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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS