Culture and safety
Jing Hung-sying's (景鴻鑫) com-mentary, ("Aviation safety is a question of culture," May 31, page 12), speaks at length about the role of culture conflict as being a primary factor for China Airline's pitiful aviation safety record. He suggests that the National Science Council "coordinate collaborative efforts on the part of academia and industry to improve the compatibility between Western aviation technology and Taiwan's culture and society."
As we observe, EVA airlines has a fine aviation safety record. Other than simply impaneling another committee from academia and industry, perhaps the enigmatic "powers that be" should swiftly act on the recommendation of previous committees and hasten China Airlines privatization.
If "culture" is primarily responsible for China Airlines' state of affairs, in the interim, the company might consider such heretical notions as developing case studies based on EVA airlines, requesting its assistance, or consider attracting EVA talent as a means to overhaul its performance -- actions any responsible author-ity would seriously consider.
Stephen E. Hoover
Miaoli
Jing Hung-sying is exactly right in attributing safety to culture. In another high-risk industry -- nuclear power -- a strong culture is directly correlated with improvements in, and maintenance of safe operations. In the US we use a Culture Index to determine the degree to which an organization has a strong safety culture. This index is highly correlated to positive
regulatory assessments, reductions in human error and overall safe operations.
Components of the Culture Index include quantification of five key elements: strong mission and goals, simple work practices, solid knowledge and skills, a well-developed self-improvement program and effective internal communications. Jing's editorial touched on virtually all of these critical components -- operation and management, training, and "professional independence."
Dan Lyons
Chicago, Illinois
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