Typhoon decisionmaking
Every time a typhoon makes landfall and it is not as bad as forecast, extra scrutiny is put on the decisionmaking standards of mayors and county heads.
Every time their decisions are called into question, they crumble under the pressure of public irritation and march the meteorological experts to the sacrificial altar, disingenuously blaming them for providing an inaccurate forecast.
Perhaps the reader can recall how initial forecasts pointed to Typhoon Krathon moving northward and then cutting across the sea to the east of Taiwan.
Afterward, the modeling forecast a westward drift followed by a turn north, making landfall in southern Taiwan, around Pingtung and Kaohsiung.
Weather forecasts are never 100 percent accurate. Typhoon paths can change, as can their strength and the volume of rain they bring.
The fact is, mayors and county heads do not call a typhoon day based solely on predictions of wind speed and rainfall.
Think about it. Is the Central Weather Administration responsible for deciding how many households need to be evacuated, how many people this would entail and what logistical effort would be needed to conduct the operation?
Is it responsible for calculating the financial loss or productivity loss that would result from a typhoon day?
Is it responsible for determining businesses’ cumulative expenses for each day that workers are asked to stay at home?
Is it responsible for making arrangements to drain the floodwater in every affected city, county or special municipality, or assessing how long it would take for the accumulated waters to recede?
Is it the administration’s job to deal with the aftermath once the typhoon has gone?
If we really want to put a stop to these recurring arguments about whether the mayors and county heads got the decision right, we should hold public hearings and invite experts to give their informed ideas on what should be done and why.
We should then determine a set of principles and standards for what necessitates calling a typhoon day, taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the weather forecast, disaster prevention, business costs and clean-up operations after the typhoon dissipates.
If local government heads are basing their decisions solely on forecast wind speeds and rainfall volume, what are we paying them for?
Chiang Chun-hung
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS