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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS