In the aftermath of the Mataian River (馬太鞍溪) barrier lake collapse in Hualien County, there were gaps and failures in the distribution of supplies, while delays led to boxed meals meant for victims and volunteers spoiling behind red tape. The problem stemmed from administrative inefficiency and flaws in the system’s design.
Commenting on the issue on a political talk show on Sept. 30, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Chung Pei-chun (鍾沛君) said: “Did any of them starve from not getting a boxed meal? No.”
Chung’s comment brings to mind the emperor from the Book of Jin (晉書), who asked: “Why don’t they eat meat gruel?” when told his subjects were suffering because of a famine. Its European analogue, “let them eat cake” from pre-revolutionary France, is, in the same way, symbolic of the ignorance of the powerful. These quotes are not remembered for causing the famines in question, but for exposing the severe disconnect between those in power and ordinary people.
Flood survivors in Hualien were not asking for cake, but a basic hot meal. To say that “no one died” and showing a total lack of remorse betray a chilling indifference.
After the flood, some people went for days with only steamed buns to eat, while volunteers worked into the night without a hot meal. This was not because no one cared, but because provisions had been held up by the local government. Even more people missed out when some local officials demanded that people show their ID to get a hot meal.
The central government provided supplies and resources, but the local government was busy stocktaking rather than distributing provisions to the front lines. When procedures take precedence over human lives, institutional rigidity becomes a secondary disaster.
The KMT has come to Chung’s defense. Instead of looking at the local government’s shortcomings, some KMT members have placed the blame squarely on the central government, saying that the problem lay with evacuation procedures going awry.
Amid this confusion, what the public sees is evasion rather than accountability. Even emperors would have faced condemnation from intellectuals and the public for this kind of sophistry. Yet, in today’s democratic age, where leaders no longer hold absolute power, there are still those who defend preposterous comments like this. Those defending Chung are not interested in serving and protecting the victims, but in holding on to power.
The danger in dismissing victims’ sufferings through throwaway statements like this is genuine hardship is being obscured by word games. The disaster zones, which should be receiving aid, are being used as a stage for political theater. The question is not whether anyone starved, but whether the systems functioned properly to serve those who needed them. Otherwise, we risk letting every natural disaster become a political showground, while those truly in need must sit and wait for the slow bureaucracy of aid to tick over.
Shen Yan is an amateur musician.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS