Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths.
Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate.
The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure was further dissipated by mountainous topography the same day.
Work and classes were canceled in southern Taiwan on Tuesday, in all cities and counties in the nation on Wednesday and Thursday, and only in Kaohsiung, Pingtung County and a few mountainous areas on Friday.
However, on Wednesday and Thursday, the local governments of Taipei, New Taipei City, Keelung and Taoyuan jointly called typhoon days despite the regions having only intermittent bursts of heavy winds and scattered showers, leading some to question or criticize the decision to cancel school and work.
Chinese-language Formosa News in a report estimated that the economic cost per day of a national shutdown was about NT$31.5 billion (US$986 million) per day, not including losses from the stock market shutdown.
The report also cited Lin Por-fong (林伯豐), chairman of the Third Wednesday Club, the membership of which is limited to the top 100 firms in each business sector, as saying that many factories have to continue operating on typhoon days, meaning workers would be paid extra, so “the decision of calling typhoon days off must be made carefully, not only for political considerations.”
Lin’s remark triggered mixed responses on social media. Some agreed with his concern about companies’ extra expenditure, while others criticized the companies for prioritizing profits over safety.
However, some said the mayors in northern Taiwan’s decision to call a typhoon day was motivated by politics, to endear themselves with city residents and secure potential votes.
The mayors of the four cities said their decision was based on the CWA’s weather forecast and they acted out of precaution to protect people’s safety.
The CWA was also criticized by many people for their “inaccurate” forecasts.
In response, the CWA on Friday said autumn typhoons are more difficult to predict, but its forecasts were as scientifically accurate as possible and updated every three hours.
It also said that Typhoon Krathon was “rare.” It is the first typhoon in 47 years to make landfall in Kaohsiung and had the longest ever interval — four days and four hours — between the release of a sea warning and when the typhoon made landfall.
Voicing a different opinion, Fubon Group chairman Daniel Tsai (蔡明忠) on Friday said typhoon days off also contributed to the economy, as department stores, karaoke bars and movie theaters in northern Taiwan were filled with people, and allowed people to rest and restore their homes, so company owners should be more tolerant.
As Taiwan experiences an average of three to four typhoons each year, controversies about whether local governments’ decisions to call a typhoon day are politically motivated or simply based on scientific data would likely continue.
However, the discussions would be more constructive if they went beyond the simple dichotomy of “right or wrong,” and instead focused on how to scientifically improve forecasts and minimize damage, especially as extreme weather events would become more frequent or intense due to climate change.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS