National Fire Agency statistics show that from 2012 to 2016, there were 8,002 fires in Taiwan, or an average of 1,600 per year. These disasters resulted in 644 deaths and left 1,713 people injured. These numbers include 23 dead and 443 injured firefighters.
Many disasters were followed by waves of protests against illegal structures, low hazard pay and a shortage of police officers and firefighters, but no fundamental solutions were ever offered, such as addressing the shortage of firefighters or providing additional training. This is why these figures remain high.
Take the flaws in fire safety regulations for example: The system and framework of the Fires Services Act (消防法) are based on the Japanese Fire Service Act, but Taiwan’s version has only 46 articles, plus 30 articles in the Enforcement Rules of Fire Services Act (消防法施行細則), compared with Japan’s 257.
One can only guess what this drastic contrast means. For example, take the most important chapter, Fire Prevention, listed as Chapter II by both countries in their respective acts.
The Taiwanese act follows Japan’s when it comes to the obligations of a building administrator, certification of fire safety equipment and qualifications of fire protection equipment engineers. However, it completely overlooks the fire prevention administrations’ management obligations and their rights to enforce measures when there is a risk, unlike the Japanese version, which in Section 2 of Article 3 states: “When a fire chief or fire station chief is unable to identify the owner, manager or possessor, who holds title, of an object that is found to be dangerous from a fire prevention perspective or an object that is found to be likely to hinder fire extinguishing activities, evacuation and other fire defense activities, and therefore unable to order those persons to take any necessary measures [...], he/she may have his/her fire defense personnel take the measures listed in item (iii) or item (iv) of the preceding paragraph with regard to said object, at the expense of said person.”
The Taiwanese act puts the burden of fire prevention solely on a building’s administrator and fire protection equipment engineers, while fire prevention units and central regulatory authorities are only obliged to review and examine a building’s design for fire prevention purposes, passively conduct rescue missions only after a disaster happens and write an evaluation report afterwards.
Taiwan’s version also leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to dangerous substances that are regulated by fire prevention legislation. Article 2 of the Public Hazardous Substances and Flammable Pressurized Gases Establishment Standards and Safety Control Regulations (公共危險物品及可燃性高壓氣體設置標準暨安全管理辦法) stipulates that, when applicable, the establishment standards governing “location, construction and equipment of the places for manufacturing, storage or process of public hazardous materials and flammable pressurized gases; as well as safety control of their storage, process and handling shall be provided according to the Regulations, with the exception that if the applicability of the Regulations really presents certain difficulties, when proved by substantial evidences, in terms of purpose of the place, special construction, or any technology, work method, structure or equipment introduced with efficacy equivalent to or better than that specified in the Regulations, and the exemption of this Article has been approved by the central regulating authorities.”
Given constant technological advances, it is necessary to make conditional stipulations for special sites or structures or higher efficiencies, but exceptions can only be made — as stipulated in Article 2 — “if the applicability of the Regulations really presents certain difficulties.”
In plain language, this means that even if there is a better and more effective fire safety method, it cannot be implemented if existing regulations can be applied.
The explanation of the amendment to the regulation refers to Article 23 of Japan’s Cabinet Order Concerning the Control of Hazardous Materials, which stipulates that the provisions of Chapter 3 (Standards for location, construction and equipment for manufacturing facilities, etc.) do not apply “when the municipal mayor, etc. approves that the risk of the break out or spread of a fire is extremely low and the damage due to a disaster, such as a fire, etc., can be contained to a minimum without relying on the standards for the location, construction and equipment of manufacturing facilities, etc. stipulated in the provisions of Chapter 3 based on a judgement on the types and maximum quantities of the hazardous materials, the multiple of the specified quantity, the storing or handling methods of the hazardous materials and the topography, other conditions around the manufacturing facilities, etc. and others or approve that effects equivalent to or higher than the case relying on the standards for the location, construction and equipment of manufacturing facilities, etc. pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3 are achieved by the use of an unexpected special construction or equipment.”
Japan clearly thinks that as long as special structures, equipment, technology or construction methods are superior to the requirements of the law, the application of the base regulations can be excluded. However, Taiwan’s restrictive law seems to imply that the legislature refuses to modernize its way of thinking.
These issues are only two instances of structural flaws in the Fire Services Act. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are far too many shortcomings to list them all.The public should pay closer attention to the flaws in local fire safety regulations and push for improvements that would lead to fewer disasters.
Huang Jen-an is president of the CTW Culture and Education Foundation.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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 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
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95