In response to the drought, the Cabinet set up a drought disaster relief center in accordance with Article 13 of the Disaster Preven-tion and Rescue Law (災害防救法). Kuo Yao-chi (郭瑤琪) was appointed executive-general of the cen-ter. If the drought is followed by heavy rain and mudslides, an earthquake, a forest fire or an early typhoon, should the drought disaster relief center change its name to mudslide, earthquake, fire or typhoon relief center? Should the premier appoint different executive-generals for the center depending on the type of disaster?
This is a bizarre, but serious, issue that needs to be faced. Because the central government does not have a permanent disaster contingency center, it can only set up separate task forces, dividing the relief work according to the expertise and functions of different government agencies. Therefore, the central government is very likely to adopt a case-by-case contingency model -- by setting up separate centers for different types of disaster and appointing different people to head each center.
Such a system is dangerous. If two disasters occur simultaneously, such as a major earthquake in the middle of a drought, the government will have to set up two contingency centers and appoint two directors. This not only makes coordination difficult, but is also incompatible with the all-round disaster contingency models of advanced countries.
Regardless of the type of disaster, there should be only one contingency center and only one commander. This would help cultivate professional and experienced disaster management personnel, who would always be ready to respond. It would also have the effect of coordinating resources and accumulating experience.
Taiwan is a high-risk society where natural and man-made disasters can occur anytime. The handling of major disasters invariably depends on the ability of disaster management personnel to take charge of the overall situation. If we adopt case-by-case stopgap measures to handle disasters, the consequences could be unthinkable.
Chiou Chang-tay is director of the Research Center for Public Opinion and Election Studies at National Taipei University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS