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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of