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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS