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
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
RSS