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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS