Yet another air disaster has shown that aviation safety in Taiwan has not improved. For many years, I have viewed aviation safety from the perspective of cultural conflict. Improvements in a company's management can be effective and can bring immediate results. I believe, however, that the way to make fundamental improvements in aviation safety is to foster greater compatibility between Chinese culture and Western aviation technology.
Civil aviation is a typical high-risk technology. An organization must adopt certain behavioral traits in order to handle high-risk technologies safely and effectively. In the West, for example, professional independence is assigned to any indispensable item. When anyone in an organization discovers a safety threat, he or she has the power to stop things. Such behavioral traits are a fine example of Western individualism and the rule of law.
When we introduce behavior based on basic Western cultural assumptions -- as well as its derivative concepts of training, operation and management of high-risk technologies, we must go through a long period of conflict, learning and adaptation. If we cannot see these essential differences clearly, the learning curve will be greatly lengthened.
To reduce such conflicts among aviation personnel, shorten the period of adaptation and save lives, we must clearly understand the behavioral, psychological and cultural traits of our aviation personnel, as well as how these traits interact with Western aviation systems. We should then set up related databases, which would serve as the basis for the company's pursuit of effective management. They would also be a source of reference for Western aircraft manufacturers when they design their planes.
Only after such information has been fully established will any fundamental change be possible in aviation safety. At present, however, who better than the National Science Council to coordinate collaborative efforts on the part of academia and industry to improve the compatibility between Western aviation technology and Taiwan's culture and society?
Jing Hung-sying is a professor in the department of aeronautics and astronautics at National Cheng Kung University.
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