In an admirable opinion piece in the Taipei Times, Aletheia University associate law professor Wu Ching-chin (吳景欽) addressed the ruling in the 2014 Kaohsiung gas explosion case by the court of second instance from the perspective of the ability of juristic persons to have criminal responsibility (“Culpability for 2014 gas explosions,” May 2, page 8).
Wu said that the criminal responsibility of juristic persons in work-safety related projects should be resolved by the Supreme Court.
As a retired engineering professional, I feel that the ruling is a bit off the mark.
Just as the warranty for every product will expire at some point in time, every project has an end-of-life date. Even buildings made of rebar and concrete will fall and disappear because of erosion by wind and rain, and the onslaught of earthquakes and land subsidence. Common sense tells us that underground pipelines will corrode and crack, be crushed by vehicles or destroyed by earthquakes.
After nuclear power plants, the public infrastructures that have the most stringent demand for quality are reservoirs. The nation’s 95 reservoirs are managed by 15 different units. Some managers who place great importance on reservoir safety will make safety inspections every five years according to the regulations and follow up with any necessary improvements. Others are focused on expenses and delay as much as they possibly can.
The responsibility of the top management can therefore be determined by whether their subordinates have reported maintenance needs. If their subordinates have neglected to report such needs, top management would only have administrative responsibilities, but if the needs have been reported, they would be criminally responsible.
In the Kaohsiung gas explosion case, front-line workers and managers were responsible for maintaining the pipelines. Looking at fluctuations in pipeline pressure should have told them that the pipelines were leaking.
There are detailed general maintenance manuals stipulating when operations should be halted due to low pressure and how often parts should be replaced. If the manuals were followed, there would be no criminal responsibility, and if something is missing in the manuals, the staff writing and approving the manuals would have administrative responsibility.
Pipelines at petrochemical plants must be replaced at regular intervals. This raises a question: The pipeline that exploded in Kaohsiung had been in operation for more than 20 years — did the companies ever consider replacing it?
Public servants were indeed at fault, especially the supervisors. Why did they not consider moving the pipeline when the box culverts were being built? Their continued carelessness planted the seeds for the disaster, but maintenance was the direct cause — were there any regulations regarding maintenance of the pipeline and how often it should be replaced?
It is the on-site response that sets off an explosion: That a pipeline is broken does not mean that it will necessarily explode — gas companies’ pipelines often have leaks without exploding.
The court of second instance’s ruling means that, from now on, any time there is an accident at a public facility, no one will look into what maintenance and repairs should have been carried out. The design, construction and supervision that took place dozens of years ago will be investigated.
Anyone who has been involved in a public construction project, whether still active or retired, will rest uneasy.
Chang Yen-ming is a former director of the Water Resources Agency.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations