to visit a disaster area during the early response period, although this is abhorred by disaster relief workers. Is it really absolutely necessary that a government leader visit to manage the situation? Not if you ask frontline emergency management workers.
During the emergency period, experts are the only ones who can help reduce the number of casualties. Taiwan has always treated every disaster as an “incident,” but no concern is ever given to the people handling these incidents. Emergency management experts are under tremendous pressure and they also have to overcome mental pressure and the heavy toll on their physical strength and endurance.
Based on both the spirit of responsibility sharing and the financial pressure posed by a disaster relief budget that exceeds US$5 billion per year, the US’ Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning to increase the California Government’s financial burden for disaster relief management and is requiring that state and local governments implement specific disaster prevention measures known as “disaster deductibles” before they can apply for federal aid. This is intended to instill the concept that all disasters are local. At the same time, a focus is placed on the training of disaster management staff and fostering a sense of duty, thus further reinforcing the understanding that disaster management is people management.
Few resources are allocated to emergency management expertise in Taiwan, and emergency management personnel have to endure staggering accusations. People demand that water and electricity be restored as a disaster is ongoing and forget that workers are facing high risks to their own safety. Once a disaster has passed, people wait for the military or government agencies to clean up their backyard and display a complete lack of understanding of responsibility sharing.
Emergency management personnel are a resource who represent public funds. In recent years, the number of experienced frontline emergency response personnel has decreased and this creates a vicious circle that makes it even more difficult to accumulate the necessary experience.
The public might have a short-term outlook on things, but the government must have a long-term vision. From the perspective of disaster management professionals, we want to use reconstruction as an opportunity to reduce the risk of future disasters while reviewing past measures.
If we cannot learn from past experience, we have to go through the same thing over again. If we do not start solving issues using a comprehensive system framework, reconstruction and rebuilding will continue in the same way.
Hopefully decisionmakers can learn that it is only by understanding underlying causes and crucial issues that Taiwan can be made a safer place.
Wang Jieh-jiuh is a professor of architecture at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs