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.
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It
Former Japanese minister of defense Shigeru Ishiba has been elected as president of the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and would be approved as prime minister in parliament today. Ishiba is a familiar face for Taiwanese, as he has visited the nation several times. His popularity among Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers has grown as a result of his multiple meetings and encounters with legislators and prominent figures in the government. The DPP and the LDP have close ties and have long maintained warm relations. Ishiba in August 2020 praised Taiwan’s
On Thursday last week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued a well-researched report titled “The Widening Schism across the Taiwan Strait,” which focused on rising tensions between Taiwan and China, making a number of recommendations on how to avoid conflict. While it is of course laudable that a respected international organization such as the ICG is willing to think through possible avenues toward a peaceful resolution, the report contains a couple of fundamental flaws in the way it approaches the issue. First, it attempts to present a “balanced approach” by pushing back equally against Taiwan’s perceived transgressions as against Beijing’s military threats