Work and classes across the nation were canceled for two or three consecutive days last week, depending on the particular area, as Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southern Taiwan.
Typhoon days are controversial. Some think it affects productivity and the economy and therefore it would be preferable if calling a typhoon day would be made much more cautiously. Some think that a day off work and school brings a little joy, and it is not a big deal to do so.
Others say that typhoon days potentially deprive people requiring treatment of their right to receive medical care and students of their right to education. Some in the retail and service industries complain about “differential treatment,” as they do not get a day off even on a typhoon day.
The problem is that people’s opinions about typhoon days are often not based on whether they prevent disasters and casualties.
The above debate demonstrates that there is room for a rolling review of the typhoon day policy.
First, when deciding on whether to call a typhoon day, local governments should consider including an indicator of the potential harm a typhoon could bring.
Second, the government should provide support measures and eliminate unfair or unreasonable regulations.
It is not up to government heads to declare a typhoon day. Whether to cancel work and classes depends on if the predicted wind speed and rainfall meet the requirements.
As of 9pm Wednesday, there were two dead, two missing, and 102 injured, according to data provided by the Central Emergency Operation Center.
It is not clear if the casualties were related to the typhoon day policy. If so, the current policy should be maintained. Iif not, it should be amended, reviewed or canceled.
One of the dead was a truck driver whose vehicle collided with a large rock on the South Link Highway in Taimali Township (太麻里) at around 7pm on Monday last week. He was seriously injured and died three days later.
The Taitung County Government had already canceled work and classes by that time.
It is not clear if the driver was aware of the typhoon day announcement. It is also not clear that the cancellation was related to this incident, and whether there was any policy, either a deterrent or an incentive, that would have affected his decision to continue working.
The other person who died was a man in his 70s who fell to his death at about 11am on Tuesday while trimming a tree at his home in Shoufeng Township (壽豐).
Was his death related to the typhoon day policy? It is likely not. If this is the case, the authorities should improve their messaging to better inform the public about their policy decisions.
The scenarios in which these people died show that the declaration of a typhoon day is hardly relevant.
It is high time to review the policy on a rolling basis.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor of political science at National Cheng Kung University and an adviser to the Tainan City Government’s disaster prevention advisory cmmittee.
Translated by Fion Khan
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