Must Government Disaster Relief Lag Behind Private Efforts?

Must Government Disaster Relief Lag Behind Private Efforts?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 12, 2014

Summary: Nearly two weeks have passed since the Kaohsiung gas explosion. Yet incredibly, prominent politicians are still trading spittle, especially the Kaohsiung City Government. It has conducted an all out effort to point the finger at others. By contrast, private sector disaster relief materiel continues to flow into the disaster area. Businesses and civic organizations have mobilized. They have rolled up their sleeves and joined the reconstruction effort. They are coming to understand the real needs of disaster victims and offering them the necessary relief. That is why residents' complaints that "The government is always a day late and a dollar short" are not without foundation.

Full Text Below:

Nearly two weeks have passed since the Kaohsiung gas explosion. The explosion coincided with heavy rains. As a result local residents' situation truly can be characterized as "deep waters and hot fires." Yet incredibly, prominent politicians are still trading spittle, especially the Kaohsiung City Government. It has conducted an all out effort to point the finger at others. By contrast, private sector disaster relief materiel continues to flow into the disaster area. Businesses and civic organizations have mobilized. They have rolled up their sleeves and joined the reconstruction effort. They are coming to understand the real needs of disaster victims and offering them the necessary relief. That is why residents' complaints that "The government is always a day late and a dollar short" are not without foundation.

Recent private disaster relief included both money and labor. People did not hesitate. As always, the Tzu Chi Foundation was the real "first responder." It provided meals, beds, and medical services. Practically-oriented private businesses shared their management expertise. They offered different forms of assistance. For example, TSMC, Taiwan's leading semiconductor company, declared that it would not "compete to see who donated the most money." It would instead assess the situation at the disaster area, then provide whatever was actually needed to help the victims. It repaired damage done in the affected areas. It repaired roads, built fences, sought out businesses to repair homes, attended to the safety and health needs of the community. It even built temporary bridges and brought other businesses into the relief effort. The resources expended did not become part of some "competition to see who donated the most money." Instead, they relieved the immediate and urgent needs of the victims. The money was spent where it would do the most good, on solving problems. No wonder the company promptly earned the heartfelt gratitude of the victims, and became the focus of media attention.

Government officials and civic organizations differ in their effectiveness in disaster relief and reconstruction work. There are many precedents for this. After the 9/21 earthquake, the government swiftly passed the "Disaster Prevention and Response Act," and the "Special Regulations for Reconstruction." It commissioned the Department of Health to establish a "National Emergency Medical Rescue Team." These were attempts to remedy the situation. They also played a role following Typhoon Nari. But according to the affected households, two years after the disaster, less than one percent of the housing has been rebuilt. Banks everywhere have refused loans, and people have been unable to rebuild.

Meanwhile, private donations to the 9/21 Earthquake Reconstruction Foundation added 13 billion NT. Resource waste and inefficency left people aghast. Shieh Jyh-Cherng, who took over as chief executive, inventoried the plan. He described it as "hair raising." The epicenter of the quake was Nantou County. The fault zone ran through Taichung County and Taichung City. The quake inflicted serious damage to nearly 200 school grounds. All required reconstruction. This led to the rise of the 9/21 New Campus Campaign. Fortunately, private citizens contributed vast resources and businesses adopted various projects. The love and wisdom of private citizens enabled the construction of many well-known environmentally conscious campuses in central Taiwan. These became benchmarks for reconstruction.

Disaster relief by private citizens moved more swiftly than the government's. It left victims with a heartfelt sense of gratitude. Are private sector professionals are more numerous? Does private industry have more money? Is it more flexible? Is corporate governance so much more efficient than government management? Perhaps it is none of these. Perhaps the government is merely using these as excuses. The government has sweeping administrative authority. It has the power to combine human and material resources. One man issues an order, and a hundred men snap to attention. One might well ask then, why does it never seem to get anything done?  Recent editorials have criticized the government's tardy relief efforts. Some have mentioned New York City reconstruction work following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Iron fisted New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani personally took to the front lines to direct firefighting efforts. He enabled New York public life to quickly get back on track. His successor, Mayor Bloomberg, an ambitious business tycoon, embarked on radical reconstruction. He even promoted community renovation projects. New York's reputation for crime control and the New York skyline have been restored. They are as good or better than they were before 9/11. Who says governments must be inefficient? Who says government officials must be inefficient bureaucrats?

South Korea's Lee Myung-bak left the Hyundai Group to enter politics. He was eventually elected president. Some people on Taiwan are calling for "rule by CEO." They even have a specific entrepreneur in mind. They consider him a worthy candidate for the premiership. Unfortunately nothing more has been heard about this. The suspicion is that today's political atmosphere, in which "Even officials have trouble surviving," and "attack dog rule" discouraged him. Corporate CEOs turn down government appointments, but dedicate themselves to reconstruction and other socially responsible projects, Government officials pale by comparison. Contrast the two. Businesses are guided by the efficient laws of the marketplace. Governments are doomed by the evil battles of the political arena. Lest we forget, the government collects money from the taxpayers. It is obligated to attend to everyones' business. How can being a step behind the private sector be considered okay?

救災路上，政府為何總是落後民間？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.08.13 03:22 am

高雄氣爆發生已將近兩周，由於正逢汛期加上大雨發威，居民處境確實只能以「水深火熱」形容。但不可思議地，檯面上的政治人物仍在進行口水戰，尤其高雄市府，幾乎傾全力於「手指指向別人」。而另一方面，民間救援物資不但源源不絕送到災區，很多企業和民間組織早已動員起來，捲起袖子加入災後重建工作，更且深入了解災區核心需求，提供災民所需的協助。以此而言，地方民眾埋怨「政府總是慢半拍」，並非無的放矢。

這次民間對災區的協助，堪稱出錢出力，毫無猶豫。除了向來在災後第一時間就現身的慈濟功德會主動供餐、供床、供醫之外，也有企業以務實的眼光和管理的專業，提供不同的幫助。例如，半導體龍頭企業台積電明言「不比賽捐錢」，而是實地前往災區了解情況後，針對災民缺什麼就幫助什麼；諸如在災區毀損路段搭建圍籬，找廠商為災戶修繕房屋，留意維護社區的安全及衛生需求，乃至搭建臨時便橋，號召協力廠商合作救災等等。這些服務所花費的資源，的確未必登上「捐錢比賽」之榜，但不僅即時紓解了災民的燃眉之急，且把錢花在刀口上，針對問題解決問題，難怪馬上獲致災民的「有感」道謝，也成為媒體報導焦點。

災後救助和重建工作，政府和民間組織的效率有別，早有前例。九二一大地震之後，政府方面曾迅速立法通過《災害防救法》及《重建特別條例》，當時的衛生署亦委託成立「國家級緊急醫療救護隊」，算是亡羊補牢之舉，也曾在之後的納莉颱風等災害中發揮作用。但根據受災戶聯盟的資料，災後兩年，集合式住宅重建比不到百分之一，因銀行拒絕貸款而陷入重建困難的案例比比皆是。

而另一方面，整合了民間捐款達一百三十億台幣之多的「九二一震災重建基金會」，其中資源使用之浪費和無效率的情形，令人駭然；日後接任的執行長謝志誠在清查核撥計劃之後，曾形容說看得「頭皮發麻」。當時震央中心的南投縣及斷層帶通過的台中縣市，嚴重損毀需要重建的校園將近兩百所，以至於其後興起了「九二一新校園」運動；當時，也幸好由於民間資源的大量投入及企業認養專案，藉著民間的愛心和智慧，在台灣中部地區出現了許多以生態建築著名的校園，成為災後重建新生的標竿地標。

民間參與救災，不但腳步先行，而且留下了令災民「揪感心」、也使外界印象深刻的足跡。這點，與其歸功（或政府推諉於）民間專業人士較多，企業用錢有彈性，「公司治理」較政府有效率等等，還不如反問，以政府擁有的行政資源之龐大，對人力物力的整合力量更是大權在握，一呼百諾，為什麼終究還是做不成事？近日在批評政府救災怠惰的媒體評論中，有人提出美國紐約市歷經九一一恐怖攻擊後的重建工作為對照，紐約市當時有鐵腕市長朱利安尼親上火線，指揮救災，讓紐約市民的生活秩序迅速重上軌道；繼任的企圖心旺盛的富豪市長彭博，則是大刀闊斧接力重建，甚至一鼓作氣推動社區改造工程。紐約如今的治安名聲和市容景觀，較九一一災難之前有進無退，誰說政府效率必然低落？誰說政府辦事必走入「衙門」的形象和宿命？

南韓在現代集團的李明博從政並最後當選總統之後，台灣也曾有一片「ＣＥＯ治國」的呼聲，甚至還有特定的企業家被輿論點名，認為適任行政首長，可惜最後皆無下文，一般猜測，和當今「官不聊生」、「惡犬當道」的政治氣氛有關。企業的ＣＥＯ不當官，但在投入災後重建及其他社會責任的工作中，確實把政府官員比了下去。這種高下對比，是企業熟諳「市場規則」的效率顯現，還是政府受到政治惡鬥約制的宿命所致？但別忘了，政府收了納稅人的錢，負有管理眾人之事的義務，豈能把「比民間慢半拍」當成理所當然！