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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS