Is Evacuating 50,000 Townfolk ridiculous?

Is Evacuating 50,000 Townfolk ridiculous?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 12, 2009

In one particular county, Typhoon Morakot buried an entire town. The county executive later said that evacuating several towns would have been a major undertaking involving 40,000 to 50,000 people. What official, he asked, would have the temerity to evacuate an entire town based on a 1000 mm rainfall forecast?
One newspaper spoke out on his behalf. Its headline read "Ridiculous!"

This editorial examines how the minds of people in office think. We have no desire to become caught up in a war of words. Although everyone knows which county executive we are referring to, he will nevertheless remain nameless. Allow us to engage in a little Monday morning quarterbacking. The town has already been buried under a mountain of mud. The tragedy has already occurred. But suppose this county executive had decided to evacuate the town, and significantly reduced the number of fatalities that followed, would his evacuation still be characterized as "ridiculous?"

The public watches television. It has seen how officials in the southern United States evacuate entire populations as a result of hurricane forecasts. Often the evacuation takes place one or two days before the hurricane strikes. The skies are completely clear. But the highway leading out of the city is backed up for miles. The car tops are piled high with valuables. Tell us, is the sight of millions of people evacuating a city under completely clear skies ridiculous?

One must not of course be too hard on that particular county executive. When hurricanes strike the United States, entire towns and entire cities are often wiped out. Taiwan has not experienced such a tragedy in several decades. In the mind of the county executive, an entire town being wiped out was inconceivable. Naturally evacuating an entire town never even occurred to him. The county government probably didn't even have procedures in place for the evacuation, rescue, and resettlement of tens of thousands of residents. Even if the county executive had decided to evacuate, persuading the villagers would have been no easy task. Perhaps this is what the county executive meant when he said "What official would have the temerity to evacuate an entire town based on a 1000 mm rainfall forecast?"

On the other hand, Taiwan is such a tiny island. In the face of devastating natural disasters, the president and premier are for all practical purposes, county executives and city mayors. County executives and city mayors are for all practical purposes, village and borough chiefs. County magistrates and city mayors have responsibilities for disaster prevention and response that they cannot shirk. As for the cases cited above, they cannot blame tardy weather forecasts. After all, the Central Weather Bureau increased its rainfall forecast for the county in question to over 1000 mm that same day. During such emergencies, county executives have been effectively demoted to the level of village and borough chiefs. They must be alert to the region's soil and water conditions. They must bear greater responsibility and authority for typhoon risk assessment than local residents. If a county executive does not dare to evacuate when the forecast is 1000 mm of rainfall, how about when the forecast is 2000 mm of rainfall? Is this a lack of courage? Or is it a lack of intelligence or ability?

Besides, Kaohsiung County, Pingtung County, and Taitung County officials, to their regret, were also late to evacuate. Why was Tainan City able to make the bold decision to evacuate? Did Mayor Hsu Tien-tsai make a sacrifice to the gods?

After the painful lesson of the 8/8 Flood, officials must change their thinking. The keyword in meteorology today is "extreme weather." It refers to causeless, random, "off the chart" numbers. As noted earlier, for county executives, the notion that an entire town could be wiped out was inconceivable. That is why they considered evacuation of an entire town ridiculous. But today "extreme weather" is the norm. Officials must have the courage to make bold decisions. This applies not merely to disaster response strategies. It applies especially to future hydrological projects, whether they take into account "extreme weather" conditions. For example, can the town be promptly evacuated? If the town can not be evacuated, can one order the ground floors cleared, allowing the flood waters to wash through? Such schemes may sound "ridiculous" on Taiwan. But they are commonplace throughout areas prone to flooding in Southeast Asia. Otherwise, if one merely rebuilds in the same location, only to be flooded again next year, wouldn't that be even more "ridiculous?"

Furthermore, the role of officials must change. As pointed out earlier, when a major disaster occurs on the island of Taiwan, the president becomes a county executive or city mayor. County executives and city mayors become village and borough chiefs. Village and borough chiefs become scouts at the point. Normally the primary responsibility for water and soil conservation rests with county and city governments. In the event of a disaster, someone must decide whether to evacuate. The responsibility must fall on the shoulders of county executives and city mayors, and not officials at other levels. During past typhoons, we have seen county executives and city mayors go door to door urging residents to evacuate. This time, county executives and city mayors should reflect on their failure to respond in a timely manner. They can hardly excuse themselves by claiming that decisive action would have been "ridiculous." They should recall television images of officials in the United States evacuating entire cities!

Heaven and earth have no compassion, and regard the people as straw dogs (sacrificial beasts). Officials are unwise, and regard the people as straw dogs. The public detests officials who pass the buck back and forth in an attempt to disown responsibility. The entire government, from the central government level to the village level, should learn from its mistakes, and engage in thorough introspection. Since weather changes are so "ridiculous," future national safety, water and soil conservation, ecological protection, urban and regional infrastructure, disaster prevention and response measures must be expanded and upgraded. Independence, courage, and vision are needed to build a new, ecologically sound Taiwan.

要撤離五萬鄉民！很荒謬？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.12 05:16 am

莫拉克颱風使某縣發生「滅村」的慘劇。事後，縣長說，將幾個鄉撤離是四、五萬人口的大事，有哪個官員膽敢在預報一千公釐雨量時就全鄉撤離？

一家報紙的標題為縣長出氣，對撤鄉的主張加上「很荒謬」三個字。

本文在探討權力思維，不願捲入政治口水；雖可能眾人皆知所指何縣，但仍姑隱其名。事後諸葛亮，如今既已發生滅村的慘劇，這位縣長若能反省當初的決策思維，會不會仍認為倘若當時決定全鄉撤離而能大幅減低災情，還是「很荒謬」的事？

國人常在電視上看到美國南部因預報颶風而全城撤離的景象。往往是在颶風來襲前一二日，晴空萬里，但在出城的高速公路上撤離的車龍已是迤邐數十公里，車頂堆滿細軟家當。你說：這種幾百萬人在晴空下撤離的景觀，荒謬不荒謬？

但也不能過責那位縣長，美國常在颶風季發生滅鎮、滅城的事，而台灣畢竟已幾十年未發生滅村慘事。在縣長腦際既無滅村的圖像，當然也不易出現撤鄉的決策思維，說不定縣政府更從來沒有同時撤離數萬居民的救難安置方案；何況，即使當時縣長作了撤離的決策，要說服鄉民撤離亦非易事。這或許就是縣長說「有哪個官員膽敢在預報一千公釐雨量時就全鄉撤離」的道理。

不過，話說回頭，在台灣這麼一個小島上，面對慘重天災地變之時，總統及行政院長就變成了縣市長，而縣市長就變成了鄉里長；縣市長在防災救災上的決策判斷，實有其無可推諉的責任。以本文所舉之例而言，恐怕不宜推說氣象預報遲誤，畢竟當日中央氣象局早將該縣的預報值推至一千公釐以上，而此時角色變成「鄉里長」的縣長，對境內水土環境的脆弱程度，理應有比現地居民更具風險評估的責任及權力；若謂縣長「不膽敢」在一千公釐時決定撤離，難道在二千公釐也「不膽敢」？這究竟是「不膽敢」，或無知而無能？

何況，高雄縣、屏東縣及台東縣等皆有遲誤撤離的遺憾，但為何台南市卻能果斷撤離？市長許添財難道是向天公借膽？

經歷這次八八水災的慘痛教訓，官員的思維必須改變。現在氣象學的關鍵字是「極端氣象」，這就是無理可尋、隨時皆可出現「破表」數據的意思。前文言，正因縣長腦中沒有「滅村」的圖像，所以會認為撤鄉是荒謬的；但是，如今「極端氣象」的變化既是「荒謬」無常，則官員就必須有果斷決策的「膽識」。這非但是指災難發生時應變策略的拿捏，尤是指未來水土建設的規劃更不能不將「極端氣象」的變數計算在內。例如，頻災區能否斷然遷村？倘若不能遷村，能不能下令將一樓淨空，供洪汛來去之用？這種方案，在台灣聽起來「荒謬」，卻普遍行諸東南亞的洪汛區。否則，就地重建，明年再淹，豈不更「荒謬」？

再者，官員的角色也要改變。前文指出，在台灣這個小島上，大災難發生時，總統變成縣市長，縣市長就變成鄉里長，鄉里長則變成尖兵斥候。平常水土保育的主要責任在縣市政府；遇災時撤不撤離，責任也絕對是在縣市長，不會在其他層級。過去，我們也看過縣市長在颱風來襲時，親自一家一家挨戶敲門勸居民撤離者；因而，此次發生遲誤，相關縣市長理當反省愧咎，豈能以當時不敢作出「荒謬決策」來自我開脫？回憶一下美國晴空撤城的電視鏡頭吧！

天地不仁以萬物為芻狗，官員不智以百姓為芻狗。國人十分厭惡官員相互推諉卸責；整個政府，從中央到村里，皆應痛定思痛，深切反省改進。當氣象的變化既是如此「荒謬」，未來在國土保安、水土維護、生態保育、都市及社區建設、防災救災等種種政策施為上，皆應放大尺度、提升高度，以超然與遠見的膽識，來建構新的生態台灣。