On the Dalai Lama's Visit to Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2009
Nothing is as urgent as disaster relief. The premier, representing the central government, is currently staying in Kaohsiung. He is keeping a close watch on 8/8 Flood post-disaster reconstruction. Seven DPP administered counties and municipalities in southern Taiwan have held their own reconstruction conference. Fighting for victims' rights and obtaining resources for reconstruction is a righteous cause. Unfortunately the Democratic Progressive Party's conference on reconstruction has been hijacked by election considerations and political interests. The most important conclusion of the conference was not that the central government must provide aid to disaster victims. It was not that the central government must consider local interests. It was that the Dalai Lama, religious leader of Tibet, must be invited to Taiwan to pray for the victims.
DPP county and municipal government heads know perfectly well the disaster victims' religious beliefs. Most Aboriginal tribes believe in the Christian God. Most disaster victims on the flatlands believe in The Dao. Very few disaster victims believe in Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism. Seven DPP county executives and city mayors are Presbyterian Church followers. Not one of them is a follower of Tibetan Buddhism. To invite the Dalai Lama to Taiwan at this moment, and claim that no political considerations are involved, is a joke. Are all seven DPP county executives and city mayors planning to convert to Tibetan Buddhism?
At a moment when disaster relief is desperately needed everywhere, the DPP has the chutzpah to turn disaster relief into a political football. President Ma Ying-jeou politely declined the Dalai Lama's visit last year. But today, up to his neck in flood waters, Ma did not hesitate catching the hot potato the DPP tossed him. The Dalai Lama's visit will be spun as humanitarian and religious. But as Chairman of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng put it, "To say that the Dalai Lama's visit to Taiwan will have no cross-Strait repercussions is nonsense. All we can do at a time like this is hope that the Mainland will show some understanding."
Understanding of what? First of all, the Dalai Lama is coming to Taiwan to pray for the disaster victims and the souls of the dead. His trip will help ease the minds of disaster victims. Secondly, the Ma Liu government was tardy in disaster relief. Its domestic approval rating has taken a serious hit. Its international image is in free fall. The DPP invited the Dalai Lama to Taiwan. The Dalai Lama has stated that he wants to come. He even wrote a personal letter to President Ma Ying-jeou. If the government refuses again, it will come across as unreasonable, and undermine its international image.
The issue of Tibet is undeniably one of Beijing's most sensitive. In recent years, wherever the Dalai Lama goes, national leaders meet with him. Beijing will of course issue harsh warnings, then take concrete measures such as trade retaliation, letting up only when the nation in question retreats. If the Dalai Lama visits Taiwan, and Beijing adopts inconsistent standards and attitudes, it will make it impossible for Beijing to continue its strategy of shutting the Dalai Lama out of the international community. But if it retaliates against Taipei the same way it retaliates against other governments, it will undermine the detente that has taken place over the past year and a half, and the rapid progress made in cross-Strait relations following eight lost years. All the goodwill Beijing has show Taipei will come to naught. Beijing took these factors into consideration when it issued its solemn declaration on the Dalai Lama's visit. It reiterated that it is firmly opposed to the Dalai Lama's visit, in any shape or form." Beijing's criticisms however, were directed against the DPP. It said the DPP's motive was "not disaster relief, but an attempt to undermine hard-won improvements in cross-Strait relations." But it said nothing about the Ma administration, whose public approval ratings have hit bottom, and which approved the Dalai Lama's visit.
Cross-strait relations have been in limbo for eight years, ever since Lee Teng-hui left office and Chen Shui-bian took over. Over the past year or so, cross-Strait mutual trust and goodwill have not been easy to come by. Beijing continues to learn from experience. Whereas it once browbeat Taipei, it now speaks in soft tones. Since the 8/8 Flood the mainland has mobilized the entire nation's resources. It has increased aid to Taiwan, both in materiel and money, from both the cities and the countryside. Almost everyone has become involved. During the Wenchuan Earthquake, the public on Taiwan provided incredibly generous aid to Sichuan earthquake victims. The Mainland was enormously grateful for the aid Taiwan provided during the Wenchuan Earthquake. But when the Mainland attempted to return the favor, the reaction from both the government and public on Taiwan was ice cold. We refused to allow Mainland rescue workers to visit the disaster areas. We dragged our feet, refusing to allow Mainland technicians to come to Taiwan to assemble their prefab housing units. No matter how proud the public on Taiwan may be, we have no right to to adopt such an attitude toward those who have extended us a helping hand.
Mainland China showed overwhelming goodwill toward Taipei. In return it got the Dalai Lama's visit to Taiwan. Beijing's feeling of betrayal is not hard to imagine. The cross-Strait political climate and environment has changed. Ma Ying-jeou's nod to the Dalai Lama was probably an attempt to prevent his already low public approval ratings from plunging even farther. But a nation's progress is not the same as its leader's approval rating. The Ma administration must make a concerted effort to rebuild cross-Strait trust, by both words and deeds.
The Dalai Lama is an internationally respected religious leader. Since he is coming to Taiwan in the name of humanitarianism, we may as well take him at his word. All activities on Taiwan should be thoroughly de-politicized. This includes political leaders who participate in activities clearly non-religious in nature. This includes the DPP and the Ma Liu government. There is no need whatsoever to make a fuss about whether President Ma Ying-jeou should meet the Dalai Lama. If a prayer session is considered essential to ease the minds of disaster victims, the government has already decided to hold one in September. Every heavyweight Buddhist master on Taiwan will be present. Render unto the Dalai Lama that which is the Dalai Lama's. Unprecedented, hard-won improvements in cross-Strait relations need not and must not be jeopardized merely because the Dalai Lama visited Taiwan.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.28
社論－—對達賴訪台的看法珍惜兩岸關係齊為災民祈福
本報訊
萬事莫如救災急，中央由行政院長進駐高雄，天天緊盯八八水災重建進度，民進黨南部七縣市長自行舉辦重建會議，為了爭取災民權益和重建資源，也是對的，偏偏專擅選舉謀略和政治利害考量的民進黨這場重建會議，最重要的結論不是為災民爭取中央沒給的協助，不是提醒中央疏忽的地方權益，而是決定邀請西藏宗教領袖達賴來台，為災民祈福。
民進黨縣市首長理應非常理解災區的宗教信仰，原民部落信仰上帝的多，平地災民信仰道教者眾，正信佛教信眾有限，遑論藏傳佛教。七位民進黨縣市長還有身屬長老教會者，就是沒有藏傳佛教的信徒，此時此刻，力邀達賴來台，說沒有政治考量，那是笑話，難不成七位縣市長都準備改信藏傳佛教？
救災千頭萬緒之際，民進黨就有本事創造出兩岸的政治爭議話題，去年婉謝達賴來訪的馬英九總統焦頭爛額之際，沒猶豫太久就接受了民進黨拋出的燙手山芋，將達賴此行定位人道考量、宗教活動，但誠如立法院長王金平所言，「要說達賴訪台對兩岸不會產生任何效應，是不可能的。只能請大陸在這個時刻多體諒我們。」
體諒什麼呢？第一，達賴來台為災民祈福、為亡靈超渡，對穩定災民與社會之心，確實有作用；第二，馬劉政府為了救災遲緩，民意聲望急遽重挫，國際形象大幅滑落，民進黨既拋出邀請達賴來台，達賴本人也表明希望來台的意願，甚至親自致函馬英九總統，政府若再說不，一不近人情，二也有損於國際形象。
但是，無可諱言，西藏問題是中國最敏感的議題之一，達賴近年行走國際，所到之處，但凡國家領導人與達賴會面者，北京當局必然先祭出嚴厲的言詞警告，接續而來就採取實質的貿易報復，直到相關國家退讓為止。達賴訪台，中國若採取不一致的標準和態度，勢必讓中國無法在國際間繼續執行他對達賴的封鎖策略；但若比照對待其他國家的方式報復台灣，勢必使這一年半多以來和緩、甚至為了彌補失落的八年趕進度恢復的兩岸關係受到重創，而大陸對台灣所有的積極善意，也將前功盡棄。相信這些評估，讓北京方面考量後，對達賴訪台之事做出嚴正的立場聲明，重申「不論什麼身分或形式，堅決反對達賴來台」，但是，北京的矛頭直指民進黨，「不是為救災，而是為了破壞兩岸關係得來不易的良好局面。」但對接受達賴來訪、民意聲望跌到谷底的馬政府，未置一詞。
兩岸關係經歷李登輝末期到扁政府八年，長久的遲滯之後，這一年多來，兩岸培養的互信與善意的確得來不易，北京方面不斷從教訓中累積經驗，對待台灣從過去的聲色俱厲到如今的溫言款語，八八水災迄今，大陸以全國動員規模的用心，展開對台援助，從物資到捐款，從都市到偏鄉，幾乎是人人參與，因為汶川震災，台灣人發揮難以想像的愛援助川震受災者，然而，這段期間來，大陸給台灣的愛心卻遠不如汶川期間台灣得到的回報，從政府到人民，台灣對大陸的愛回應冷漠，既不讓大陸救難人員進入災區，甚至對大陸組合屋組裝人員入台還拖拖拉拉，台灣人再驕傲都不能以如此態度對待伸出援手的朋友。
大陸舖天蓋地的善意，換來的卻是達賴訪台，北京的錯愕可以想像。然而，兩岸政治氣候和環境終究不同，馬英九點頭，不無防止已然低落的民意再下滑的考量；但是，國家發展不能只從個人民意支持度衡量，接續下來，馬政府勢必要花更多心力，包括言詞和具體作為，重建兩岸的互信。
達賴是國際敬重的宗教領袖，既以人道之名來訪，就要名副其實，將入台所有活動的政治性降到零，和政治領袖見面顯然非關宗教活動，不論民進黨或馬劉政府，大可不必在馬英九總統要不要見達賴這件事上做文章，如果祈福法會是安撫災民的重要作為，政府已經決定在九月舉辦，台灣名重山林的法師亦都將出席，達賴的歸達賴，前所未有、得來不易的兩岸關係，不必也不能因為達賴訪台，構成任何變數和意外。
Friday, August 28, 2009
Evacuations: Tuvalu vs. Taiwan
Evacuations: Tuvalu vs. Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2009
Typhoon Morakot brought untold disaster to Taiwan. Yesterday, Tuvalu, a diplomatic ally in the South Pacific, resolved to donate one percent of its gross domestic product, about 20 million US (6.9 million NT) to Taiwan for disaster relief. This was the largest donation Tuvalu has ever made to another country. The public on Taiwan deeply appreciated this warm gesture from an allied nation. But few people realize that Tuvalu's plight is not much better than Taiwan's.
Global warming has brought Taiwan abnormal weather and tropical rainstorms. But it has brought Tuvalu a crisis of survival. This tiny nation in the South Pacific has a population of only 12,000 people, and an area of only 26 square kilometers. In recent years, many low-lying areas have been inundated by the sea, Experts predict that Tuvalu may become the first nation on earth to disappear beneath the waves.
The sea-level is rising much too fast. As the coconut palms along the shore topple one by one, tourists no longer dare to come. The residents of Tuvalu have become "climate refugees." The Tuvalu Government has announced an evacuation plan. Each year it is allowing a fixed number of its citizens to emigrate to nearby New Zealand and Fiji. This is not merely the evacuation of a village. It is the evacuation of an entire Island.
Typhoon Morakot brought with it torrential rains not seen in a century. It was an ecological disaster caused by global warming. Taiwan is much larger than Tuvalu. It has a vast Central Mountain Range. But its residents have cut down too much of its forests. They have extracted too much of its groundwater. As a result, a medium typhoon completely altered the face of mountains and rivers in southern Taiwan. Lingbian Township has become "Waterworld." Hsiaoling Village has been buried beneath a mountain of mud. Disaster victims have lost lives and property. Compared to the residents of Tuvalu, it can only be described as worse and not better.
According to experts, the sea level on Taiwan's southwest coast has risen at a rate 1.4 times the global average. If residents continue over-extraction of groundwater, the sea-level will rise by a meter. Nearly half the land in Chiayi and Tainan's coastal areas will be submerged. So many past reports have issued so many warnings. But few take them seriously.
Subsidence on Taiwan's west coast is serious. The residents' long-term extraction of groundwater is a major factor. The 8/8 Flood was most severe in Lingbian Township. Many villages sank to three meters below sea level. Three weeks after the typhoon, the silt has yet to be cleared. Disease is beginning to spread. To expedite the clearing of sludge from underground drainage pipes, the Executive Yuan is considering temporary evacuation. But many villagers say "We will die before we evacuate."
Following the storm, many people have been unable to return home. Many people don't have homes to return to. The disaster victims are suffering. We feel their pain. We don't have the heart to blame the victims for their emotional reactions. But if one calms down and thinks about it, if long-term groundwater pumping continues, the next typhoon that strikes will flood their homes once more. Once more they will have to clean the silt from from their homes. When will the vicious cycle of misery end?
Actually, what the victims need to think about is not temporary evacuation. but industrial upgrading. Only this will stop the excessive extraction of groundwater. If these fundamental issues can not be resolved, the land will subside even faster in the future, by which time they will have no other choice.
To help disaster victims rebuild their homes, the Legislative Yuan recently passed an emergency post-disaster reconstruction bill. But it ruled out the most important element, an environmental impact assessment. This approach provoked solemn protests by many environmental groups. Hasty post-disaster reconstruction will merely sow the seeds of the next disaster.
By the same token, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan and top government officials have stationed themselves in their southern Taiwan reconstruction office. These high officials of the central government met behind closed doors in an air-conditioned room. They invited neither local leaders nor Aboriginal leaders. What difference does it make whether a meeting like this is held in Taipei or the south? It cannot possibly respond to the needs of the victims. It cannot possibly honor the special lifestyles and cultural traditions of the Aboriginal population.
In the aftermath of the storm, reconstruction is a must for both the ruling and opposition parties. But if one looks farther ahead, nature's backlash was so powerful, it provided us with some valuable insights. Can we continue to wantonly destroy the beauty of our mountains, forests, and lands just to develop our economy? Shouldn't we do more to combat global warming and reduce greenhouse gases?
Tuvalu has recently announced the development of solar and wind power. It intends to reach comprehensive renewable energy targets by 2020. Ten countries, including Sweden, Iceland, and New Zealand, have announced the comprehensive adoption of renewable energy forms and zero carbon emission targets within the coming decade. Tuvalu, as one of global warming's first victims, is making an effort to fight it.
Typhoon Morakot has put the Ma administration to a severe test. But it has also brought with it the impetus for reform. Hopefully, the natural and man-made disasters brought about by Typhoon Morakot will make people do some serious soul-searching about global warming, carbon reduction and energy conservation. Land planning and reconstruction projects require low-carbon, green energy, and environmental sustainability perspectives. Take a look at Tuvalu, and think about Taiwan. The Day After Tomorrow, Taiwan must not become another Tuvalu.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.31
社論－從吐瓦魯撤島 看台灣的撤村爭議
本報訊
莫拉克為台灣帶來慘重災情，南太平洋的友邦吐瓦魯日前決議捐出國內生產毛額的百分之一，約廿一萬美元（折合新台幣六百九十萬元）協助台灣賑災，這筆吐國有史以來最大的捐款，讓國人感受到友邦的溫情。然而，大概很少人知道，吐瓦魯目前所面臨的處境，比台灣好不到那去。
全球暖化給台灣所帶來的，或許只是異常氣候的風災，但帶給吐瓦魯的卻是生存危機，這個位於南太平洋的小國家，人口只有一萬二千人，面積更只有廿六平方公里，近年來許多低窪地已被海水淹沒，專家預估吐瓦魯未來恐將成為歷史上第一個從海平面消失的國家。
由於海平面上升的速度實在太快，海邊的椰子樹一顆顆倒下，觀光客也不敢來了，吐瓦魯的居民成了「氣候難民」。吐國政府因此宣布撤離計畫，每年開放固定的名額移民至鄰近的紐西蘭與斐濟。這項行動，不只是撤村，而是撤島了。
莫拉克帶來百年超大豪雨，正是地球暖化的生態浩劫之一。台灣的面積雖然比吐瓦魯大得多，還有遼闊的中央山脈，不過，居民濫墾山林、濫抽地下水成性，一個中度颱風就使得南台灣山河變色，林邊鄉成澤國，小林村滅頂，災民們受到的生命財產威脅，比起吐瓦魯的居民，有過之而無不及。
根據學者調查，台灣西南沿海地區海平面上升速率是全球平均的一點四倍。如果居民過度抽取地下水的現象依舊，海平面上升一公尺，嘉義、台南沿海地區土地將近一半會被水淹沒。過去許多的調查報告，不知提出多少的警訊，但很少人願意認真面對。
台灣西南沿海地層下陷嚴重，居民長期抽取地下水是重要原因。這次八八水災最嚴重的林邊鄉，許多村落竟然低於海平面三公尺。颱風過後三周了，滿目瘡痍的淤泥還是清不完，疫病已開始蔓延。為了加速清理地下排水幹管的汙泥，行政院考慮暫時撤離鄉民，不過 許多鄉民卻激動地說：「打死不撤」。
風災過後，許多人有家歸不得，許多人更是連家都沒了。對於災民們的苦，我們感同身受；對於災民們的情緒反應，我們不忍苛責。可是，冷靜下來想想，如果長期抽取地下水的行為不改變，下一個颱風又來，照樣把家園淹沒，照樣有大批淤泥等著清理。如此日復一日，何時才能脫離悲慘的惡性循環？
其實，災民們真正要思考的不只是暫時撤離的問題，而是如何進行產業轉型，停止過度抽取地下水；如果這些基本的問題無法改善，將來地層加速下陷，恐怕也沒得選擇了。
為了協助災民重建家園，立法院日前緊急通過災後重建特別條例草案，卻把最重要的環境影響評估排除，這項做法引發許多環保團體的嚴正抗議。因為，急就章式的災後重建，埋下的是另一次災難的種子。
同樣地，行政院長劉兆玄率領部會首長進駐南部重建辦公室。這些中央大官們關起門來在冷氣房內開會，既未邀地方首長，也無原住民代表參與，這樣的會議在台北或在南部召開，結果都一樣，無法滿足災民的需求，也無法兼顧原住民特殊的生活形態與文化傳統。
風災過後，重建是朝野當務之急。不過，如果把眼光放遠一點，這次大自然反撲的力量如此強烈，也帶給我們深刻的啟發，我們還能夠為了發展經濟，繼續肆無忌憚地殘害美麗的山林與土地嗎？我們是否應在對抗暖化、降低溫室氣體方面做更多努力？
吐瓦魯最近宣布將發展太陽能與風力發電，要在二○二○年前達到全面使用再生能源的目標。目前全球已有瑞典、冰島、紐西蘭等十個國家宣布在未來十年內達成全面使用再生能源與零排碳的目標，吐瓦魯由於深受全球暖化之害，也針對抗暖化盡一己之力。
這次莫拉克讓馬政府執政能力受到嚴酷考驗，但也帶來改革的動力。但願，莫拉克所帶來的天災與人禍，讓國人對於全球暖化與節能減碳有新的反省，在國土規畫與重建工作上加入低碳綠能、環境永續的思維。看看吐瓦魯，想想台灣，明天過後，台灣絕對不能變成另一個被水淹沒的吐瓦魯。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2009
Typhoon Morakot brought untold disaster to Taiwan. Yesterday, Tuvalu, a diplomatic ally in the South Pacific, resolved to donate one percent of its gross domestic product, about 20 million US (6.9 million NT) to Taiwan for disaster relief. This was the largest donation Tuvalu has ever made to another country. The public on Taiwan deeply appreciated this warm gesture from an allied nation. But few people realize that Tuvalu's plight is not much better than Taiwan's.
Global warming has brought Taiwan abnormal weather and tropical rainstorms. But it has brought Tuvalu a crisis of survival. This tiny nation in the South Pacific has a population of only 12,000 people, and an area of only 26 square kilometers. In recent years, many low-lying areas have been inundated by the sea, Experts predict that Tuvalu may become the first nation on earth to disappear beneath the waves.
The sea-level is rising much too fast. As the coconut palms along the shore topple one by one, tourists no longer dare to come. The residents of Tuvalu have become "climate refugees." The Tuvalu Government has announced an evacuation plan. Each year it is allowing a fixed number of its citizens to emigrate to nearby New Zealand and Fiji. This is not merely the evacuation of a village. It is the evacuation of an entire Island.
Typhoon Morakot brought with it torrential rains not seen in a century. It was an ecological disaster caused by global warming. Taiwan is much larger than Tuvalu. It has a vast Central Mountain Range. But its residents have cut down too much of its forests. They have extracted too much of its groundwater. As a result, a medium typhoon completely altered the face of mountains and rivers in southern Taiwan. Lingbian Township has become "Waterworld." Hsiaoling Village has been buried beneath a mountain of mud. Disaster victims have lost lives and property. Compared to the residents of Tuvalu, it can only be described as worse and not better.
According to experts, the sea level on Taiwan's southwest coast has risen at a rate 1.4 times the global average. If residents continue over-extraction of groundwater, the sea-level will rise by a meter. Nearly half the land in Chiayi and Tainan's coastal areas will be submerged. So many past reports have issued so many warnings. But few take them seriously.
Subsidence on Taiwan's west coast is serious. The residents' long-term extraction of groundwater is a major factor. The 8/8 Flood was most severe in Lingbian Township. Many villages sank to three meters below sea level. Three weeks after the typhoon, the silt has yet to be cleared. Disease is beginning to spread. To expedite the clearing of sludge from underground drainage pipes, the Executive Yuan is considering temporary evacuation. But many villagers say "We will die before we evacuate."
Following the storm, many people have been unable to return home. Many people don't have homes to return to. The disaster victims are suffering. We feel their pain. We don't have the heart to blame the victims for their emotional reactions. But if one calms down and thinks about it, if long-term groundwater pumping continues, the next typhoon that strikes will flood their homes once more. Once more they will have to clean the silt from from their homes. When will the vicious cycle of misery end?
Actually, what the victims need to think about is not temporary evacuation. but industrial upgrading. Only this will stop the excessive extraction of groundwater. If these fundamental issues can not be resolved, the land will subside even faster in the future, by which time they will have no other choice.
To help disaster victims rebuild their homes, the Legislative Yuan recently passed an emergency post-disaster reconstruction bill. But it ruled out the most important element, an environmental impact assessment. This approach provoked solemn protests by many environmental groups. Hasty post-disaster reconstruction will merely sow the seeds of the next disaster.
By the same token, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan and top government officials have stationed themselves in their southern Taiwan reconstruction office. These high officials of the central government met behind closed doors in an air-conditioned room. They invited neither local leaders nor Aboriginal leaders. What difference does it make whether a meeting like this is held in Taipei or the south? It cannot possibly respond to the needs of the victims. It cannot possibly honor the special lifestyles and cultural traditions of the Aboriginal population.
In the aftermath of the storm, reconstruction is a must for both the ruling and opposition parties. But if one looks farther ahead, nature's backlash was so powerful, it provided us with some valuable insights. Can we continue to wantonly destroy the beauty of our mountains, forests, and lands just to develop our economy? Shouldn't we do more to combat global warming and reduce greenhouse gases?
Tuvalu has recently announced the development of solar and wind power. It intends to reach comprehensive renewable energy targets by 2020. Ten countries, including Sweden, Iceland, and New Zealand, have announced the comprehensive adoption of renewable energy forms and zero carbon emission targets within the coming decade. Tuvalu, as one of global warming's first victims, is making an effort to fight it.
Typhoon Morakot has put the Ma administration to a severe test. But it has also brought with it the impetus for reform. Hopefully, the natural and man-made disasters brought about by Typhoon Morakot will make people do some serious soul-searching about global warming, carbon reduction and energy conservation. Land planning and reconstruction projects require low-carbon, green energy, and environmental sustainability perspectives. Take a look at Tuvalu, and think about Taiwan. The Day After Tomorrow, Taiwan must not become another Tuvalu.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.31
社論－從吐瓦魯撤島 看台灣的撤村爭議
本報訊
莫拉克為台灣帶來慘重災情，南太平洋的友邦吐瓦魯日前決議捐出國內生產毛額的百分之一，約廿一萬美元（折合新台幣六百九十萬元）協助台灣賑災，這筆吐國有史以來最大的捐款，讓國人感受到友邦的溫情。然而，大概很少人知道，吐瓦魯目前所面臨的處境，比台灣好不到那去。
全球暖化給台灣所帶來的，或許只是異常氣候的風災，但帶給吐瓦魯的卻是生存危機，這個位於南太平洋的小國家，人口只有一萬二千人，面積更只有廿六平方公里，近年來許多低窪地已被海水淹沒，專家預估吐瓦魯未來恐將成為歷史上第一個從海平面消失的國家。
由於海平面上升的速度實在太快，海邊的椰子樹一顆顆倒下，觀光客也不敢來了，吐瓦魯的居民成了「氣候難民」。吐國政府因此宣布撤離計畫，每年開放固定的名額移民至鄰近的紐西蘭與斐濟。這項行動，不只是撤村，而是撤島了。
莫拉克帶來百年超大豪雨，正是地球暖化的生態浩劫之一。台灣的面積雖然比吐瓦魯大得多，還有遼闊的中央山脈，不過，居民濫墾山林、濫抽地下水成性，一個中度颱風就使得南台灣山河變色，林邊鄉成澤國，小林村滅頂，災民們受到的生命財產威脅，比起吐瓦魯的居民，有過之而無不及。
根據學者調查，台灣西南沿海地區海平面上升速率是全球平均的一點四倍。如果居民過度抽取地下水的現象依舊，海平面上升一公尺，嘉義、台南沿海地區土地將近一半會被水淹沒。過去許多的調查報告，不知提出多少的警訊，但很少人願意認真面對。
台灣西南沿海地層下陷嚴重，居民長期抽取地下水是重要原因。這次八八水災最嚴重的林邊鄉，許多村落竟然低於海平面三公尺。颱風過後三周了，滿目瘡痍的淤泥還是清不完，疫病已開始蔓延。為了加速清理地下排水幹管的汙泥，行政院考慮暫時撤離鄉民，不過 許多鄉民卻激動地說：「打死不撤」。
風災過後，許多人有家歸不得，許多人更是連家都沒了。對於災民們的苦，我們感同身受；對於災民們的情緒反應，我們不忍苛責。可是，冷靜下來想想，如果長期抽取地下水的行為不改變，下一個颱風又來，照樣把家園淹沒，照樣有大批淤泥等著清理。如此日復一日，何時才能脫離悲慘的惡性循環？
其實，災民們真正要思考的不只是暫時撤離的問題，而是如何進行產業轉型，停止過度抽取地下水；如果這些基本的問題無法改善，將來地層加速下陷，恐怕也沒得選擇了。
為了協助災民重建家園，立法院日前緊急通過災後重建特別條例草案，卻把最重要的環境影響評估排除，這項做法引發許多環保團體的嚴正抗議。因為，急就章式的災後重建，埋下的是另一次災難的種子。
同樣地，行政院長劉兆玄率領部會首長進駐南部重建辦公室。這些中央大官們關起門來在冷氣房內開會，既未邀地方首長，也無原住民代表參與，這樣的會議在台北或在南部召開，結果都一樣，無法滿足災民的需求，也無法兼顧原住民特殊的生活形態與文化傳統。
風災過後，重建是朝野當務之急。不過，如果把眼光放遠一點，這次大自然反撲的力量如此強烈，也帶給我們深刻的啟發，我們還能夠為了發展經濟，繼續肆無忌憚地殘害美麗的山林與土地嗎？我們是否應在對抗暖化、降低溫室氣體方面做更多努力？
吐瓦魯最近宣布將發展太陽能與風力發電，要在二○二○年前達到全面使用再生能源的目標。目前全球已有瑞典、冰島、紐西蘭等十個國家宣布在未來十年內達成全面使用再生能源與零排碳的目標，吐瓦魯由於深受全球暖化之害，也針對抗暖化盡一己之力。
這次莫拉克讓馬政府執政能力受到嚴酷考驗，但也帶來改革的動力。但願，莫拉克所帶來的天災與人禍，讓國人對於全球暖化與節能減碳有新的反省，在國土規畫與重建工作上加入低碳綠能、環境永續的思維。看看吐瓦魯，想想台灣，明天過後，台灣絕對不能變成另一個被水淹沒的吐瓦魯。
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Influenza A: A Medical and Political Battle
Influenza A: A Medical and Political Battle
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2009
Coverage of the Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 has replaced coverage of the 8/8 Flood. Kuo Hsu-sung, current Director of the Center for Disease Control, estimates that when the epidemic peaks, 7 million people on Taiwan will be infected. Former CDC chief Su Ih-jen estimates that 5,000 to 10,000 people will die. Such information stretches peoples' nerves to the limit, and makes their skin crawl.
At this point the government's responsibility is twofold: First, preventing and treating disease. Second, easing public anxiety. Looking only at the social crisis, the government's primary responsibility is undoubtedly easing public anxiety. Increasing public trust in the government's ability to prevent and treat the disease is essential to easing public anxiety.
From this perspective, convening a National Security Council conference on Influenza A prevention and control, and invoking the National Security Act is not merely an administrative issue. It is also an issue of social psychology. Some say that invoking the National Security Act would increase public anxiety. But others believe the opposite, that failure to convene a National Security Council meeting would increase public anxiety. As we can see, regardless of the pros and cons of invoking the National Security Act, the issue has an impact of social psychology. The presidential office and the cabinet believe "the epidemic has not reached that level." They are in no hurry to invoke the National Security Act. But experts point out that the new school term begins on Monday. By then the epidemic may be at its peak. The number of infected could double every four days. In which case the epidemic could reach "that level" in a matter of days.
We warn the Ma administration: Do not waffle over whether to declare a state of emergency. Public anxiety over epidemics is probably even more intense than public anxiety over earthquakes and floods. An earthquake is over in seconds. The damage caused by floods is visible to the naked eye. But viruses are invisible and odorless. Anyone could be infected. Once it spreads, there is no distinction between victims and non-victims. There is no distinction between disaster areas and non-disaster areas. Everyone feels insecure. Everyone feels troubled. Under such circumstances, would the advance convening of a National Security Council meeting increase public anxiety? Or would the tardy convening of a National Security Council meeting increase public anxiety? The authorities should have no trouble making that call.
From a public communications perspective, an influenza epidemic would test the Ma administration's public communication skills. The goal of the government's public communications campaign must be to ease public anxiety over the epidemic and increase public trust in the government.
The epidemic is spreading, but information remains confused. Will the year-end elections be postponed? Which strategy is better? An "accelerated spread" or an "obstructed and prolonged spread?" Schools are measuring students' ear temperatures. But how about offices, factories, and military bases? When will vaccines be made available? How safe are they? Can patients with liver and kidney ailments be vaccinated? Can they take Tamiflu? When is the right time to administer Tamiflu? What is the right dosage? Do we risk creating drug-resistant strains? How can we raise patient awareness? How should the medical treatment pipeline be configured? Is the supply of ICUs adequate? Should hospitals recommend the wearing of masks, or demand the wearing of masks? Should those who come in contact with high society, such as chauffeurs and store clerks wear surgical masks? These are matters of detail. But they are also matters of public concern. The authorities must show concern. They must communicate to the public in terms they can understand, and do so as soon as possible, They must make information available through a variety of channels. They must ensure that the relevant information is effectively communicated to the public. Experts predict that the epidemic could last as short as six months, or as long as three years. During its public communications campaign, the government must take full advantage of the hardware, software, and content creation capabilities at its disposal. It must not make light of the matter. Only by establishing an information network embodying both quality and quantity, can it ease public anxiety. Only then can health institutions remain focused on disease prevention and treatment. Conversely, if information is confused, if the situation is chaotic, the public will become anxious, and controversy will escalate. The public is already facing the threat of an epidemic. The government must not increase public suffering by increasing fear and confusion.
The prevention and treatment of epidemics is a public health issue. It is a political test as well. The government's responsibility is not limited to fulfilling the needs of health professionals. It must also maintain social stability. Among its most basic responsibilities is to establish a transparent and effective system for the timely dissemination of information.
The government must demonstrate both political and administrative effectiveness. It must help public health professionals. It must not increase public anxiety. It must not add fuel to the fire by making bad decisions. It must not pour salt in the wound by being poor communicators.
對抗新流感：是專業戰爭也是政治戰役
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.27 04:00 am
新流感的新聞取代了水災新聞的篇幅。現任疾管局長郭旭崧估計，在流行高峰期，台灣將有七百萬人感染；前疾管局長蘇益仁則估計，死亡人數將達五千至一萬人之間。這類訊息皆令國人神經緊繃，頭皮發麻。
值此關頭，政府的責任有二：一、防疫治病；二、平撫社會心理的緊張焦慮。唯若從處理社會危機的角度來看，則「平撫社會心理的緊張焦慮」無疑尤是政府的主要職責；因為，增強國人對政府「防疫治病」能力的信任，本身亦是安定社會心理的重要手段。
從這個角度來看，現在是否要為防治新流感召開國安會議，及啟動國安機制；就不只是一個行政手段，而也是一個社會心理事件。有人說，現在發動國安機制，會製造社會緊張；但也有人認為，現在不舉行國安會議，反而會令社會焦慮。可見，不論正反意見，皆知「發動國安機制」其實也是一個心理標誌。何況，據稱府閣方面認為「疫情還沒升高到那個程度」，所以不必急著啟動國安機制；不過，所有的專家都指出，下周一學校開學，即可能進入感染流行高峰期，且每四天感染者即增加一倍，然則所謂的「那個程度」，豈非僅在數日之遙而已？
我們要嚴正警告馬政府：不要再陷於「發不發布緊急命令」那類困境之中。疾疫造成的社會心理緊張恐怕尚逾於震災水災，震災幾秒鐘就過去，水災造成的損害也可目睹；但病毒看不見、聞不到，任何人皆有被感染的可能，流行起來即無「災民／非災民」的區別，亦無「災區／非災區」的區隔。人人自危，家家煩慮。在這種情勢下，是及早召開國安會議會製造社會緊張？或推遲召開國安會議反而增加社會焦慮？當局難道不能作出明智的裁斷。
從「傳播溝通」的角度來看，面對可能即將爆發大流行的新流感，又是一次對馬政府「傳播溝通」能力的嚴峻考驗。政府在這場傳播溝通大戰的目標，就是要提高人民對政府的信任，及安定社會心理。
疫情升高，資訊卻相對紊亂。年底選舉要不要延期？「加速」流行或「阻滯延長」流行，何種策略為佳？學校實行量耳溫，但辦公處所及工廠及軍隊要不要量？國光疫苗能否即時推出？安全性如何？對於肝腎等各類慢性病患，能否接種疫苗？可否服用克流感？克流感的適當投藥時機究竟如何？抗藥性的風險對策何在？患者染病的自覺如何提高？就醫的管道與動線如何？加護病房的縱深備量夠不夠？醫院是「建議」戴口罩或「規定」戴？高社群接觸者如司機、店員要不要戴？這類問題雖皆細瑣，卻是民間的重大疑慮；當局應當以最高的關切來面對此一情勢，用民間看（聽）得懂、看得到，且能及早看到、及時看到，並在不同傳播管道上都能看到的方法，將相關資訊有效地傳達給國人。專家估計這場疫病流行，短則半年，長則二、三年；政府在這場溝通大戰中，於硬體、軟體，及內容製作上的投入皆不可輕估；亦唯有把資訊網絡的品質與數量皆建立起來，始有可能平撫及安定緊張、焦慮的民心，醫衛機構也才能專心投入防疫治疾。反之，倘若資訊錯亂、情勢渾沌、民心焦慮、輿論譁然；社會大眾除了面臨疾疫的威脅，還要生活在疑惑恐懼之中，那就不啻是水深火熱了。
防治疾疫是一個醫衛專業問題，但也是一個政治考驗。政府的責任非但在必須充分支應醫衛專業的需求，更應盡可能地維持一個相對安定的社會心理情境；其重要的基礎職責就是要架構一個透明、有效、及時的溝通傳播體系。
政府的政治及行政效能，必須要成為醫衛專業的助力；反之，倘若政府在疫疾流行期中，因溝通不良、決策失當而使人民加重痛苦，那就是火上澆油、雪上加霜了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2009
Coverage of the Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 has replaced coverage of the 8/8 Flood. Kuo Hsu-sung, current Director of the Center for Disease Control, estimates that when the epidemic peaks, 7 million people on Taiwan will be infected. Former CDC chief Su Ih-jen estimates that 5,000 to 10,000 people will die. Such information stretches peoples' nerves to the limit, and makes their skin crawl.
At this point the government's responsibility is twofold: First, preventing and treating disease. Second, easing public anxiety. Looking only at the social crisis, the government's primary responsibility is undoubtedly easing public anxiety. Increasing public trust in the government's ability to prevent and treat the disease is essential to easing public anxiety.
From this perspective, convening a National Security Council conference on Influenza A prevention and control, and invoking the National Security Act is not merely an administrative issue. It is also an issue of social psychology. Some say that invoking the National Security Act would increase public anxiety. But others believe the opposite, that failure to convene a National Security Council meeting would increase public anxiety. As we can see, regardless of the pros and cons of invoking the National Security Act, the issue has an impact of social psychology. The presidential office and the cabinet believe "the epidemic has not reached that level." They are in no hurry to invoke the National Security Act. But experts point out that the new school term begins on Monday. By then the epidemic may be at its peak. The number of infected could double every four days. In which case the epidemic could reach "that level" in a matter of days.
We warn the Ma administration: Do not waffle over whether to declare a state of emergency. Public anxiety over epidemics is probably even more intense than public anxiety over earthquakes and floods. An earthquake is over in seconds. The damage caused by floods is visible to the naked eye. But viruses are invisible and odorless. Anyone could be infected. Once it spreads, there is no distinction between victims and non-victims. There is no distinction between disaster areas and non-disaster areas. Everyone feels insecure. Everyone feels troubled. Under such circumstances, would the advance convening of a National Security Council meeting increase public anxiety? Or would the tardy convening of a National Security Council meeting increase public anxiety? The authorities should have no trouble making that call.
From a public communications perspective, an influenza epidemic would test the Ma administration's public communication skills. The goal of the government's public communications campaign must be to ease public anxiety over the epidemic and increase public trust in the government.
The epidemic is spreading, but information remains confused. Will the year-end elections be postponed? Which strategy is better? An "accelerated spread" or an "obstructed and prolonged spread?" Schools are measuring students' ear temperatures. But how about offices, factories, and military bases? When will vaccines be made available? How safe are they? Can patients with liver and kidney ailments be vaccinated? Can they take Tamiflu? When is the right time to administer Tamiflu? What is the right dosage? Do we risk creating drug-resistant strains? How can we raise patient awareness? How should the medical treatment pipeline be configured? Is the supply of ICUs adequate? Should hospitals recommend the wearing of masks, or demand the wearing of masks? Should those who come in contact with high society, such as chauffeurs and store clerks wear surgical masks? These are matters of detail. But they are also matters of public concern. The authorities must show concern. They must communicate to the public in terms they can understand, and do so as soon as possible, They must make information available through a variety of channels. They must ensure that the relevant information is effectively communicated to the public. Experts predict that the epidemic could last as short as six months, or as long as three years. During its public communications campaign, the government must take full advantage of the hardware, software, and content creation capabilities at its disposal. It must not make light of the matter. Only by establishing an information network embodying both quality and quantity, can it ease public anxiety. Only then can health institutions remain focused on disease prevention and treatment. Conversely, if information is confused, if the situation is chaotic, the public will become anxious, and controversy will escalate. The public is already facing the threat of an epidemic. The government must not increase public suffering by increasing fear and confusion.
The prevention and treatment of epidemics is a public health issue. It is a political test as well. The government's responsibility is not limited to fulfilling the needs of health professionals. It must also maintain social stability. Among its most basic responsibilities is to establish a transparent and effective system for the timely dissemination of information.
The government must demonstrate both political and administrative effectiveness. It must help public health professionals. It must not increase public anxiety. It must not add fuel to the fire by making bad decisions. It must not pour salt in the wound by being poor communicators.
對抗新流感：是專業戰爭也是政治戰役
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.27 04:00 am
新流感的新聞取代了水災新聞的篇幅。現任疾管局長郭旭崧估計，在流行高峰期，台灣將有七百萬人感染；前疾管局長蘇益仁則估計，死亡人數將達五千至一萬人之間。這類訊息皆令國人神經緊繃，頭皮發麻。
值此關頭，政府的責任有二：一、防疫治病；二、平撫社會心理的緊張焦慮。唯若從處理社會危機的角度來看，則「平撫社會心理的緊張焦慮」無疑尤是政府的主要職責；因為，增強國人對政府「防疫治病」能力的信任，本身亦是安定社會心理的重要手段。
從這個角度來看，現在是否要為防治新流感召開國安會議，及啟動國安機制；就不只是一個行政手段，而也是一個社會心理事件。有人說，現在發動國安機制，會製造社會緊張；但也有人認為，現在不舉行國安會議，反而會令社會焦慮。可見，不論正反意見，皆知「發動國安機制」其實也是一個心理標誌。何況，據稱府閣方面認為「疫情還沒升高到那個程度」，所以不必急著啟動國安機制；不過，所有的專家都指出，下周一學校開學，即可能進入感染流行高峰期，且每四天感染者即增加一倍，然則所謂的「那個程度」，豈非僅在數日之遙而已？
我們要嚴正警告馬政府：不要再陷於「發不發布緊急命令」那類困境之中。疾疫造成的社會心理緊張恐怕尚逾於震災水災，震災幾秒鐘就過去，水災造成的損害也可目睹；但病毒看不見、聞不到，任何人皆有被感染的可能，流行起來即無「災民／非災民」的區別，亦無「災區／非災區」的區隔。人人自危，家家煩慮。在這種情勢下，是及早召開國安會議會製造社會緊張？或推遲召開國安會議反而增加社會焦慮？當局難道不能作出明智的裁斷。
從「傳播溝通」的角度來看，面對可能即將爆發大流行的新流感，又是一次對馬政府「傳播溝通」能力的嚴峻考驗。政府在這場傳播溝通大戰的目標，就是要提高人民對政府的信任，及安定社會心理。
疫情升高，資訊卻相對紊亂。年底選舉要不要延期？「加速」流行或「阻滯延長」流行，何種策略為佳？學校實行量耳溫，但辦公處所及工廠及軍隊要不要量？國光疫苗能否即時推出？安全性如何？對於肝腎等各類慢性病患，能否接種疫苗？可否服用克流感？克流感的適當投藥時機究竟如何？抗藥性的風險對策何在？患者染病的自覺如何提高？就醫的管道與動線如何？加護病房的縱深備量夠不夠？醫院是「建議」戴口罩或「規定」戴？高社群接觸者如司機、店員要不要戴？這類問題雖皆細瑣，卻是民間的重大疑慮；當局應當以最高的關切來面對此一情勢，用民間看（聽）得懂、看得到，且能及早看到、及時看到，並在不同傳播管道上都能看到的方法，將相關資訊有效地傳達給國人。專家估計這場疫病流行，短則半年，長則二、三年；政府在這場溝通大戰中，於硬體、軟體，及內容製作上的投入皆不可輕估；亦唯有把資訊網絡的品質與數量皆建立起來，始有可能平撫及安定緊張、焦慮的民心，醫衛機構也才能專心投入防疫治疾。反之，倘若資訊錯亂、情勢渾沌、民心焦慮、輿論譁然；社會大眾除了面臨疾疫的威脅，還要生活在疑惑恐懼之中，那就不啻是水深火熱了。
防治疾疫是一個醫衛專業問題，但也是一個政治考驗。政府的責任非但在必須充分支應醫衛專業的需求，更應盡可能地維持一個相對安定的社會心理情境；其重要的基礎職責就是要架構一個透明、有效、及時的溝通傳播體系。
政府的政治及行政效能，必須要成為醫衛專業的助力；反之，倘若政府在疫疾流行期中，因溝通不良、決策失當而使人民加重痛苦，那就是火上澆油、雪上加霜了。
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Disaster Relief: A Central Mission of the Military
Disaster Relief: A Central Mission of the Military
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2009
The 8/8 Floods battered southern Taiwan. The reaction of the military was inadequate. On top of which, it made excuses for itself. Although it made a genuine effort to engage in disaster relief following the flood, its image had already been tarnished. If the military wishes to restore public confidence, it must enhance its non-military capabilities. There is simply no alternative. It must begin by rethinking its overall mission, its standards and commands, its disaster drills and training. It must conduct comprehensive redeployment. If the military cannot respond effectively to natural disasters during times of peace, how can the public expect it to defend the nation and protect the people during times of war?
Non-military operations are something the U.S. military has advocated as early as 1993, following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The U.S. military believes that with the end of the Cold War, there is only a 50% probability of a large-scale war. The probability of small-scale conventional wars and non-military operations on the other hand, is 100%. Therefore, humanitarian relief, disaster relief, emergency rescue, emergency evacuation, counter-terrorism, anti-smuggling, riot suppression and other non-military operations, are now functions of the armed forces. This is a global trend.
Each year the U.S. military holds tropical storm exercises in the vicinity of Guam, at random intervals. The purpose of these exercises is tropical storm disaster prevention. The U.S. military and its allies the world over have launched many such exercises, too numerous to mention. Among neighboring countries, Japan's Self-Defense Forces Law lists disaster response as an SDF military operation. Two years Indonesia revised its national disaster management agency protocols. The Vice President has been put in charge of disaster management. Rapid reaction disaster relief forces have been set up. In 2005 the mainland authorities announced their "Articles for Armed Forces Disaster Relief Participation." Floods, fires, and other non-military operations have been incorporated into their regular training. All responsible governments see disaster relief and emergency rescue as one of their armed forces' central tasks.
Since the 9/21 Earthquake and the SARS Incident, the Republic of China government has also included disaster response as one of the military's many responsibilities. If the different branches of the military establish public affairs groups, they can maintain links with rural district and county civic affairs bureaus and civic affairs sections in their defense districts. They can hold quarterly corps commander and civil magistrate co-ordination sessions. The different branches of the military can also set up civic affairs districts that overlap with their combat zones. In the event of a disaster, they should be able to switch from peacetime mode to wartime mode, and initiate emergency mobilization.
In terms of organization, the corps of engineers of the different branches of the armed forces should each establish reaction and relief battalions, equipped with Bobcats, excavators, 15 ton dump trucks, assault boats, and other rescue equipment. The chemical warfare groups of each branch of the military also have reconnaissance battalions with some disaster prevention and disaster relief capabilities. Four years ago central and southern Taiwan was hit by the 7/2 Flood. The armed forces Fifth Battle District did not wait for orders. It began disaster relief on its own. Its boldness impressed the public. The question is, if the military could they do it back then, why can't it do so now?
Disaster prevention and relief has been made a responsibility of the armed forces. But in general it is not taken seriously. The military does not understand global trends and public needs. It continues to think of disaster relief and emergency rescue as a sideline. It mistakenly assumes that too much emphasis on it will undermine combat readiness for normal missions. The result is a passive attitude toward natural disasters. The armed forces' active response to the 7/2 Flood was not dictated by the system, but by the personal judgment and personal dedication of the official in charge. It was an isolated case. It was the exception to the rule. This reveals the inadequacies of the existing mechanisms.
According to regulations, ground forces include standing forces, reserve forces, special warfare units, technical support, garrisoned troops, and military police. Naval fleets include individual warships, battle groups, and vessel groups. They also include airmen, air defense and electronic intelligence groups. These are already receiving disaster relief training. But these military units receive no more than 10 hours of training every six months. In terms of organization, the armed forces have some degree of disaster response capability. They may be able to deal with normal disasters. But when they encounter extraordinary floods or typhoons, they have trouble coping.
The armed forces were ineffective at disaster relief. They were criticized heavily because their military spokesmen did nothing. The armed forces were unable to provide timely disaster reports. They were unable to explain the situation to the public. They were criticized from beginning to end. Military "soft power" was non-existent. The morale of the armed forces suffered a serious setback. Some generals are lamenting the plan. They say it may as well be aborted. They consider it more humiliating than being defeated in battle. But how can a military unable to defend its own rights and privileges in times of peace, possible convince people it can defend the people in times of war?
President Ma and the Department of Defense have been skinned alive. Yesterday Ma finally issued a policy statement regarding the duties of the armed forces. He made clear that henceforth disaster prevention and disaster relief will be its "central task." Military strategy, military tactics, force structures, budgets, machinery, and equipment should be part of future disaster prevention and relief efforts. This will facilitate disaster relief, emergency rescue, and other non-military operations.
Talk is cheap. What people want to see is action, swift action. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, unlike wars, happen suddenly. They are difficult to predict. Typhoon season is not over yet. a disaster could strike at any time. If the government and the armed forces disappoint the people again, then a change in administrations is not far off.
中時電子報 新聞
字體顯示：小│中│大 回上頁 │列印
中國時報 2009.08.26
國軍早該將災害防救列為「中心任務」了
本報訊
八八水災，重創南台灣，國軍反應不及，又諉過辯解，洪水過後雖努力救災，形象已一落千丈。今後國軍要挽回民眾的信心，除了強化「非戰爭軍事行動」的能力，看不出有第二條路可走，而這一切的作為，必須從思維認知、任務賦予、準則教令、救災演訓到籌購機具做起，進行一次通盤性部署。否則，軍隊平時不能救災應援，戰時民眾又如何寄望它能保國衛民？
「非戰爭軍事行動」，早於一九九三年由美軍提出，是蘇聯解體後的產物。美軍認為，冷戰結束世界發生大規模戰爭的機率只剩五○％，而小規模的常規戰爭和「非戰爭」形態行動的可能性為一○○％，因此人道救援、救災搶險、撤僑、反恐、緝私、鎮壓暴亂等「非戰爭軍事行動」，開始納入軍隊職能的範疇，至今成為世界趨勢。
美軍每年不定期在關島附近舉行「風暴」演習，就是因應防災抗颱之用，美軍與友邦國家在全球展開類似的演練更是不勝枚舉。以周邊國家來說，日本在《自衛隊法》明定「災害派遣」為自衛隊的軍事行動之一；印尼二年前修改國家災害管理機構規程，由副總統負責，並成立救災快速反應部隊；對岸亦於二 ○○五年頒布《軍隊參加搶險救災條例》，將抗洪、救火等非戰爭行動任務納入部隊經常性訓練。可以說，任何負責任的政府，都視救災搶險為軍隊的中心任務之一。
自「九二一」大地震、ＳＡＲＳ事件以來，我國也把災害防救列為國軍多重任務的一環。如各軍團均設公共事務組，平時與防區內各縣民政局和鄉民政科聯繫，每季舉行由軍團指揮官和縣長參加的民事協調會報，各軍團同時成立與作戰區重疊的民事責任區，災情出現，應能做到平戰轉換，應急動員。
在組織編裝方面，國軍各軍團所屬工兵群均設一個應援營，配備小山貓、怪手、十五噸傾卸車和突擊舟等救災應援機具；各軍團所屬化學兵群亦有一個偵消營，具備起碼的災害防救能量。四年前，中南部發生「七二水災」，國軍第五作戰區發現緊急狀態時，不待命令就主動救災，勇於任事的做法令人印象深刻。問題是，當年做得到，今年何以荒腔走板？
首先，災害防救雖列入國軍任務之一，但總體上不受重視，軍方未能體察國際趨勢和民眾的切身需要，總以為救災搶險是副業，甚至誤認過於重視它會影響正常的戰備任務，以致被動面對災情。國軍在「七二水災」主動應援，並非制度使然，而是主事者的個人判斷和使命驅使，僅為個案，未能形成通則，說明既有的機制並不成熟。
按規定，三軍地面部隊包括常備、後備、特戰、技勤、衛戍、警衛；艦艇部隊涵蓋單艦、戰隊和艦隊；以及陸航、防空和資電部隊等等，均實施支援災害救援訓練，但各部隊每半年訓練時數不超過十小時。就組織編裝而言，各軍團雖有一定的救災應援能量，一般災情或可勝任，遇到非比尋常的洪水風災就難堪大任了。
這次國軍救災不力最為人所詬病的是，軍事發言人毫無作為，既不能即時提供國軍救災最新情資，又無法引導輿論，一路被打，軍事「軟實力」蕩然無存，國軍士氣嚴重受挫，一些將領感嘆之餘，萌生不如歸去之意，感覺比戰敗還要窩囊。試問，一個平時不能自我保護權益的軍隊，如何讓人相信戰時軍隊能保護人民！
馬總統和國防部被罵得體無完膚之後，日前終於對國軍的任務做出政策宣示，指明國軍今後要將災害防救列為「中心任務」；未來國軍在戰略、戰術、兵力結構、經費預算和機具裝備等方面，應納入防災救災的考慮，藉以全面精進救災搶險等「非戰爭軍事行動」的能力。
口說無憑，人民要看的是行動，而且動作要快。因為災情不像戰爭，如地震、海嘯突發而至，難以預警。颱風季節尚未結束，不能預測的災情隨時可能爆發。如果政府和國軍的表現再令人民失望，換人執政的日子就不遠了。 了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2009
The 8/8 Floods battered southern Taiwan. The reaction of the military was inadequate. On top of which, it made excuses for itself. Although it made a genuine effort to engage in disaster relief following the flood, its image had already been tarnished. If the military wishes to restore public confidence, it must enhance its non-military capabilities. There is simply no alternative. It must begin by rethinking its overall mission, its standards and commands, its disaster drills and training. It must conduct comprehensive redeployment. If the military cannot respond effectively to natural disasters during times of peace, how can the public expect it to defend the nation and protect the people during times of war?
Non-military operations are something the U.S. military has advocated as early as 1993, following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The U.S. military believes that with the end of the Cold War, there is only a 50% probability of a large-scale war. The probability of small-scale conventional wars and non-military operations on the other hand, is 100%. Therefore, humanitarian relief, disaster relief, emergency rescue, emergency evacuation, counter-terrorism, anti-smuggling, riot suppression and other non-military operations, are now functions of the armed forces. This is a global trend.
Each year the U.S. military holds tropical storm exercises in the vicinity of Guam, at random intervals. The purpose of these exercises is tropical storm disaster prevention. The U.S. military and its allies the world over have launched many such exercises, too numerous to mention. Among neighboring countries, Japan's Self-Defense Forces Law lists disaster response as an SDF military operation. Two years Indonesia revised its national disaster management agency protocols. The Vice President has been put in charge of disaster management. Rapid reaction disaster relief forces have been set up. In 2005 the mainland authorities announced their "Articles for Armed Forces Disaster Relief Participation." Floods, fires, and other non-military operations have been incorporated into their regular training. All responsible governments see disaster relief and emergency rescue as one of their armed forces' central tasks.
Since the 9/21 Earthquake and the SARS Incident, the Republic of China government has also included disaster response as one of the military's many responsibilities. If the different branches of the military establish public affairs groups, they can maintain links with rural district and county civic affairs bureaus and civic affairs sections in their defense districts. They can hold quarterly corps commander and civil magistrate co-ordination sessions. The different branches of the military can also set up civic affairs districts that overlap with their combat zones. In the event of a disaster, they should be able to switch from peacetime mode to wartime mode, and initiate emergency mobilization.
In terms of organization, the corps of engineers of the different branches of the armed forces should each establish reaction and relief battalions, equipped with Bobcats, excavators, 15 ton dump trucks, assault boats, and other rescue equipment. The chemical warfare groups of each branch of the military also have reconnaissance battalions with some disaster prevention and disaster relief capabilities. Four years ago central and southern Taiwan was hit by the 7/2 Flood. The armed forces Fifth Battle District did not wait for orders. It began disaster relief on its own. Its boldness impressed the public. The question is, if the military could they do it back then, why can't it do so now?
Disaster prevention and relief has been made a responsibility of the armed forces. But in general it is not taken seriously. The military does not understand global trends and public needs. It continues to think of disaster relief and emergency rescue as a sideline. It mistakenly assumes that too much emphasis on it will undermine combat readiness for normal missions. The result is a passive attitude toward natural disasters. The armed forces' active response to the 7/2 Flood was not dictated by the system, but by the personal judgment and personal dedication of the official in charge. It was an isolated case. It was the exception to the rule. This reveals the inadequacies of the existing mechanisms.
According to regulations, ground forces include standing forces, reserve forces, special warfare units, technical support, garrisoned troops, and military police. Naval fleets include individual warships, battle groups, and vessel groups. They also include airmen, air defense and electronic intelligence groups. These are already receiving disaster relief training. But these military units receive no more than 10 hours of training every six months. In terms of organization, the armed forces have some degree of disaster response capability. They may be able to deal with normal disasters. But when they encounter extraordinary floods or typhoons, they have trouble coping.
The armed forces were ineffective at disaster relief. They were criticized heavily because their military spokesmen did nothing. The armed forces were unable to provide timely disaster reports. They were unable to explain the situation to the public. They were criticized from beginning to end. Military "soft power" was non-existent. The morale of the armed forces suffered a serious setback. Some generals are lamenting the plan. They say it may as well be aborted. They consider it more humiliating than being defeated in battle. But how can a military unable to defend its own rights and privileges in times of peace, possible convince people it can defend the people in times of war?
President Ma and the Department of Defense have been skinned alive. Yesterday Ma finally issued a policy statement regarding the duties of the armed forces. He made clear that henceforth disaster prevention and disaster relief will be its "central task." Military strategy, military tactics, force structures, budgets, machinery, and equipment should be part of future disaster prevention and relief efforts. This will facilitate disaster relief, emergency rescue, and other non-military operations.
Talk is cheap. What people want to see is action, swift action. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, unlike wars, happen suddenly. They are difficult to predict. Typhoon season is not over yet. a disaster could strike at any time. If the government and the armed forces disappoint the people again, then a change in administrations is not far off.
中時電子報 新聞
字體顯示：小│中│大 回上頁 │列印
中國時報 2009.08.26
國軍早該將災害防救列為「中心任務」了
本報訊
八八水災，重創南台灣，國軍反應不及，又諉過辯解，洪水過後雖努力救災，形象已一落千丈。今後國軍要挽回民眾的信心，除了強化「非戰爭軍事行動」的能力，看不出有第二條路可走，而這一切的作為，必須從思維認知、任務賦予、準則教令、救災演訓到籌購機具做起，進行一次通盤性部署。否則，軍隊平時不能救災應援，戰時民眾又如何寄望它能保國衛民？
「非戰爭軍事行動」，早於一九九三年由美軍提出，是蘇聯解體後的產物。美軍認為，冷戰結束世界發生大規模戰爭的機率只剩五○％，而小規模的常規戰爭和「非戰爭」形態行動的可能性為一○○％，因此人道救援、救災搶險、撤僑、反恐、緝私、鎮壓暴亂等「非戰爭軍事行動」，開始納入軍隊職能的範疇，至今成為世界趨勢。
美軍每年不定期在關島附近舉行「風暴」演習，就是因應防災抗颱之用，美軍與友邦國家在全球展開類似的演練更是不勝枚舉。以周邊國家來說，日本在《自衛隊法》明定「災害派遣」為自衛隊的軍事行動之一；印尼二年前修改國家災害管理機構規程，由副總統負責，並成立救災快速反應部隊；對岸亦於二 ○○五年頒布《軍隊參加搶險救災條例》，將抗洪、救火等非戰爭行動任務納入部隊經常性訓練。可以說，任何負責任的政府，都視救災搶險為軍隊的中心任務之一。
自「九二一」大地震、ＳＡＲＳ事件以來，我國也把災害防救列為國軍多重任務的一環。如各軍團均設公共事務組，平時與防區內各縣民政局和鄉民政科聯繫，每季舉行由軍團指揮官和縣長參加的民事協調會報，各軍團同時成立與作戰區重疊的民事責任區，災情出現，應能做到平戰轉換，應急動員。
在組織編裝方面，國軍各軍團所屬工兵群均設一個應援營，配備小山貓、怪手、十五噸傾卸車和突擊舟等救災應援機具；各軍團所屬化學兵群亦有一個偵消營，具備起碼的災害防救能量。四年前，中南部發生「七二水災」，國軍第五作戰區發現緊急狀態時，不待命令就主動救災，勇於任事的做法令人印象深刻。問題是，當年做得到，今年何以荒腔走板？
首先，災害防救雖列入國軍任務之一，但總體上不受重視，軍方未能體察國際趨勢和民眾的切身需要，總以為救災搶險是副業，甚至誤認過於重視它會影響正常的戰備任務，以致被動面對災情。國軍在「七二水災」主動應援，並非制度使然，而是主事者的個人判斷和使命驅使，僅為個案，未能形成通則，說明既有的機制並不成熟。
按規定，三軍地面部隊包括常備、後備、特戰、技勤、衛戍、警衛；艦艇部隊涵蓋單艦、戰隊和艦隊；以及陸航、防空和資電部隊等等，均實施支援災害救援訓練，但各部隊每半年訓練時數不超過十小時。就組織編裝而言，各軍團雖有一定的救災應援能量，一般災情或可勝任，遇到非比尋常的洪水風災就難堪大任了。
這次國軍救災不力最為人所詬病的是，軍事發言人毫無作為，既不能即時提供國軍救災最新情資，又無法引導輿論，一路被打，軍事「軟實力」蕩然無存，國軍士氣嚴重受挫，一些將領感嘆之餘，萌生不如歸去之意，感覺比戰敗還要窩囊。試問，一個平時不能自我保護權益的軍隊，如何讓人相信戰時軍隊能保護人民！
馬總統和國防部被罵得體無完膚之後，日前終於對國軍的任務做出政策宣示，指明國軍今後要將災害防救列為「中心任務」；未來國軍在戰略、戰術、兵力結構、經費預算和機具裝備等方面，應納入防災救災的考慮，藉以全面精進救災搶險等「非戰爭軍事行動」的能力。
口說無憑，人民要看的是行動，而且動作要快。因為災情不像戰爭，如地震、海嘯突發而至，難以預警。颱風季節尚未結束，不能預測的災情隨時可能爆發。如果政府和國軍的表現再令人民失望，換人執政的日子就不遠了。 了。
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
No Determination, No Growth
No Determination, No Growth
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 25, 2009
Recently a number of economic indicators have jumped. The global economy appears to be emerging from the worst recession since the 1930s. Taiwan's economy is gradually turning the corner along with the global economy. Last Thursday the DGBAS changed its estimate for Taiwan's GDP growth rate for this year to -4.04%. If post-disaster reconstruction proceeds smoothly in the wake of Typhoon Morakot, this estimate may be increased to -3.75%. Nevertheless we find it impossible to share the government's official optimism. The road to reconstruction is long. Tens of thousands of families have lost family members and homes. They have no idea where they will live.
Recently the economic indicators of major countries in Europe and the United States have offered good news. For example, July sales for existing US homes have increased for four months in a row, and established a ten year record. The Eurozone August Purchasing Managers Index unexpectedly rose. When U.S., European, Japanese and other central bank presidents attended the World Bank Annual Meeting last Friday, the World Bank president betrayed a rare smile. Asia's emerging countries grew substantially faster than Europe and the United States during the second quarter, to the amazement of many economists.
Recently the Economist magazine investigated the surprising recovery of the emerging Asian countries. It believes the emerging countries in Asia recovered more rapidly than those in Europe and the United States because of the manufacturing cycle. Asian governments have established generous financial revitalization programs. Their banking systems suffered relatively minor damage. Their private sectors have high rates of saving. The critical question however, is whether the Asian countries' growth rates are sustainable.
The global economy has gradually returned to normal. But Taiwan was hit by heavy rains from Typhoon Morakot, the biggest typhoon in a century. Landslides and mudslides have changed the face of the land. The livelihood of hundreds of thousands of victims remain in doubt. In response to the disaster wrought by Morak, the Executive Yuan recently expedited special provisions for reconstruction. It provided 100 billion NT for post-disaster reconstruction. It estimated that reconstruction would take three years. Yesterday President Ma Ying-jeou personally promised survivors that the reconstruction of Hsiaoling Village would be completed during his term.
Just how badly did Typhoon Morakot damage Taiwan's economy? The DGBAS estimates that the impact of the disaster on the economy was not that great. Massive reconstruction projects will boost demand. They may even increase the economic growth rate. Financial chiefs are also optimistic in their predictions. The impact of the financial tsunami has passed. Taiwan's economy may recover by the fourth quarter.
Typhoon Morakot destroyed southern Taiwan. It is now badly scarred. For the victims, every time a typhoon strikes, both lives and property are threatened. Farmland, orchards, fish ponds were completely destroyed. Families were destroyed. These are burdens too heavy to bear. They are not something cold statistics can show. If post-disaster reconstruction proceeds rapidly, as President Ma hopes, that may also increase economic growth. That would of course be ideal. But disaster victims have many misgivings. They wonder how an incompetent ruling administration can possibly complete the work of reconstruction in a timely manner.
Indeed, the impact on the tourism industry in the south is more serious than outsiders can imagine. Tens of thousands of victims lost their livelihoods. Revenue from tourism has evaporated. Take one of the most important tourist attractions for example, Mount Alishan. No one has any idea when the minitrain will be reopened to traffic. The tourist attractions in the Paolai Hot Springs District in Kaohsiung have also been buried under earth and rock. These cannot be repaired any time soon. Mother Nature has lashed back with a vengeance. Future relocation and reconstruction will require new building sites and environmental impact assessments. These are not tasks that can be rushed.
Everyone knows that the key to success when it comes to reconstruction is determination. Past experiences have been disappointing. Ten years ago, during post-disaster reconstruction following the 9/21 Earthquake, many hill-tribe village relocation projects were delayed six to seven years. Victims were forced to live in pre-fab temporary housing. They endured countless typhoons and landslides. Some tribes relocated to new sites faced new landslide threats. The Ma administration estimates that reconstruction work will be completed within three years. But without a strong administrative team coordinating central and local government resources, no one really knows when it will be finished.
The Ma administration's ineptitude during initial disaster relief efforts has already disappointed the public. If reconstruction is carried out by the same bunch of insensitive bureaucrats oblivous to the people's suffering, the public will find it hard to be optimistic.
Asia's Four Tigers are in a race to recover from the global financial tsunami. The DGBAS has revised Taiwan's economic growth rate. But Taiwan's economic performance this year still lags behind South Korea's and Hong Kong's. It is only slightly better than Singapore's. Faced with fierce international competition and constant domestic disasters, we find it hard to be overly optimistic.
Typhoon Morakot has sent the Ma administration approval ratings into freefall. President Ma must summon up his revolutionary drive. He must demonstrate administrative competence. Only then can he restore public confidence. As long as the ruling administration remains incompetent and knows only how to apologize, no amount of reconstruction funds will raise Taiwan's economic growth rates.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.25
沒有執行力 那有成長率
本報訊
最近多項經濟指標明顯上揚，全球經濟似乎逐漸走出一九三○年代以來最嚴重的衰退。隨著國際景氣回溫，台灣的經濟逐漸走出谷底，主計處上周四調高台灣今年ＧＤＰ成長率為負四．○四％，若莫拉克災後重建計畫順利執行，可能進一步調高為負三．七五％。不過，對官方這項樂觀預估，我們卻毫無喜悅，因為，重建之路迢迢，數以萬計家破人亡的災民，還不知道未來的家園在那裡。
最近歐美主要國家的經濟指標陸續傳出捷報，例如，美國七月成屋銷售連續四個月增長，創下十年來最佳記錄；歐元區八月採購經理人指數意外勁揚；美、歐、日等國央行總裁上周五出席世界央行總裁年會時，露出了難得的笑容。亞洲新興國家第二季的成長大幅超越歐美國家，更跌破許多經濟學家的眼鏡。
最近《經濟學人》特別探討亞洲新興國家令人驚訝的「復甦」，認為亞洲新興國家復甦的腳步領先了歐美，可能與製造業景氣循環周期、亞洲各國政府大手筆財政振興方案、銀行體系相對受傷較輕微以及民間的高儲蓄率有關；未來更關鍵的是，亞洲各國的成長力道能否持久。
全球景氣逐漸回溫之際，台灣卻因莫拉克颱風帶來百年來最大的豪雨，山崩與土石流使得山河變色，數十萬災民生計陷入絕境。因應莫拉克帶來的災害，行政院日前火速通過重建特別條例，編列一千億元重建經費，預計三年內完成重建。馬英九總統日前當面向風災後倖存的小林村民保證，在他任內一定會完成小林村的重建。
這次莫拉克風災對於台灣經濟的衝擊究竟有多大？主計處評估，風災對經濟的衝擊並不大，龐大重建計畫將帶動各項需求，甚至還可能拉高經濟成長率。財經首長們亦樂觀預期，金融海嘯的衝擊已經過去了，台灣的經濟最快在第四季復甦。
這次南台灣在莫拉克的摧殘下，已經滿目瘡痍。對災民而言，每次颱風來襲，生命財產均飽受威脅，農田、果園、魚塭全毀與家破人亡都是生命中不可承受之重，這些都不是冰冷的統計數字所能呈現。災後重建如果能如馬總統所願迅速啟動，又能拉高經濟成長，那實在是太美好了。然而，災民們心中其實充滿疑慮，他們不知道無能的行政團隊，如何能迅速完成重建工作？
事實上，這次南部觀光產業受到的衝擊，超乎外界的想像，數萬災民們失去生計，觀光產業的收入也泡湯。以最重要的觀光景點阿里山為例，森林鐵道不知何時才能通車，而高雄寶來溫泉區等觀光景點也遭土石淹沒，短期內難以修復。大自然反撲力量如此強烈，未來所有的遷村與重建絕對必須重新選址規畫並做好環境影響評估，這些工作都不可能在倉促之下完成。
眾所周知，重建工作的成敗關鍵在於執行力，過去許多經驗卻是令人失望。十年前九二一的災後重建，許多山地部落遷村計畫一拖六、七年，災民被迫住在組合屋裡，不知歷經多少颱風與土石流的威脅；有些部落遷移到新址，竟也面臨土石流威脅。這回馬政府計畫在三年內完成重建工作，如果沒有強有力的執政團隊，充分整合中央與地方資源，沒有人知道何時才能真正完成。
其實，馬政府在第一時間救災不力，早已讓國人失望透頂，未來依舊由同一批無法苦民所苦的官僚來執行重建工作，實在很難令人有樂觀的期待。
在亞洲四小龍這一波復甦競賽中，主計處雖然上修台灣經濟成長率，不過台灣今年的表現仍不如南韓、香港，僅比新加坡好一點。面對國際激烈的競爭，加上國內的天災人禍不斷，我們根本沒有過度樂觀的本錢。
這次莫拉克風災使得馬政府聲望跌入谷底，此時馬總統唯有拿出改革的魄力，展現超強的執行力，才能挽回民眾的信心。畢竟，一個不斷說抱歉，一個無能的政府團隊，即使投入再多的重建經費，恐怕也難以拉高台灣的經濟成長率。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 25, 2009
Recently a number of economic indicators have jumped. The global economy appears to be emerging from the worst recession since the 1930s. Taiwan's economy is gradually turning the corner along with the global economy. Last Thursday the DGBAS changed its estimate for Taiwan's GDP growth rate for this year to -4.04%. If post-disaster reconstruction proceeds smoothly in the wake of Typhoon Morakot, this estimate may be increased to -3.75%. Nevertheless we find it impossible to share the government's official optimism. The road to reconstruction is long. Tens of thousands of families have lost family members and homes. They have no idea where they will live.
Recently the economic indicators of major countries in Europe and the United States have offered good news. For example, July sales for existing US homes have increased for four months in a row, and established a ten year record. The Eurozone August Purchasing Managers Index unexpectedly rose. When U.S., European, Japanese and other central bank presidents attended the World Bank Annual Meeting last Friday, the World Bank president betrayed a rare smile. Asia's emerging countries grew substantially faster than Europe and the United States during the second quarter, to the amazement of many economists.
Recently the Economist magazine investigated the surprising recovery of the emerging Asian countries. It believes the emerging countries in Asia recovered more rapidly than those in Europe and the United States because of the manufacturing cycle. Asian governments have established generous financial revitalization programs. Their banking systems suffered relatively minor damage. Their private sectors have high rates of saving. The critical question however, is whether the Asian countries' growth rates are sustainable.
The global economy has gradually returned to normal. But Taiwan was hit by heavy rains from Typhoon Morakot, the biggest typhoon in a century. Landslides and mudslides have changed the face of the land. The livelihood of hundreds of thousands of victims remain in doubt. In response to the disaster wrought by Morak, the Executive Yuan recently expedited special provisions for reconstruction. It provided 100 billion NT for post-disaster reconstruction. It estimated that reconstruction would take three years. Yesterday President Ma Ying-jeou personally promised survivors that the reconstruction of Hsiaoling Village would be completed during his term.
Just how badly did Typhoon Morakot damage Taiwan's economy? The DGBAS estimates that the impact of the disaster on the economy was not that great. Massive reconstruction projects will boost demand. They may even increase the economic growth rate. Financial chiefs are also optimistic in their predictions. The impact of the financial tsunami has passed. Taiwan's economy may recover by the fourth quarter.
Typhoon Morakot destroyed southern Taiwan. It is now badly scarred. For the victims, every time a typhoon strikes, both lives and property are threatened. Farmland, orchards, fish ponds were completely destroyed. Families were destroyed. These are burdens too heavy to bear. They are not something cold statistics can show. If post-disaster reconstruction proceeds rapidly, as President Ma hopes, that may also increase economic growth. That would of course be ideal. But disaster victims have many misgivings. They wonder how an incompetent ruling administration can possibly complete the work of reconstruction in a timely manner.
Indeed, the impact on the tourism industry in the south is more serious than outsiders can imagine. Tens of thousands of victims lost their livelihoods. Revenue from tourism has evaporated. Take one of the most important tourist attractions for example, Mount Alishan. No one has any idea when the minitrain will be reopened to traffic. The tourist attractions in the Paolai Hot Springs District in Kaohsiung have also been buried under earth and rock. These cannot be repaired any time soon. Mother Nature has lashed back with a vengeance. Future relocation and reconstruction will require new building sites and environmental impact assessments. These are not tasks that can be rushed.
Everyone knows that the key to success when it comes to reconstruction is determination. Past experiences have been disappointing. Ten years ago, during post-disaster reconstruction following the 9/21 Earthquake, many hill-tribe village relocation projects were delayed six to seven years. Victims were forced to live in pre-fab temporary housing. They endured countless typhoons and landslides. Some tribes relocated to new sites faced new landslide threats. The Ma administration estimates that reconstruction work will be completed within three years. But without a strong administrative team coordinating central and local government resources, no one really knows when it will be finished.
The Ma administration's ineptitude during initial disaster relief efforts has already disappointed the public. If reconstruction is carried out by the same bunch of insensitive bureaucrats oblivous to the people's suffering, the public will find it hard to be optimistic.
Asia's Four Tigers are in a race to recover from the global financial tsunami. The DGBAS has revised Taiwan's economic growth rate. But Taiwan's economic performance this year still lags behind South Korea's and Hong Kong's. It is only slightly better than Singapore's. Faced with fierce international competition and constant domestic disasters, we find it hard to be overly optimistic.
Typhoon Morakot has sent the Ma administration approval ratings into freefall. President Ma must summon up his revolutionary drive. He must demonstrate administrative competence. Only then can he restore public confidence. As long as the ruling administration remains incompetent and knows only how to apologize, no amount of reconstruction funds will raise Taiwan's economic growth rates.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.25
沒有執行力 那有成長率
本報訊
最近多項經濟指標明顯上揚，全球經濟似乎逐漸走出一九三○年代以來最嚴重的衰退。隨著國際景氣回溫，台灣的經濟逐漸走出谷底，主計處上周四調高台灣今年ＧＤＰ成長率為負四．○四％，若莫拉克災後重建計畫順利執行，可能進一步調高為負三．七五％。不過，對官方這項樂觀預估，我們卻毫無喜悅，因為，重建之路迢迢，數以萬計家破人亡的災民，還不知道未來的家園在那裡。
最近歐美主要國家的經濟指標陸續傳出捷報，例如，美國七月成屋銷售連續四個月增長，創下十年來最佳記錄；歐元區八月採購經理人指數意外勁揚；美、歐、日等國央行總裁上周五出席世界央行總裁年會時，露出了難得的笑容。亞洲新興國家第二季的成長大幅超越歐美國家，更跌破許多經濟學家的眼鏡。
最近《經濟學人》特別探討亞洲新興國家令人驚訝的「復甦」，認為亞洲新興國家復甦的腳步領先了歐美，可能與製造業景氣循環周期、亞洲各國政府大手筆財政振興方案、銀行體系相對受傷較輕微以及民間的高儲蓄率有關；未來更關鍵的是，亞洲各國的成長力道能否持久。
全球景氣逐漸回溫之際，台灣卻因莫拉克颱風帶來百年來最大的豪雨，山崩與土石流使得山河變色，數十萬災民生計陷入絕境。因應莫拉克帶來的災害，行政院日前火速通過重建特別條例，編列一千億元重建經費，預計三年內完成重建。馬英九總統日前當面向風災後倖存的小林村民保證，在他任內一定會完成小林村的重建。
這次莫拉克風災對於台灣經濟的衝擊究竟有多大？主計處評估，風災對經濟的衝擊並不大，龐大重建計畫將帶動各項需求，甚至還可能拉高經濟成長率。財經首長們亦樂觀預期，金融海嘯的衝擊已經過去了，台灣的經濟最快在第四季復甦。
這次南台灣在莫拉克的摧殘下，已經滿目瘡痍。對災民而言，每次颱風來襲，生命財產均飽受威脅，農田、果園、魚塭全毀與家破人亡都是生命中不可承受之重，這些都不是冰冷的統計數字所能呈現。災後重建如果能如馬總統所願迅速啟動，又能拉高經濟成長，那實在是太美好了。然而，災民們心中其實充滿疑慮，他們不知道無能的行政團隊，如何能迅速完成重建工作？
事實上，這次南部觀光產業受到的衝擊，超乎外界的想像，數萬災民們失去生計，觀光產業的收入也泡湯。以最重要的觀光景點阿里山為例，森林鐵道不知何時才能通車，而高雄寶來溫泉區等觀光景點也遭土石淹沒，短期內難以修復。大自然反撲力量如此強烈，未來所有的遷村與重建絕對必須重新選址規畫並做好環境影響評估，這些工作都不可能在倉促之下完成。
眾所周知，重建工作的成敗關鍵在於執行力，過去許多經驗卻是令人失望。十年前九二一的災後重建，許多山地部落遷村計畫一拖六、七年，災民被迫住在組合屋裡，不知歷經多少颱風與土石流的威脅；有些部落遷移到新址，竟也面臨土石流威脅。這回馬政府計畫在三年內完成重建工作，如果沒有強有力的執政團隊，充分整合中央與地方資源，沒有人知道何時才能真正完成。
其實，馬政府在第一時間救災不力，早已讓國人失望透頂，未來依舊由同一批無法苦民所苦的官僚來執行重建工作，實在很難令人有樂觀的期待。
在亞洲四小龍這一波復甦競賽中，主計處雖然上修台灣經濟成長率，不過台灣今年的表現仍不如南韓、香港，僅比新加坡好一點。面對國際激烈的競爭，加上國內的天災人禍不斷，我們根本沒有過度樂觀的本錢。
這次莫拉克風災使得馬政府聲望跌入谷底，此時馬總統唯有拿出改革的魄力，展現超強的執行力，才能挽回民眾的信心。畢竟，一個不斷說抱歉，一個無能的政府團隊，即使投入再多的重建經費，恐怕也難以拉高台灣的經濟成長率。
Monday, August 24, 2009
Post-Disaster Reconstruction Must Not be Rushed
Post-Disaster Reconstruction Must Not be Rushed
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2009
Typhoon Morakot battered the mountain and coastal regions of Pingtung, Taitung, Chiayi, and Nantou. The number of dead and injured have probably exceeded one thousand. Disaster relief has reached a stopping point. Post-disaster reconstruction will soon begin. The geological structure of the mountain ranges and climate have undergone unpredictable macro-level changes. How does one create human habitat that does not compete with the mountains and streams, that coexists with nature? That is the highest priority in post-disaster reconstruction.
The hardest-hit were the mountain regions, from Nantzhuhsien Creek up towards Hsiaoling Village, from Laonong Creek towards Paolai Village. The affected areas were mostly river terraces. These are mesa areas that have long been subject to erosion by by earth and rock. During heavy rains, these may cause landslides. Following Typhoon Morakot, these areas have become new river terraces. They constitute a new geographical environment. If a new settlement is built there, will the Hsiaoling Village tragedy reenact itself? This is the first post-disaster reconstruction issue we wish to pursue.
Statistics over the past decade reveal that the Kaoping Creek has accumulated up to 50 million tons of earth and rock per year. The Peinan Creek has accumulated 80 million tons. The earth and rock originates in the middle and upper reaches, and is related to the geological environment. Chiahsien Township, Hsiaoling Village, and Paolai Village form a triangle. Concealed beneath this triangle is a unique geological environment. To the west of Paolai Village lies a fault line. What we normally perceive as vertical cliffs and beautiful scenery, actually indicate steep inclines. It is like this from all the way from Nanzhuhsien to Laonong. The region has several unique features. One. The geological structure is highly fragmented. Two. Fault lines are everywhere. Three. The surrounding environment is fragile. Given such a fragile environment, how can one allow reconstruction in the same location?
Since Typhoon Herb struck several decades ago, we have repeatedly raised the issue of land use and land planning. But once the disaster passes, everyone goes on with business as usual. Monitoring of the relevant national lands are also shelved. Government agencies have failed to provide sound geographical data. They have failed to paint a clear picture of the surrounding environmentally sensitive regions. Land use and land planning policies clash with nature. The result is an endless succession of disasters. Therefore the promotion and implementation of national land planning must not involve mere lip service. If they do, such tragedies will repeat endlessly.
In the past, every time disaster struck, people would suggest that man cannot defy nature, and that the mountain regions cannot sustain human habitation. They should be returned to a state of nature. Farmlands should be restored to forests. Floodplain restoration also becomes a hot issue, especially when talk turns to disaster prevention. One immediately thinks of the resettlement of villager. But every time, after a month or two has passed, talk of resettling villagers is forgotten, and the issue left hanging. Aboriginal life and culture is incompatible with urban or rural living. Even if one forcibly relocates the villagers, they eventually return to the mountains. When the next storm arrives, they become environmental refugees yet again.
Since relocating the villagers is infeasible, the only thing to do is consider relocating the villages themselves. Therefore the most urgent task should be to mobilize the nation's experts in geology, water resources management, water conservation, environmental engineering, and forestry. They should survey the affected areas and conduct large-scale soil tests. They should be made charged with finding comparatively safe sites within the vicinity of the disaster areas to relocate the villages. When such rehabilitated lands have been found, the relevant government entities and local communities can conduct talks, instructing the inhabitants not to blindly develop the land but instead engage in disaster prevention and disaster mitigation. They must use private and government resources, and as quickly as possible begin disaster region planning and reconstruction.
In the meantime, the government should establish the necessary disaster warning systems. Once they receive information of impending rainstorms, they can analyze the data and understand flood and mudslide flow. Once the alert has been sounded, disaster prevention and evacuation should begin as soon as possible to minimize disaster damage.
After each disaster, under pressure from the victims and the public, the government is forced to immediately appropriate funds for rehabilitation. Any government entities that fail to spend the funds allocated to them end up earning demerits. This leads to construction projects without adequate planning. The end result is slapdash construction, or even a repetition of the same mistakes as before. As a result, disaster prevention projects can never be sustained long term.
Therefore, rehabilitation projects must be planned in advance. Apart from any necessary emergency measures, do not rush redevelopment. At least show some respect for professionalism. First carry out careful planning. Then communicate and coordinate with the public. Reach a broad consensus. Combine the resources of the government and civil society. Only then can one be prepared for unpredictable environmental disasters.
Given radical changes in the climate and annual rainfall, traditional engineering methods can no longer prevent disasters. Under constant counterattacks from nature, human errors are impossible to hide. The result is the loss of countless lives and inestimable property. Learning ones' lessons is the best way to prevent future disasters, Hopefully current reconstruction efforts are not merely fleeting enthusiasms.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.24
社論－災後復建 真的不能再急就章
本報訊
莫拉克風災重創屏東、台東、嘉義、南投山區及沿海地區，死傷恐超過千人。在救災告一個段落，災難重建即將次第展開，面對破碎的山河和風雲莫測的大氣變遷，如何建立一個不與山爭地、不與河爭地，與自然共生的社會體系，已是災後復建的當務之急了。
這次受災最嚴重的莫過於山區，從楠梓仙溪往上到小林，從荖濃溪看到寶來，這些受災地區大抵都是在河階台地，本來就是土石所沖刷的台地，一遇大雨，就可能造成土石流災禍；莫拉克災害後，這些地區又成為另一個新的河階台地，等於是一個全新的地理環境，如果未來在此地又打造新的聚落，幾年後另一個類似小林村的悲劇會不會再度發生？這是我們對災後復建第一個要追問的問題。
從過去台灣十年來統計資料來看，高屏溪每年累積土石達五千萬噸、卑南溪八千萬噸，這些土石來自中上游，和背景地質環境有關，甲仙小林寶來三角區域，背後潛藏特殊地質環境，寶來一路往西都有斷層，平常看到峭壁風景漂亮，代表的其實是坡度陡峭，從楠梓仙溪到荖濃溪都如此，這其中所顯示的幾點特色：一是其地質材料非常破碎，二是斷層林立，三是周遭環境敏感。身處在這樣的脆弱環境，如何能夠允許還要在原地重建？
從賀伯風災過後的幾十年來，不論是土地利用還是國土規畫，同樣問題我們其實一直都反覆的討論過。但等到災害過後，大家就依然故我，相關的國土監測也一直是束諸高閣，政府單位不僅沒有提供好的地理環境資訊，也沒有把周遭的環境敏感區位畫出來，一個沒有與自然共生的土地利用、國土規畫政策，最終就是災難的不斷輪迴而已。因此推動並落實國土規畫，不應只是說說而已，否則悲劇終究會不斷的降臨。
過去每一次經歷災難摧殘後，一開始不少人都會主張人無法與天爭，不適合人居住的山區，應該還給大自然，退耕還林，退河還地往往成為最熱門的話題。特別是談到防災，馬上想到的就是遷村，但每回都是災難過後不到一、兩個月，遷村之說最後都不了了之。因為原住民的生活與文化無法與城鄉系統融合，即使勉強遷村，他們最後還是又回到山上老家。等到下次再碰到風災，他們又淪為環境難民。
如果實務上遷村的可行性不大，那就只有從移村的角度思考。因而當前最迫切的工作，應是動員全國各地的地質、水利、水保、環工與森林等範疇的學者與專業人員，前往各受災地區勘察，進行一次大規模的國土檢測，由他們負責在災區附近找一塊比較安全的地段，做為移村之用，這些復建之地找到之後，再由政府相關單位與當地社區民眾展開積極對話溝通，教育他們不要再盲目的開發以及防災減災之道，然後利用民間與政府資源，盡速展開災區規畫與興建的工作。
在此同時，政府亦應該加速進行相關災害預警系統建立，一旦獲悉狂風降雨即將來襲，透過模式的分析，掌握洪水與土石流資訊，一旦發警報，就應該盡速進行相關防災撤離工作，以減少災害損害程度。
每次發生災害後，在災民與輿論的壓力下，政府不得不馬上撥款進行復建，只要沒把錢花完的單位就要記過處分，造成工程沒有完整的規畫時間，最後導致粗製濫造，甚至重蹈覆轍，防災工程無法永續發展。
因此，復建工作必須規畫先行，除了必要的緊急工程之外，不要急著馬上進行重建工程，至少尊重專業，先做好縝密的規畫，再與民眾進行繁複的溝通協調，取得大致共識後，再結合政府與民間的資源投入，這樣才能面對未來不可測的環境災難。
面臨氣候變遷的劇變，雨量年年破紀錄，工程手段已無法再遏阻災難的發生，在大自然不斷的反撲下，所有人為錯誤都不可能再隱藏，而最終賠上的卻是無數的生命和財產。記取教訓是防範下一次災害最好的策略，但願這次重建，不再只是五分鐘熱度而已。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2009
Typhoon Morakot battered the mountain and coastal regions of Pingtung, Taitung, Chiayi, and Nantou. The number of dead and injured have probably exceeded one thousand. Disaster relief has reached a stopping point. Post-disaster reconstruction will soon begin. The geological structure of the mountain ranges and climate have undergone unpredictable macro-level changes. How does one create human habitat that does not compete with the mountains and streams, that coexists with nature? That is the highest priority in post-disaster reconstruction.
The hardest-hit were the mountain regions, from Nantzhuhsien Creek up towards Hsiaoling Village, from Laonong Creek towards Paolai Village. The affected areas were mostly river terraces. These are mesa areas that have long been subject to erosion by by earth and rock. During heavy rains, these may cause landslides. Following Typhoon Morakot, these areas have become new river terraces. They constitute a new geographical environment. If a new settlement is built there, will the Hsiaoling Village tragedy reenact itself? This is the first post-disaster reconstruction issue we wish to pursue.
Statistics over the past decade reveal that the Kaoping Creek has accumulated up to 50 million tons of earth and rock per year. The Peinan Creek has accumulated 80 million tons. The earth and rock originates in the middle and upper reaches, and is related to the geological environment. Chiahsien Township, Hsiaoling Village, and Paolai Village form a triangle. Concealed beneath this triangle is a unique geological environment. To the west of Paolai Village lies a fault line. What we normally perceive as vertical cliffs and beautiful scenery, actually indicate steep inclines. It is like this from all the way from Nanzhuhsien to Laonong. The region has several unique features. One. The geological structure is highly fragmented. Two. Fault lines are everywhere. Three. The surrounding environment is fragile. Given such a fragile environment, how can one allow reconstruction in the same location?
Since Typhoon Herb struck several decades ago, we have repeatedly raised the issue of land use and land planning. But once the disaster passes, everyone goes on with business as usual. Monitoring of the relevant national lands are also shelved. Government agencies have failed to provide sound geographical data. They have failed to paint a clear picture of the surrounding environmentally sensitive regions. Land use and land planning policies clash with nature. The result is an endless succession of disasters. Therefore the promotion and implementation of national land planning must not involve mere lip service. If they do, such tragedies will repeat endlessly.
In the past, every time disaster struck, people would suggest that man cannot defy nature, and that the mountain regions cannot sustain human habitation. They should be returned to a state of nature. Farmlands should be restored to forests. Floodplain restoration also becomes a hot issue, especially when talk turns to disaster prevention. One immediately thinks of the resettlement of villager. But every time, after a month or two has passed, talk of resettling villagers is forgotten, and the issue left hanging. Aboriginal life and culture is incompatible with urban or rural living. Even if one forcibly relocates the villagers, they eventually return to the mountains. When the next storm arrives, they become environmental refugees yet again.
Since relocating the villagers is infeasible, the only thing to do is consider relocating the villages themselves. Therefore the most urgent task should be to mobilize the nation's experts in geology, water resources management, water conservation, environmental engineering, and forestry. They should survey the affected areas and conduct large-scale soil tests. They should be made charged with finding comparatively safe sites within the vicinity of the disaster areas to relocate the villages. When such rehabilitated lands have been found, the relevant government entities and local communities can conduct talks, instructing the inhabitants not to blindly develop the land but instead engage in disaster prevention and disaster mitigation. They must use private and government resources, and as quickly as possible begin disaster region planning and reconstruction.
In the meantime, the government should establish the necessary disaster warning systems. Once they receive information of impending rainstorms, they can analyze the data and understand flood and mudslide flow. Once the alert has been sounded, disaster prevention and evacuation should begin as soon as possible to minimize disaster damage.
After each disaster, under pressure from the victims and the public, the government is forced to immediately appropriate funds for rehabilitation. Any government entities that fail to spend the funds allocated to them end up earning demerits. This leads to construction projects without adequate planning. The end result is slapdash construction, or even a repetition of the same mistakes as before. As a result, disaster prevention projects can never be sustained long term.
Therefore, rehabilitation projects must be planned in advance. Apart from any necessary emergency measures, do not rush redevelopment. At least show some respect for professionalism. First carry out careful planning. Then communicate and coordinate with the public. Reach a broad consensus. Combine the resources of the government and civil society. Only then can one be prepared for unpredictable environmental disasters.
Given radical changes in the climate and annual rainfall, traditional engineering methods can no longer prevent disasters. Under constant counterattacks from nature, human errors are impossible to hide. The result is the loss of countless lives and inestimable property. Learning ones' lessons is the best way to prevent future disasters, Hopefully current reconstruction efforts are not merely fleeting enthusiasms.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.24
社論－災後復建 真的不能再急就章
本報訊
莫拉克風災重創屏東、台東、嘉義、南投山區及沿海地區，死傷恐超過千人。在救災告一個段落，災難重建即將次第展開，面對破碎的山河和風雲莫測的大氣變遷，如何建立一個不與山爭地、不與河爭地，與自然共生的社會體系，已是災後復建的當務之急了。
這次受災最嚴重的莫過於山區，從楠梓仙溪往上到小林，從荖濃溪看到寶來，這些受災地區大抵都是在河階台地，本來就是土石所沖刷的台地，一遇大雨，就可能造成土石流災禍；莫拉克災害後，這些地區又成為另一個新的河階台地，等於是一個全新的地理環境，如果未來在此地又打造新的聚落，幾年後另一個類似小林村的悲劇會不會再度發生？這是我們對災後復建第一個要追問的問題。
從過去台灣十年來統計資料來看，高屏溪每年累積土石達五千萬噸、卑南溪八千萬噸，這些土石來自中上游，和背景地質環境有關，甲仙小林寶來三角區域，背後潛藏特殊地質環境，寶來一路往西都有斷層，平常看到峭壁風景漂亮，代表的其實是坡度陡峭，從楠梓仙溪到荖濃溪都如此，這其中所顯示的幾點特色：一是其地質材料非常破碎，二是斷層林立，三是周遭環境敏感。身處在這樣的脆弱環境，如何能夠允許還要在原地重建？
從賀伯風災過後的幾十年來，不論是土地利用還是國土規畫，同樣問題我們其實一直都反覆的討論過。但等到災害過後，大家就依然故我，相關的國土監測也一直是束諸高閣，政府單位不僅沒有提供好的地理環境資訊，也沒有把周遭的環境敏感區位畫出來，一個沒有與自然共生的土地利用、國土規畫政策，最終就是災難的不斷輪迴而已。因此推動並落實國土規畫，不應只是說說而已，否則悲劇終究會不斷的降臨。
過去每一次經歷災難摧殘後，一開始不少人都會主張人無法與天爭，不適合人居住的山區，應該還給大自然，退耕還林，退河還地往往成為最熱門的話題。特別是談到防災，馬上想到的就是遷村，但每回都是災難過後不到一、兩個月，遷村之說最後都不了了之。因為原住民的生活與文化無法與城鄉系統融合，即使勉強遷村，他們最後還是又回到山上老家。等到下次再碰到風災，他們又淪為環境難民。
如果實務上遷村的可行性不大，那就只有從移村的角度思考。因而當前最迫切的工作，應是動員全國各地的地質、水利、水保、環工與森林等範疇的學者與專業人員，前往各受災地區勘察，進行一次大規模的國土檢測，由他們負責在災區附近找一塊比較安全的地段，做為移村之用，這些復建之地找到之後，再由政府相關單位與當地社區民眾展開積極對話溝通，教育他們不要再盲目的開發以及防災減災之道，然後利用民間與政府資源，盡速展開災區規畫與興建的工作。
在此同時，政府亦應該加速進行相關災害預警系統建立，一旦獲悉狂風降雨即將來襲，透過模式的分析，掌握洪水與土石流資訊，一旦發警報，就應該盡速進行相關防災撤離工作，以減少災害損害程度。
每次發生災害後，在災民與輿論的壓力下，政府不得不馬上撥款進行復建，只要沒把錢花完的單位就要記過處分，造成工程沒有完整的規畫時間，最後導致粗製濫造，甚至重蹈覆轍，防災工程無法永續發展。
因此，復建工作必須規畫先行，除了必要的緊急工程之外，不要急著馬上進行重建工程，至少尊重專業，先做好縝密的規畫，再與民眾進行繁複的溝通協調，取得大致共識後，再結合政府與民間的資源投入，這樣才能面對未來不可測的環境災難。
面臨氣候變遷的劇變，雨量年年破紀錄，工程手段已無法再遏阻災難的發生，在大自然不斷的反撲下，所有人為錯誤都不可能再隱藏，而最終賠上的卻是無數的生命和財產。記取教訓是防範下一次災害最好的策略，但願這次重建，不再只是五分鐘熱度而已。
Friday, August 21, 2009
Rewrite the 2010 Budget!
Rewrite the 2010 Budget!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2009
In response to the 8/8 Flood, the Executive Yuan has authorized a multi-billion-dollar special budget for disaster relief and reconstruction. But this is far from adequate. The government must devote itself entirely to disaster relief and reconstruction, At the same time it must avoid wasting resources and funds. The government should rewrite the entire 2010 Budget. Only then can it focus on post-disaster reconstruction and avoid waste.
On July 30 the Executive Yuan held a "2010 Audit Plan and Budget Meeting." It confirmed the numbers for the 2010 central government budget. Net revenues will be 1.5513 trillion NT. Net expenditures will be 1.7404 trillion NT. Once the budget was passed by the Executive Yuan Council in late August, it was to be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation. But the 8/8 Flood struck. The Executive Yuan set the special budget for the 8/8 Flood at 1.1 trillion NT. But in the face of rising damage estimates and human casualty numbers, the Executive Yuan admitted that the budget is "likely to grow." As a result, borrowing next year is expected to reach 460 billion NT. Add to this the multi-billion dollar special budget for the 8/8 Flood, and the debt may exceed 500 billion NT, establishing a record high for borrowing in a single year.
In response to the needs of the state and society, the government must borrow money. We understand the need for a budget deficit. For example, many people are arguing over the government's budget for the coming year. They are asking whether the budget shouldn't be balanced, and whether the government shouldn't reduce its economic supports and injections of capital. We believe that the economic recovery is still in its early stages, and for the government to withdraw its financial support would be premature. Otherwise the economy could flame-out again, negatively affecting government revenues. Therefore, at this stage, a budget deficit is acceptable.
But following the 8/8 Flood, we feel the entire budget should be reviewed and rewritten. We must not focus entirely on the problem of higher deficits. We must focus on the policies the government is promoting. Next year the government must promote post-disaster reconstruction. Should that be considered the focus of government policy? Global climate anomalies may make seasonal rains more frequent, even "normal." Should the government's disaster prevention and disaster relief system undergo a comprehensive update and strengthening? The answer is clearly yes. If so, which departments have responsibilites relating to 8/8 Flood reconstruction? The answer is, almost every department.
The Fire Services Department under the Ministry of the Interior and the Construction and Planning Administration have responsibilities directly related to disaster prevention and reconstruction. The Ministry of the Interior bears the greatest responsibility for post-disaster reconstruction. The Ministry of Communications is responsible for restoring breakdowns in the transportation system. The Ministry of Economic Affairs Water Resources Agency is the main entity responsible for water resources. It should also shoulder responsibility for the reconstruction of industries within the disaster areas. The Council of Labor Affairs should lend a helping hand to disaster victims who have lost their jobs and their source of livelihood. Others, such as the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education must assume responsibility for damage suffered by farmers and children unable to attend school. The Financial Supervisory Commission and the Central Bank may appear to have little to do with the disaster. But disaster victims' homes have been destroyed. What will they do? To allow disaster victims to recover, they must be given financial assistance. How will all this be planned? These are responsibilities that must be assumed by finance related entities.
The disaster areas require huge sums for reconstruction. Disaster victims require government and social assistance to return to normal life. Many relatively unimportant items included in the budget before the flood occurred can be eliminated. These include improvements to sidewalks, parks, and decorative walls. Many activities may be inspections and conferences in name, but junkets in fact. Many celebrations, floral expenses, and self-promotion campaigns can be reduced or eliminated altogether.
While fulfilling their duties, various departments exert different amounts of energy. Budget allocations should reflect these differentials. Otherwise, scattering one's energies will make them difficult to focus. The transportation system suffered the most serious damage. The focus of the original budget may have been on new transportation projects. But following the 8/8 Floods, the number of reconstruction projects must be increased. If they are all lumped together, in total disregard of which as higher priority, none of them will be executed properly. The energy the bureaucracy has is limited. The energy domestic forces of production have is also limited. Therefore authorities should assess their own capacity to administer programs, and the capacity of the domestic productive sector. They must make substantial changes to their original plans for next year. Reconstruction of the disaster areas must be the first priority. Can the budget really not be rewritten?
The Executive Yuan has yet to make changes in the 2010 Budget. Resorting to a special budget to meet the needs of the 8/8 Flood is understandable. It is the most expedient way. But it is unacceptable. It is the lazy man's way. It will lead to confusion about what most needs to be done. It will make it difficult to focus on post-disaster reconstruction. It will lead to greater waste and increase the budget deficit unnecessarily. It is now August. The budget has yet to be sent to the Legislative Yuan. If the government is sincere, it still has time to make massive changes to its budget.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.21
社論－重編99年度總預算吧！
本報訊
為了因應八八水災的救災與復建需要，行政院決定編列千億元的特別預算。不過，我們認為，這樣還遠遠不夠，在考慮到政府應全力投入救災復建，同時避免資源與預算的浪費，我們認為政府應全面重編九九年度的總預算，才能聚焦災後重建與避免浪費。
行政院在七月卅日召開「九九年度計畫及預算審核會議」，會中確定九九年度的中央政府總預算額度，其中歲入為新台幣一兆五五一三億元，歲出一兆七四○四億元，預計在八月下旬提報行政院院會通過後，送立法院審議。但，接著發生八八水災，行政院初估八八水災特別預算規模將達一一○○億元，不過，在災害損失、人員傷亡不斷攀升下，行政院也承認「預算可能再增加」。由於明年預計舉債四六○○億，如再加上破千億元的八八水災特別預算，舉債金額可能突破五千億元，創下單一年度舉債新高。
對於因應國家與社會需要，政府不得不舉債、編列赤字預算，我們並非不能認同。例如，在各界爭論政府明年度預算，是否應以預算平衡為要務，減少對經濟的支撐與挹注，我們就認為在經濟復甦幼苗微露之際，政府不宜過早撤回對支撐經濟的財政支出，否則不但可能讓經濟再熄火，更將再次打擊政府稅收，因此，現階段赤字預算可以接受。
但，在八八水災後，我們認為總預算應全面檢討與重編，著眼點不僅在政府赤字飆高的問題，更在政府政事的推動重點上。試問：明年政府政務推動，八八水災的後續復建事宜，是不是該列為施政重點？如果，全球氣候異常導致的季節性暴雨將會頻繁出現、甚至成為「常態」，政府的防災、救災思維與體系，是否應全面更新與加強？答案顯然是肯定的。那麼，有那些部會與八八水災復建事宜有關聯呢？幾乎是每個部會都有關係。
內政部下有消防署、營建署，與防災、復建直接相關，更不用提內政部是首席部會，要對災後復建負最大責任；交通部要負責崩壞斷裂的交通體系的復原；經濟部除了水利署是水利主管機關外，也該扛起重建災區產業的責任；勞委會呢？那些失去工作、頓失生活依靠的災民，勞委會是否該伸出援手呢？其它如農委會、教育部，對受損農民、失學孩子，都必須負起救助的責任；甚至，即使看似與災難毫不搭軋的金管會、央行，災民背負房貸，但房屋全毀了，怎麼辦？未來要讓災民重新站起來，需要的資金援助，要如何規畫？這些，都是財金單位該擘畫的事。
在災區需要大筆經費復建，在災民需要政府與社會援助以重新回歸正常生活的時候，那些在水災發生前編列的許多相對不重要的預算─那種敲掉可正常使用的人行道、公園、圍牆重建的工程；那種名為考察、開會，實為遊樂犒賞的活動；那些錦上添花的慶典、儀式性花費、甚至用來為自己抹脂擦粉的預算，是否都該知所節縮，甚至完全取消？
再以每個部會執行業務的「能量」看，預算也該大幅調整，否則，力量分散，難以聚焦。以這次受損最嚴重的交通體系為例，原預算內容重點可能在許多新建交通工程上，八八水災後，則增加了許多復建工程。如果不分優先次序全部一起推，結果是：全部做不好。不僅官僚機構的能量有限，國內營造能量亦有一定限度，因此主管單位就應衡量本身執行能力與國內營造能量，對明年必須推動的計畫做大幅調整，且以災區復建為第一優先考量。此時，預算不重編，可以嗎？
行政院不對已編列的九九年度預算做更動，而以特別預算方式把八八水災的預算需求加入，可以理解，因為這是最快速的方式；但，不能接受，因為這也是最懶惰的方式。這也造成施政重點不明，難以聚焦災後重建事宜，更造成預算的浪費與赤字無謂的飆升。現在是八月中，總預算亦尚未送進立法院，如政府有誠意，仍有時間與空間對總預算做大幅調整。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2009
In response to the 8/8 Flood, the Executive Yuan has authorized a multi-billion-dollar special budget for disaster relief and reconstruction. But this is far from adequate. The government must devote itself entirely to disaster relief and reconstruction, At the same time it must avoid wasting resources and funds. The government should rewrite the entire 2010 Budget. Only then can it focus on post-disaster reconstruction and avoid waste.
On July 30 the Executive Yuan held a "2010 Audit Plan and Budget Meeting." It confirmed the numbers for the 2010 central government budget. Net revenues will be 1.5513 trillion NT. Net expenditures will be 1.7404 trillion NT. Once the budget was passed by the Executive Yuan Council in late August, it was to be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation. But the 8/8 Flood struck. The Executive Yuan set the special budget for the 8/8 Flood at 1.1 trillion NT. But in the face of rising damage estimates and human casualty numbers, the Executive Yuan admitted that the budget is "likely to grow." As a result, borrowing next year is expected to reach 460 billion NT. Add to this the multi-billion dollar special budget for the 8/8 Flood, and the debt may exceed 500 billion NT, establishing a record high for borrowing in a single year.
In response to the needs of the state and society, the government must borrow money. We understand the need for a budget deficit. For example, many people are arguing over the government's budget for the coming year. They are asking whether the budget shouldn't be balanced, and whether the government shouldn't reduce its economic supports and injections of capital. We believe that the economic recovery is still in its early stages, and for the government to withdraw its financial support would be premature. Otherwise the economy could flame-out again, negatively affecting government revenues. Therefore, at this stage, a budget deficit is acceptable.
But following the 8/8 Flood, we feel the entire budget should be reviewed and rewritten. We must not focus entirely on the problem of higher deficits. We must focus on the policies the government is promoting. Next year the government must promote post-disaster reconstruction. Should that be considered the focus of government policy? Global climate anomalies may make seasonal rains more frequent, even "normal." Should the government's disaster prevention and disaster relief system undergo a comprehensive update and strengthening? The answer is clearly yes. If so, which departments have responsibilites relating to 8/8 Flood reconstruction? The answer is, almost every department.
The Fire Services Department under the Ministry of the Interior and the Construction and Planning Administration have responsibilities directly related to disaster prevention and reconstruction. The Ministry of the Interior bears the greatest responsibility for post-disaster reconstruction. The Ministry of Communications is responsible for restoring breakdowns in the transportation system. The Ministry of Economic Affairs Water Resources Agency is the main entity responsible for water resources. It should also shoulder responsibility for the reconstruction of industries within the disaster areas. The Council of Labor Affairs should lend a helping hand to disaster victims who have lost their jobs and their source of livelihood. Others, such as the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education must assume responsibility for damage suffered by farmers and children unable to attend school. The Financial Supervisory Commission and the Central Bank may appear to have little to do with the disaster. But disaster victims' homes have been destroyed. What will they do? To allow disaster victims to recover, they must be given financial assistance. How will all this be planned? These are responsibilities that must be assumed by finance related entities.
The disaster areas require huge sums for reconstruction. Disaster victims require government and social assistance to return to normal life. Many relatively unimportant items included in the budget before the flood occurred can be eliminated. These include improvements to sidewalks, parks, and decorative walls. Many activities may be inspections and conferences in name, but junkets in fact. Many celebrations, floral expenses, and self-promotion campaigns can be reduced or eliminated altogether.
While fulfilling their duties, various departments exert different amounts of energy. Budget allocations should reflect these differentials. Otherwise, scattering one's energies will make them difficult to focus. The transportation system suffered the most serious damage. The focus of the original budget may have been on new transportation projects. But following the 8/8 Floods, the number of reconstruction projects must be increased. If they are all lumped together, in total disregard of which as higher priority, none of them will be executed properly. The energy the bureaucracy has is limited. The energy domestic forces of production have is also limited. Therefore authorities should assess their own capacity to administer programs, and the capacity of the domestic productive sector. They must make substantial changes to their original plans for next year. Reconstruction of the disaster areas must be the first priority. Can the budget really not be rewritten?
The Executive Yuan has yet to make changes in the 2010 Budget. Resorting to a special budget to meet the needs of the 8/8 Flood is understandable. It is the most expedient way. But it is unacceptable. It is the lazy man's way. It will lead to confusion about what most needs to be done. It will make it difficult to focus on post-disaster reconstruction. It will lead to greater waste and increase the budget deficit unnecessarily. It is now August. The budget has yet to be sent to the Legislative Yuan. If the government is sincere, it still has time to make massive changes to its budget.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.21
社論－重編99年度總預算吧！
本報訊
為了因應八八水災的救災與復建需要，行政院決定編列千億元的特別預算。不過，我們認為，這樣還遠遠不夠，在考慮到政府應全力投入救災復建，同時避免資源與預算的浪費，我們認為政府應全面重編九九年度的總預算，才能聚焦災後重建與避免浪費。
行政院在七月卅日召開「九九年度計畫及預算審核會議」，會中確定九九年度的中央政府總預算額度，其中歲入為新台幣一兆五五一三億元，歲出一兆七四○四億元，預計在八月下旬提報行政院院會通過後，送立法院審議。但，接著發生八八水災，行政院初估八八水災特別預算規模將達一一○○億元，不過，在災害損失、人員傷亡不斷攀升下，行政院也承認「預算可能再增加」。由於明年預計舉債四六○○億，如再加上破千億元的八八水災特別預算，舉債金額可能突破五千億元，創下單一年度舉債新高。
對於因應國家與社會需要，政府不得不舉債、編列赤字預算，我們並非不能認同。例如，在各界爭論政府明年度預算，是否應以預算平衡為要務，減少對經濟的支撐與挹注，我們就認為在經濟復甦幼苗微露之際，政府不宜過早撤回對支撐經濟的財政支出，否則不但可能讓經濟再熄火，更將再次打擊政府稅收，因此，現階段赤字預算可以接受。
但，在八八水災後，我們認為總預算應全面檢討與重編，著眼點不僅在政府赤字飆高的問題，更在政府政事的推動重點上。試問：明年政府政務推動，八八水災的後續復建事宜，是不是該列為施政重點？如果，全球氣候異常導致的季節性暴雨將會頻繁出現、甚至成為「常態」，政府的防災、救災思維與體系，是否應全面更新與加強？答案顯然是肯定的。那麼，有那些部會與八八水災復建事宜有關聯呢？幾乎是每個部會都有關係。
內政部下有消防署、營建署，與防災、復建直接相關，更不用提內政部是首席部會，要對災後復建負最大責任；交通部要負責崩壞斷裂的交通體系的復原；經濟部除了水利署是水利主管機關外，也該扛起重建災區產業的責任；勞委會呢？那些失去工作、頓失生活依靠的災民，勞委會是否該伸出援手呢？其它如農委會、教育部，對受損農民、失學孩子，都必須負起救助的責任；甚至，即使看似與災難毫不搭軋的金管會、央行，災民背負房貸，但房屋全毀了，怎麼辦？未來要讓災民重新站起來，需要的資金援助，要如何規畫？這些，都是財金單位該擘畫的事。
在災區需要大筆經費復建，在災民需要政府與社會援助以重新回歸正常生活的時候，那些在水災發生前編列的許多相對不重要的預算─那種敲掉可正常使用的人行道、公園、圍牆重建的工程；那種名為考察、開會，實為遊樂犒賞的活動；那些錦上添花的慶典、儀式性花費、甚至用來為自己抹脂擦粉的預算，是否都該知所節縮，甚至完全取消？
再以每個部會執行業務的「能量」看，預算也該大幅調整，否則，力量分散，難以聚焦。以這次受損最嚴重的交通體系為例，原預算內容重點可能在許多新建交通工程上，八八水災後，則增加了許多復建工程。如果不分優先次序全部一起推，結果是：全部做不好。不僅官僚機構的能量有限，國內營造能量亦有一定限度，因此主管單位就應衡量本身執行能力與國內營造能量，對明年必須推動的計畫做大幅調整，且以災區復建為第一優先考量。此時，預算不重編，可以嗎？
行政院不對已編列的九九年度預算做更動，而以特別預算方式把八八水災的預算需求加入，可以理解，因為這是最快速的方式；但，不能接受，因為這也是最懶惰的方式。這也造成施政重點不明，難以聚焦災後重建事宜，更造成預算的浪費與赤字無謂的飆升。現在是八月中，總預算亦尚未送進立法院，如政府有誠意，仍有時間與空間對總預算做大幅調整。
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Ma Administration Needs Creative Destruction
The Ma Administration Needs Creative Destruction
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2009
A moderate typhoon, a heavy rain, and a flood not seen in half a century, have mercilessly exposed the shortcomings of the Ma Liu government. President Ma lacked decisiveness. He lacked a sense of direction. He hid behind the letter of the law. His public pronouncements lacked empathy. These shortcomings may be minor. If we had a premier who understood and sympathized with the people, who was sensitive and prudent, he might have been able to make up for the shortcomings of the government. Unfortunately although the premier is said to be smart and capable, he is out of touch with ordinary people. He may even harbor a superiority complex. In the wake of a natural disaster, people desperately need consoling. Such a political style can easily lead to a huge gulf between the government and the people.
Premier Liu Chao-hsuan is not without disaster relief experience. During the 9/21 Earthquake of 1999, then Deputy Premier Liu was a front-line commander. But Lee Teng-hui was in command. He assumed total control of such activities as resource allocation, administrative coordination, and consoling the victims. At the time the party, the government, and the military were one and the same. Critics had little to say about relief efforts. But ten years have passed. The political situation has changed. Premier Liu Chao-hsuan must stand on the front lines of the 8/8 Flood and face the disaster victims. He must cope with all sorts of challenges, from all different directions. He must attempt to make up for President Ma's verbal gaffes and other shortcomings. None of these are challenges an authoritarian era official is qualified to handle. The work of consoling the public on the front lines is not something a "feel good" leader is cut out for.
People say President Ma Ying-jeou has surrounded himself with people who are just like him. Take Ma and Liu. The reason they are so similar is that "when the tune is too highbrow, few join the chorus." President Ma has a JD from Harvard University. He is handsome and fluent in English. Premier Liu was a prodigy. He was a university president by the age of 40. He led a charmed life. Because both are highly educated, they have long looked askance at those around them. Over time they lost their empathy for others.
Each country experiences disasters, large or small. In the aftermath of disasters, the guiding principle for political leaders, is to remain humble and self-effacing. Remain close to the people. Always say you never did enough. Always vow to do more for the victims. During the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster, then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani slept only two or three hours a day, for weeks on end. Who would have either the time or state of mind to plop down in a barber's chair to get one's hair trimmed or dyed? Many members of the New York City Police Department and Fire Department of New York died. The atmosphere in New York was one of solidarity. The city became one giant family. No one distinquished between relief workers and disaster victims. Giuliani worked day and night solving problems. He was happy to do it, eager to do it. He did not feel put upon while doing it. He could never have perceived himself as a punching bag. Six months later, Giuliani's efforts were honored by the American people and citizens of New York City. His political record may have been mediocre. His private life may have been a mess. But because of 9/11, he went down in history as one of New York City's finest mayors. As we can see, natural disasters are not always political disasters. It all depends upon how one deals with them.
President Ma was elected by the public. He has been in office a mere 15 months. We would be rash to jump to premature conclusions. But based on his press conference yesterday, his September cabinet reshuffling is essential. In the eyes of disaster victims and the public, his current cabinet has zero credibility. Its members have only to appear on a podium, to face hisses and disdain. Forget disaster relief and reconstruction. Forget the multitude of other national construction tasks. A cabinet unable to command the trust and respect of the public, must be reshuffled and replaced. Otherwise the machinery of government will grind to a halt. The consequences will be serious. It is no laughing matter.
Some people have compared a cabinet reshuffle to "Saving Private Ma." But we are not willing to critique the matter from such a negative angle. We prefer to examine the matter from a more positive standpoint. Ma and Liu are too much alike. They are unable to complement each other. They provoke anger among ordinary people. They have difficulty identifying or communicating with ordinary people. Given such internal and external pressures, the cabinet must undergo reshuffling for the sake of the nation's future. Over the past year, countless complaints have been lodged against the various ministries of the Executive Yuan. Large scale adjustments in the wake of the flood are an appropriate response to popular discontent.
Replacing the cabinet involves social costs. But without sufficient Creative Destruction of the cabinet, national reconstruction will be difficult. From this perspective, reshuffling the cabinet is merely a form of Creative Destruction. It is a benefit to the nation. It must be done. President Ma has set a September timetable. We look forward to its smooth completion. Only then can the administration avoid leaving behind a bad memory.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.20
馬政府需要一次「建設性的破壞」
本報訊
一個中度颱風、一場大雨、一個半世紀僅見的水災，把馬劉政府的缺點沖刷暴露得一清二楚。馬總統沒有決斷力、抓不到方向、拘泥於法律形式細節、講話欠缺同理心，這些缺失難謂微小，但如果能找一位體恤民瘼、敏銳謹慎的行政院長，或許還能有所補救。無奈的是，行政院劉院長雖說精明幹練，卻與基層人民格格不入，甚至給人一種高高在上的優越感。這樣的形象風格在災變過後、人民亟需安撫慰恤之際，就容易形成了政府與人民之間巨大的鴻溝。
劉兆玄院長並不是沒有救災的經驗；一九九九年九二一大地震，時任副院長的他就是前線總指揮官。但當時的指揮，多為資源支配與行政協調，對災民的慰問與互動總還有李登輝總統頂著；而當時黨政軍一體的政治結構，外界也不會對救災產生太多的抨擊。但是時隔十年，國內政治情勢丕變。八八水患劉兆玄院長必須在第一線面對為災民，也要遭逢各種多元勢力的挑戰，更要設法彌補馬總統失言失機的種種缺陷。這些，都不是威權時代的幹臣所能勝任；而在第一線撫慰民心的工作，更與他「自我感覺良好」的身段扞格難容。
許多人都說，馬英九總統所用之人，都有非常高的同質性。就馬、劉二人而言，他們之間的同質性就是「曲高和寡」。馬總統是哈佛大學法學博士，英文流利相貌俊挺；劉院長年輕得志，四十幾歲就擔任龍頭大學的校長，自此一帆風順。正因為他們學識高強，所以總能睥睨周遭，但久而久之就難免失去了親和力與同理心。
全世界每個國家都有或大或小的災難，而救災善後唯一的指導原則，就是謙遜自抑、貼近人民；永遠說自己做的不夠，永遠矢志要為災民做更多。二○○一年紐約世貿九一一災變，當時的市長朱里安尼幾乎有數周都只能每天睡兩、三小時，又哪有心情與空閒去理髮染髮？由於紐約市警察與消防有多人罹難，故紐約市府在災後全力營造的氣氛，就是市民一體、全市一家的向心力與凝聚力，根本不再去區分救災者與受災者。朱里安尼只是沒日沒夜地解決問題，歡喜做、甘願受，根本沒有「受氣」的感覺，又怎麼會自認為出氣筒？半年過後，朱里安尼的努力終究被美國人與紐約市民肯定；即使他以往政績平平、私生活紊亂，卻因九一一救災而成為紐約市有史以來少數膾炙人口的好市長，可見災害未必會傷害政治人物，端視其處理與因應而已。
馬總統是民選的，現在才上任十五個月，輕言異動當然是不切實際的妄論。但是誠如他日前記者會所言，九月間做內閣的調整，恐怕是必須要做的動作。現在的內閣在災民與人民的眼中，幾乎已經不具公信力；閣員只要端上檯面，恐怕就得面對噓聲與鄙視，遑論救災重建，更遑論其他經緯萬端的國政建設。一個得不到人民信任與尊敬的內閣，當然要改組更換，否則國家機器形同停擺，後果嚴重，不能兒戲視之。
有人將內閣改組比喻為「搶救英九大兵」，但我們卻不願意從如此消極面的角度去評論，而要從積極面的觀點去思考。馬劉二人個性太過重疊，無法發揮內部互補效果已如前述，而二人激怒人民，難以貼近外部基層也是事實。這樣的內外交迫，為台灣前途計，內閣做一定幅度的更換恐怕是不得不然的抉擇。過去一年中，輿論對於行政院各部會施政的埋怨不知凡幾，現在以水災為由做大規模的調整，也算是順應輿情的自然因應。
更換內閣當然是有社會成本的，但若不做此適度的內閣破壞，後續國家建設恐怕難以啟動。如果從這個角度切入，那麼內閣撤換就只是「建設性的破壞」，也是替台灣做功德。該發生的，就讓它發生吧！馬總統既訂下了九月這個時間，我們就期待它能夠順利地、優雅地完成。那樣，多少還留給台灣人民一個不差的回憶。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2009
A moderate typhoon, a heavy rain, and a flood not seen in half a century, have mercilessly exposed the shortcomings of the Ma Liu government. President Ma lacked decisiveness. He lacked a sense of direction. He hid behind the letter of the law. His public pronouncements lacked empathy. These shortcomings may be minor. If we had a premier who understood and sympathized with the people, who was sensitive and prudent, he might have been able to make up for the shortcomings of the government. Unfortunately although the premier is said to be smart and capable, he is out of touch with ordinary people. He may even harbor a superiority complex. In the wake of a natural disaster, people desperately need consoling. Such a political style can easily lead to a huge gulf between the government and the people.
Premier Liu Chao-hsuan is not without disaster relief experience. During the 9/21 Earthquake of 1999, then Deputy Premier Liu was a front-line commander. But Lee Teng-hui was in command. He assumed total control of such activities as resource allocation, administrative coordination, and consoling the victims. At the time the party, the government, and the military were one and the same. Critics had little to say about relief efforts. But ten years have passed. The political situation has changed. Premier Liu Chao-hsuan must stand on the front lines of the 8/8 Flood and face the disaster victims. He must cope with all sorts of challenges, from all different directions. He must attempt to make up for President Ma's verbal gaffes and other shortcomings. None of these are challenges an authoritarian era official is qualified to handle. The work of consoling the public on the front lines is not something a "feel good" leader is cut out for.
People say President Ma Ying-jeou has surrounded himself with people who are just like him. Take Ma and Liu. The reason they are so similar is that "when the tune is too highbrow, few join the chorus." President Ma has a JD from Harvard University. He is handsome and fluent in English. Premier Liu was a prodigy. He was a university president by the age of 40. He led a charmed life. Because both are highly educated, they have long looked askance at those around them. Over time they lost their empathy for others.
Each country experiences disasters, large or small. In the aftermath of disasters, the guiding principle for political leaders, is to remain humble and self-effacing. Remain close to the people. Always say you never did enough. Always vow to do more for the victims. During the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster, then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani slept only two or three hours a day, for weeks on end. Who would have either the time or state of mind to plop down in a barber's chair to get one's hair trimmed or dyed? Many members of the New York City Police Department and Fire Department of New York died. The atmosphere in New York was one of solidarity. The city became one giant family. No one distinquished between relief workers and disaster victims. Giuliani worked day and night solving problems. He was happy to do it, eager to do it. He did not feel put upon while doing it. He could never have perceived himself as a punching bag. Six months later, Giuliani's efforts were honored by the American people and citizens of New York City. His political record may have been mediocre. His private life may have been a mess. But because of 9/11, he went down in history as one of New York City's finest mayors. As we can see, natural disasters are not always political disasters. It all depends upon how one deals with them.
President Ma was elected by the public. He has been in office a mere 15 months. We would be rash to jump to premature conclusions. But based on his press conference yesterday, his September cabinet reshuffling is essential. In the eyes of disaster victims and the public, his current cabinet has zero credibility. Its members have only to appear on a podium, to face hisses and disdain. Forget disaster relief and reconstruction. Forget the multitude of other national construction tasks. A cabinet unable to command the trust and respect of the public, must be reshuffled and replaced. Otherwise the machinery of government will grind to a halt. The consequences will be serious. It is no laughing matter.
Some people have compared a cabinet reshuffle to "Saving Private Ma." But we are not willing to critique the matter from such a negative angle. We prefer to examine the matter from a more positive standpoint. Ma and Liu are too much alike. They are unable to complement each other. They provoke anger among ordinary people. They have difficulty identifying or communicating with ordinary people. Given such internal and external pressures, the cabinet must undergo reshuffling for the sake of the nation's future. Over the past year, countless complaints have been lodged against the various ministries of the Executive Yuan. Large scale adjustments in the wake of the flood are an appropriate response to popular discontent.
Replacing the cabinet involves social costs. But without sufficient Creative Destruction of the cabinet, national reconstruction will be difficult. From this perspective, reshuffling the cabinet is merely a form of Creative Destruction. It is a benefit to the nation. It must be done. President Ma has set a September timetable. We look forward to its smooth completion. Only then can the administration avoid leaving behind a bad memory.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.08.20
馬政府需要一次「建設性的破壞」
本報訊
一個中度颱風、一場大雨、一個半世紀僅見的水災，把馬劉政府的缺點沖刷暴露得一清二楚。馬總統沒有決斷力、抓不到方向、拘泥於法律形式細節、講話欠缺同理心，這些缺失難謂微小，但如果能找一位體恤民瘼、敏銳謹慎的行政院長，或許還能有所補救。無奈的是，行政院劉院長雖說精明幹練，卻與基層人民格格不入，甚至給人一種高高在上的優越感。這樣的形象風格在災變過後、人民亟需安撫慰恤之際，就容易形成了政府與人民之間巨大的鴻溝。
劉兆玄院長並不是沒有救災的經驗；一九九九年九二一大地震，時任副院長的他就是前線總指揮官。但當時的指揮，多為資源支配與行政協調，對災民的慰問與互動總還有李登輝總統頂著；而當時黨政軍一體的政治結構，外界也不會對救災產生太多的抨擊。但是時隔十年，國內政治情勢丕變。八八水患劉兆玄院長必須在第一線面對為災民，也要遭逢各種多元勢力的挑戰，更要設法彌補馬總統失言失機的種種缺陷。這些，都不是威權時代的幹臣所能勝任；而在第一線撫慰民心的工作，更與他「自我感覺良好」的身段扞格難容。
許多人都說，馬英九總統所用之人，都有非常高的同質性。就馬、劉二人而言，他們之間的同質性就是「曲高和寡」。馬總統是哈佛大學法學博士，英文流利相貌俊挺；劉院長年輕得志，四十幾歲就擔任龍頭大學的校長，自此一帆風順。正因為他們學識高強，所以總能睥睨周遭，但久而久之就難免失去了親和力與同理心。
全世界每個國家都有或大或小的災難，而救災善後唯一的指導原則，就是謙遜自抑、貼近人民；永遠說自己做的不夠，永遠矢志要為災民做更多。二○○一年紐約世貿九一一災變，當時的市長朱里安尼幾乎有數周都只能每天睡兩、三小時，又哪有心情與空閒去理髮染髮？由於紐約市警察與消防有多人罹難，故紐約市府在災後全力營造的氣氛，就是市民一體、全市一家的向心力與凝聚力，根本不再去區分救災者與受災者。朱里安尼只是沒日沒夜地解決問題，歡喜做、甘願受，根本沒有「受氣」的感覺，又怎麼會自認為出氣筒？半年過後，朱里安尼的努力終究被美國人與紐約市民肯定；即使他以往政績平平、私生活紊亂，卻因九一一救災而成為紐約市有史以來少數膾炙人口的好市長，可見災害未必會傷害政治人物，端視其處理與因應而已。
馬總統是民選的，現在才上任十五個月，輕言異動當然是不切實際的妄論。但是誠如他日前記者會所言，九月間做內閣的調整，恐怕是必須要做的動作。現在的內閣在災民與人民的眼中，幾乎已經不具公信力；閣員只要端上檯面，恐怕就得面對噓聲與鄙視，遑論救災重建，更遑論其他經緯萬端的國政建設。一個得不到人民信任與尊敬的內閣，當然要改組更換，否則國家機器形同停擺，後果嚴重，不能兒戲視之。
有人將內閣改組比喻為「搶救英九大兵」，但我們卻不願意從如此消極面的角度去評論，而要從積極面的觀點去思考。馬劉二人個性太過重疊，無法發揮內部互補效果已如前述，而二人激怒人民，難以貼近外部基層也是事實。這樣的內外交迫，為台灣前途計，內閣做一定幅度的更換恐怕是不得不然的抉擇。過去一年中，輿論對於行政院各部會施政的埋怨不知凡幾，現在以水災為由做大規模的調整，也算是順應輿情的自然因應。
更換內閣當然是有社會成本的，但若不做此適度的內閣破壞，後續國家建設恐怕難以啟動。如果從這個角度切入，那麼內閣撤換就只是「建設性的破壞」，也是替台灣做功德。該發生的，就讓它發生吧！馬總統既訂下了九月這個時間，我們就期待它能夠順利地、優雅地完成。那樣，多少還留給台灣人民一個不差的回憶。
Disaster Areas Aren't All That Need Rebuilding
Disaster Areas Aren't All That Need Rebuilding
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2009
Yesterday President Ma Ying-jeou called two press conferences. He tried to repair the major damage to his image in the domestic and foreign media over the past ten days. He apologized for his administration's negligence during the disaster relief period. He vowed to do a better job with resettlement and reconstruction.
Future attention will be focused on post-disaster reconstruction. But frankly disaster areas aren't all that need rebuilding. At least three things need urgent rebuilding.
The first thing that needs rebuilding is public confidence in the government. President Ma made a series of verbal gaffes, including, "Well you've gotten to meet me haven't you?", "What do you expect me to do?", "They weren't prepared" "They should have evacuated the area a long ago." Premier Liu accused the media of "amateurism." Official disaster relief efforts were far inferior to those of non-governmental organizations. Foreign relief materiel was shipped to the disaster areas, then back to the warehouse. Executive Yuan Secretary General Steve Hsieh argued, "Is having a meal on Father's Day so wrong?" These incidents severely undermined public confidence in the central government's disaster relief and post-disaster reconstruction efforts. Now, when officials show up at disaster areas to take command of relief, they are heckled and denounced. They have essentially become punching bags. Their ability to coordinate relief efforts has been seriously hampered. If this crisis of confidence can not be reversed, reconstruction efforts will be adversely affected. The government will experience headaches, but the disaster victims will experience even worse pain.
The second thing that needs rebuilding of course, is the cabinet. President Ma's verbal gaffes and poor management skills, may have made people unhappy. But the real responsibility for delays in disaster relief and reduced efficiency must be laid at the door of the Executive Yuan. The president long ago pointed the finger at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications Weather Bureau. Ironically the disaster relief official who alienated the press corps during domestic and foreign press conferences was none other than the Minister of Transportion. Other governmental ministries widely criticized include the Ministry of Economic Affairs Water Resources Agency, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which refused foreign assistance, the Engineering Council, whose internal squabbles were filmed live by the media, and the Department of Defense, whose mobilization of troops was tardy and response inflexible. Hsiaoling Village and other areas have been devastated. The cabinet and ministries responsible for disaster relief have demonstrated how muddle-headed they are. The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Justice have little relevance to disaster relief. But which of the remaining six ministries has demonstrated even one iota of administrative efficiency? These ministries' inefficiency and these high-ranking officials' verbal gaffes were mutually reinforcing. The result is the current mess. Now the public is anxiously awaiting the pre-September personnel changes President Ma Ying-jeou promised during his press conference yesterday.
The third thing that needs rebuilding is the government's finances. According the government's preliminary budget estimates, post-disaster reconstruction will cost 110 billion NT. Unfortunately last year's Ministry of Finance tax cuts drastically increased the deficit. This year's tax revenues will experience a shortfall of hundreds of billions of dollars. It has nearly reached the statutory borrowing limit. The Ministry of Finance has in effect, caused a "financial landslide." The Ministry of Education dared not object to Premier Liu Chao-hsuan's impromptu changes to the school lunch program. It reduced the annual allocation from 17 billion to 2 billion. This amounted to another sort of landslide, the disastrous consequence of impromptu policy changes displacing normal national policy. The Ministry of Economic Affairs knew full well it was incapable of providing developmental aid to our semiconductor industry. But in order to save face, it stubbornly demanded a TMC subsidy. Out of the blue, it provided another 30 billion to a private corporation without going through the normal evaluation process. It created an industrial policy landslide. Such random expenditures effectively clogged up the nation's finance system. The result was insufficient financing for urgently needed reconstruction. Even if we resort to a special budget to avoid violating the Budget Law and the Public Debt Law, the after-effects will be serious.
Obviously more than the disaster areas need rebuilding. So do public morale, the composition of the cabinet, and the financial structure. If these cannot be corrected, post-disaster reconstruction will be difficult. The Ma administration that we all know so well will not have an easy time with these reconstruction tasks. Seven years ago, during the SARS crisis, Ma's Taipei City Government was also in chaos. But the nation is not a city. The impact of the 8/8 Flood far exceeds the impact of an outbreak of SARS at the Heping Hospital. If President Ma fails to take decisive action, he will not merely delay relief efforts, he will seriously undercut his own public support. His approval ratings will reach new lows.
The Ma Liu team has been in office for only 15 months. Once upon a time, the media described the Ma administration and the Liu cabinet as a "feel good" government. That the ruling administration finds itself in its current plight, is a far more serious disaster than the 8/8 Flood.
需要重建的，豈止是災區而已
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.19 02:37 am
馬總統昨日兩場記者會，主要是想修補他過去十天在中外媒體上遭受嚴重損傷的形象。他為救災期間的疏失致歉，也承諾將做好未來的安置及重建工作。
大家都知道未來的施政重點在災後重建，但是坦白說，這個國家所需要重建的，豈僅是災區而已？在這個當口，台灣亟需重建的，至少有以下三端：
首先，全台灣人民對執政者的信心，需要重建。馬總統「你不是見到我了嗎」、「你們要我做什麼」、「他們沒有準備好」、「他們該及早撤離」等失當言語，以及劉揆指責媒體記者「外行」、官方救災效率遠低於民間、外援物品往返搬動，乃至薛香川的「父親節吃頓飯過分嗎」等種種表現，都讓人民對中央政府處理災情與重建的信心大受創傷。現在，官員至災區指揮救災動輒被嗆、被罵，幾乎已經只是出氣的對象；他們所能發揮的協調功能也就大幅降低。這樣的信心危機若是無法扭轉，則重建效率必定大打折扣，不僅政府頭痛，災民更是難過。
第二個需要重建的，當然就是內閣團隊。坦白說，馬總統發言不當、統合不力，固然會讓人民心頭不快，但真正耽擱救災、延誤效率的，當然是行政院團隊。交通部氣象局早被總統點名，而救災中外記者會上能夠弄到不歡而散的指揮官，又正是交通部長。其他被普遍指責的，還包括經濟部水利署、外交部（拒絕外援）、工程會（內部會議發飆、讓媒體全拍）、國防部（動員官兵緩慢、調度僵化）等各大部會。放眼望去，不但小林村等災區滿目瘡痍，內閣與救災相關的部會也一個個都展現他們的顢頇情態。八部之中除了教育部與法務部較不相干外，有哪一個展現了一丁點的行政效率？各部會欠缺效率與府院高層的不當發言「相得益彰」，遂成了今天一團亂的局面。現在，國人皆在拭目以待馬總統昨日在記者會上承諾的九月以前調整的人事名單。
第三個需要重建的，是政府的財政。據政府粗估，災後重建需一千一百億預算，無奈劉內閣在財政部過去一年的減稅操弄下，使得政府赤字日益嚴重，今年稅收短缺數千億，舉債幾乎達到法定上限；這是財政部所製造的稅收土石流。教育部不敢對行政院長劉兆玄即興式的營養午餐支出表示意見，每年又活生生地減少了一百七十億至兩百廿億；這是即興政見排擠正常國家政策支出的土石流。經濟部在天不時、地不利、人不和的情況下，明知無助於我國半導體業發展，但為了面子，還要硬推ＴＭＣ補助，徒然加持一個未經評選程序的民間業者，又是三百億；這是亂推產業政策的土石流。這樣拉里拉雜胡亂支出，將全國財務融資的溝渠堵塞了，造成現在沒有餘力融通迫切需要的重建經費的窘境。即使勉強以特別預算迴避預算法及公債法規範，也將有極大的後遺症。
綜合以上分析可知，台灣所需要重建的，絕不只是災區，而是民心士氣、內閣組成、與財政結構。這三個面向若是不能矯治，則災後重建將是舉步維艱。我們當然了解，大家熟知的馬政府要做到前述三方面的重建，實在不容易。七年前ＳＡＲＳ侵襲台北時，馬市府團隊也是一團混亂。但是國家畢竟不是市府，八八水災的衝擊更是遠甚於和平醫院侷限一地的疫病，馬總統再不當機立斷，不僅延誤救災，也將嚴重影響其民意基礎，其民調支持恐將再探新低。
馬劉團隊執政僅僅十五個月，曾幾何時，「自我感覺良好」竟然成了台灣媒體用來形容馬政府與劉內閣的專有名詞。一個國家的行政團隊演變到這種地步，那絕對是比八八水患更嚴重的災情。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2009
Yesterday President Ma Ying-jeou called two press conferences. He tried to repair the major damage to his image in the domestic and foreign media over the past ten days. He apologized for his administration's negligence during the disaster relief period. He vowed to do a better job with resettlement and reconstruction.
Future attention will be focused on post-disaster reconstruction. But frankly disaster areas aren't all that need rebuilding. At least three things need urgent rebuilding.
The first thing that needs rebuilding is public confidence in the government. President Ma made a series of verbal gaffes, including, "Well you've gotten to meet me haven't you?", "What do you expect me to do?", "They weren't prepared" "They should have evacuated the area a long ago." Premier Liu accused the media of "amateurism." Official disaster relief efforts were far inferior to those of non-governmental organizations. Foreign relief materiel was shipped to the disaster areas, then back to the warehouse. Executive Yuan Secretary General Steve Hsieh argued, "Is having a meal on Father's Day so wrong?" These incidents severely undermined public confidence in the central government's disaster relief and post-disaster reconstruction efforts. Now, when officials show up at disaster areas to take command of relief, they are heckled and denounced. They have essentially become punching bags. Their ability to coordinate relief efforts has been seriously hampered. If this crisis of confidence can not be reversed, reconstruction efforts will be adversely affected. The government will experience headaches, but the disaster victims will experience even worse pain.
The second thing that needs rebuilding of course, is the cabinet. President Ma's verbal gaffes and poor management skills, may have made people unhappy. But the real responsibility for delays in disaster relief and reduced efficiency must be laid at the door of the Executive Yuan. The president long ago pointed the finger at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications Weather Bureau. Ironically the disaster relief official who alienated the press corps during domestic and foreign press conferences was none other than the Minister of Transportion. Other governmental ministries widely criticized include the Ministry of Economic Affairs Water Resources Agency, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which refused foreign assistance, the Engineering Council, whose internal squabbles were filmed live by the media, and the Department of Defense, whose mobilization of troops was tardy and response inflexible. Hsiaoling Village and other areas have been devastated. The cabinet and ministries responsible for disaster relief have demonstrated how muddle-headed they are. The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Justice have little relevance to disaster relief. But which of the remaining six ministries has demonstrated even one iota of administrative efficiency? These ministries' inefficiency and these high-ranking officials' verbal gaffes were mutually reinforcing. The result is the current mess. Now the public is anxiously awaiting the pre-September personnel changes President Ma Ying-jeou promised during his press conference yesterday.
The third thing that needs rebuilding is the government's finances. According the government's preliminary budget estimates, post-disaster reconstruction will cost 110 billion NT. Unfortunately last year's Ministry of Finance tax cuts drastically increased the deficit. This year's tax revenues will experience a shortfall of hundreds of billions of dollars. It has nearly reached the statutory borrowing limit. The Ministry of Finance has in effect, caused a "financial landslide." The Ministry of Education dared not object to Premier Liu Chao-hsuan's impromptu changes to the school lunch program. It reduced the annual allocation from 17 billion to 2 billion. This amounted to another sort of landslide, the disastrous consequence of impromptu policy changes displacing normal national policy. The Ministry of Economic Affairs knew full well it was incapable of providing developmental aid to our semiconductor industry. But in order to save face, it stubbornly demanded a TMC subsidy. Out of the blue, it provided another 30 billion to a private corporation without going through the normal evaluation process. It created an industrial policy landslide. Such random expenditures effectively clogged up the nation's finance system. The result was insufficient financing for urgently needed reconstruction. Even if we resort to a special budget to avoid violating the Budget Law and the Public Debt Law, the after-effects will be serious.
Obviously more than the disaster areas need rebuilding. So do public morale, the composition of the cabinet, and the financial structure. If these cannot be corrected, post-disaster reconstruction will be difficult. The Ma administration that we all know so well will not have an easy time with these reconstruction tasks. Seven years ago, during the SARS crisis, Ma's Taipei City Government was also in chaos. But the nation is not a city. The impact of the 8/8 Flood far exceeds the impact of an outbreak of SARS at the Heping Hospital. If President Ma fails to take decisive action, he will not merely delay relief efforts, he will seriously undercut his own public support. His approval ratings will reach new lows.
The Ma Liu team has been in office for only 15 months. Once upon a time, the media described the Ma administration and the Liu cabinet as a "feel good" government. That the ruling administration finds itself in its current plight, is a far more serious disaster than the 8/8 Flood.
需要重建的，豈止是災區而已
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.19 02:37 am
馬總統昨日兩場記者會，主要是想修補他過去十天在中外媒體上遭受嚴重損傷的形象。他為救災期間的疏失致歉，也承諾將做好未來的安置及重建工作。
大家都知道未來的施政重點在災後重建，但是坦白說，這個國家所需要重建的，豈僅是災區而已？在這個當口，台灣亟需重建的，至少有以下三端：
首先，全台灣人民對執政者的信心，需要重建。馬總統「你不是見到我了嗎」、「你們要我做什麼」、「他們沒有準備好」、「他們該及早撤離」等失當言語，以及劉揆指責媒體記者「外行」、官方救災效率遠低於民間、外援物品往返搬動，乃至薛香川的「父親節吃頓飯過分嗎」等種種表現，都讓人民對中央政府處理災情與重建的信心大受創傷。現在，官員至災區指揮救災動輒被嗆、被罵，幾乎已經只是出氣的對象；他們所能發揮的協調功能也就大幅降低。這樣的信心危機若是無法扭轉，則重建效率必定大打折扣，不僅政府頭痛，災民更是難過。
第二個需要重建的，當然就是內閣團隊。坦白說，馬總統發言不當、統合不力，固然會讓人民心頭不快，但真正耽擱救災、延誤效率的，當然是行政院團隊。交通部氣象局早被總統點名，而救災中外記者會上能夠弄到不歡而散的指揮官，又正是交通部長。其他被普遍指責的，還包括經濟部水利署、外交部（拒絕外援）、工程會（內部會議發飆、讓媒體全拍）、國防部（動員官兵緩慢、調度僵化）等各大部會。放眼望去，不但小林村等災區滿目瘡痍，內閣與救災相關的部會也一個個都展現他們的顢頇情態。八部之中除了教育部與法務部較不相干外，有哪一個展現了一丁點的行政效率？各部會欠缺效率與府院高層的不當發言「相得益彰」，遂成了今天一團亂的局面。現在，國人皆在拭目以待馬總統昨日在記者會上承諾的九月以前調整的人事名單。
第三個需要重建的，是政府的財政。據政府粗估，災後重建需一千一百億預算，無奈劉內閣在財政部過去一年的減稅操弄下，使得政府赤字日益嚴重，今年稅收短缺數千億，舉債幾乎達到法定上限；這是財政部所製造的稅收土石流。教育部不敢對行政院長劉兆玄即興式的營養午餐支出表示意見，每年又活生生地減少了一百七十億至兩百廿億；這是即興政見排擠正常國家政策支出的土石流。經濟部在天不時、地不利、人不和的情況下，明知無助於我國半導體業發展，但為了面子，還要硬推ＴＭＣ補助，徒然加持一個未經評選程序的民間業者，又是三百億；這是亂推產業政策的土石流。這樣拉里拉雜胡亂支出，將全國財務融資的溝渠堵塞了，造成現在沒有餘力融通迫切需要的重建經費的窘境。即使勉強以特別預算迴避預算法及公債法規範，也將有極大的後遺症。
綜合以上分析可知，台灣所需要重建的，絕不只是災區，而是民心士氣、內閣組成、與財政結構。這三個面向若是不能矯治，則災後重建將是舉步維艱。我們當然了解，大家熟知的馬政府要做到前述三方面的重建，實在不容易。七年前ＳＡＲＳ侵襲台北時，馬市府團隊也是一團混亂。但是國家畢竟不是市府，八八水災的衝擊更是遠甚於和平醫院侷限一地的疫病，馬總統再不當機立斷，不僅延誤救災，也將嚴重影響其民意基礎，其民調支持恐將再探新低。
馬劉團隊執政僅僅十五個月，曾幾何時，「自我感覺良好」竟然成了台灣媒體用來形容馬政府與劉內閣的專有名詞。一個國家的行政團隊演變到這種地步，那絕對是比八八水患更嚴重的災情。
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Assistance from Washington and Beijing is Humanitarian Assistance
Assistance from Washington and Beijing is Humanitarian Assistance
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2009
The day before yesterday, at 14:45, a camouflaged United States military C-130 transport plane flew from Okinawa and landed at Tainan Air Force Base, carrying disaster relief materiel for the 8/8 Flood. This was the first time a United States military aircraft has landed on Taiwan since Taipei and Washington broke off diplomatic relations in 1979.
High-ranking ROC officials set the tone, saying that "Humanitarian assistance transcends politics." Yang Yi, spokesman for Beijing's State Council for Taiwan Affairs said, "This is humanitarian assistance made available to Taiwan by the government through private channels." And so it was with the U.S. warships carrying rescue helicopters that arrived on Taiwan yesterday.
The bottom line is, this is a humanitarian issue. The United States government's decision to send equipment may have been a political and administrative decision. But fundamentally it was humanitarian in nature. By the same token, Yang Yi, spokesman for Beijing's State Council for Taiwan Affairs, may need to take into account political factors. But in the end it is still humanitarian assistance.
Humanitarianism trumps politics. One might even say that the evolution of human civilization in the twenty-first century means that the raison d'etre of politics is humanitarian. Politics that turns its back on humanitarianism, whether cross-Straits or international, amounts to reactionary thinking on the wrong side of history.
Some self-proclaimed "military experts" in the legislature have cited this development, and implied that in the event of a man-made disaster such as war, the U.S. Cavalry would also come riding to the rescue. They merely reveal their superficiality. At moments like this, no one has the right to make political hay from solemn humanitarian issues. Whoever exploits such an occasion to sully humanitarism with politics, who uses humanitarism as a political tool, merely reveals his own ignorance and myopia.
As time passes, and history unfolds, mankind and human consciousness have demonstrated the capacity to evolve to more advanced levels. Think back ten years, to the 9/21 Earthquake. The Beijing authorities, speaking through Sun Aiming, Secretary-General of Mainland China's Red Cross, said that any nation wishing to provide Taiwan earthquake relief, would be required to obtain prior consent from Mainland China's Red Cross. On 9/22 Russia sent AN-124 transport planes to Taiwan to conduct large-scale rescue operations. Beijing forbade Russian planes from transitting through Mainland China's airspace, Rescue operations were delayed 12 hours while Moscow negotiated with Beijing. When we recall this scenario a decade later, we can't help thinking, "How cruel. how obtuse."
Therefore when Yang Yi characterized Mainland China's facilitation of the U.S. government's disaster relief effort as humanitarian aid, it was a sign of major progress. As we can see, humanitarian values are the highest political values. Political values hostile to humanitarian values don't stand a chance. Compare Sun Aiming's statement ten years ago, with Yang Yi's statement ten years later. Who was right and who was wrong? Who was being wise, and who was being obtuse? No comment is needed, and the answers are self-evident.
During last year's Sichuan Earthquake, the ruling and opposition parties launched elevated and earnest disaster relief operations. Even today, volunteer groups from Taiwan are busy at work in Sichuan disaster areas. Last year, a UDN News editorial asked KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung to convey a message to CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao: "The two sides may not be able to avoid earthquakes and other natural disasters, but they can work together to avoid war." Chairman Wu carried this message to the Mainland, and the Mainland public expressed support for this way of thinking. The Taiwan public's grass-roots response to the Sichuan Earthquake was humanitarian in nature. It had a major influence on the thinking of authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Ten years ago, the Mainland government donated three million USD to 9/21 Earthquake relief, through the Mainland China Red Cross. Ten years later, Mainland-based private citizens and quasi-governmental organizations donated funds in their own name. The amount of materiel donated greatly increased, and include modular housing units. As we can see, the attitude and conduct of the Mainland has changed significantly for the better.
As we see it, we ought to be as accepting as possible to assistance from the Mainland. We should even allow Mainland volunteers and charitable organizations to visit the disaster areas. Even if alternative resources are available, and Mainland assistance is not indispensable, we should promote cross-Strait humanitarian exchanges. We should encourage the volunteers from Taiwan engaged in earthquake relief in Sichuan. We should welcome Mainland volunteers to disaster areas on Taiwan. We should allow humanitarian exchanges to soften and improve cross-Strait political relations. If the two sides can assist each other during earthquakes and typhoons, humanitarian sentiments may reduce the likelihood that both sides will slaughter each other with missiles and artillery. After all, mutual support is surefly preferable to mutual destruction.
If we think in these terms, we may even consider allowing the shipment of Mi-26 helicopters from the Mainland. The only real obstacle would the public's inability to take such a leap at this moment in time.
As noted above, the highest political values are humanitarian values. Neither cross-Strait nor international politics may take precedence over humanitarianism. In cross-Strait relations, the micro-climate formed during earthquake and flood relief operations is humanitarian in nature. The macro-climate formed by humanism and other transcendant values is also humanitarian in nature. Humanitarian cross-Strait exchanges during earthquake and typhoon relief efforts may have far-reaching implications for the "peaceful development" of cross-Strait relations.
人道，美國與中國的援助皆是人道！
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.18 03:54 am
前天下午二時四十五分，一架「低辨識度塗裝」的美國C-130運輸機，自琉球飛抵台南空軍基地，完成運載八八水患救災物資的援助任務。這是一九七九年台美斷交以來，首度有美國軍機在台灣降落。
我國政府高層將此舉定調為：「人道援助／超越政治。」北京方面，國台辦發言人楊毅則表示：「這是有關國家通過民間渠道，對台灣實施人道主義援助。」昨天續有美艦將救災直升機運抵台灣，亦當作如是觀。
此事在本質上是一個人道事件。即使美國作出派機的決定必然是一政治及行政的決定，但此舉的根本底蘊仍是「人道」；同理，即使北京國台辦發言人楊毅必須慮及此一事件的政治因素，但最後仍將此舉定義為「人道主義援助」。
人道高於政治。甚至可說，人類文明發展至二十一世紀的今日，「政治」的最高目標就是「人道」；背離「人道」的政治，無論在兩岸或國際，皆是悖天逆人的反動思維。
因而，有些自命為「軍事專家」的立委，將此事解釋為「意謂假如有『人禍』，美軍也會來救援」，只是徒顯其淺薄而已；此時此際，實不必將一個莊嚴的「人道」事件，硬行套入「政治」的八股公式中。誰在此際想用政治來污染人道，或用人道來操弄政治，皆是不識時務、不識大體。
時勢推移，歷史遞嬗，人物及思潮皆有可能向前向上提升發展。回顧十年前的九二一大地震當年，北京當局曾經透過中國紅十字會秘書長孫愛明對外表示，任何國家要援助台灣地震，須先徵得大陸紅十字會的同意。當時，俄羅斯在九二二即決定以AN-124大型運輸機進行救援行動，北京方面竟曾一度拒絕俄機過境假道，以致救援行動在交涉折衝中遲誤了十二小時。將這些歷史鏡頭，拿到十年後的今天對照來看，那是何其殘忍，又是何其愚昧？
因而，楊毅今天能在第一時間將美機執行救災任務定義為「人道主義救援」，這不能不說是十年來的重大進步。可見，人道是政治的最高準則，背離人道即不可能有成功的政治。十年前孫愛明的發言，與十年後今日楊毅的發言兩相對照，是非智愚，不言可喻、不辨自明。
去年四川大地震，台灣朝野在第一時間即發動高規格、高熱忱的救災行動，直至今日仍有台灣的志工團體還在四川災區工作。當時，本報社論曾請即將訪陸的國民黨主席吳伯雄，帶給中共總書記胡錦濤一句話：「兩岸不能避免地震等自然災害，但可以共同避免戰爭。」吳主席後來把話帶到，大陸輿論亦頗支持此想。如今回顧，主要出自台灣民間自發的對四川大地震的「人道互動」，對於兩岸當局後來的思維及心態應皆產生了重大的啟示與影響。
十年前，大陸以中國紅十字會對九二一震災捐輸了三百萬美金；十年後，大陸民間及半官方機構也以個別身分捐款捐物，且捐助的物資在數目上增加了很多，在品項上也包括了組合屋等更具多樣性。可見，十年之間，在觀念及行為上皆有顯著進展。
我們的看法是：對於大陸的援助，應當盡可能地開放；甚至接受大陸志工或慈善團體到災區現場工作。即使已有替代資源而未必有實際需求，但亦應盡量促成兩岸的人道互動。台灣進入四川震災區的志工應被鼓勵，大陸來台的慈善志工也應受歡迎。其目的正是要用人道來軟化及改善兩岸的政治關係。我們相信：如果兩岸在地震、颱風中能從相互救援的互動，領悟那種崇高善良的人道情懷，則未來兩岸用飛彈大砲相互殘殺的可能性應可大幅降低。畢竟，相互毀滅，不如相互成全。
若持此想，我們甚至認為，接受大陸米二六直升機來台也是可以考慮的；只是當前輿情恐怕仍跳不出這個框架。
前文說：政治的最高目標就是人道；兩岸及國際的政治，皆不能背離人道。尤其，對兩岸而言，不僅地震水災等救災行動的「小氣候」是人道，且民主人本等高遠追求的「大氣候」也是人道。從兩岸地震颱風的人道互動中，對兩岸未來的「和平發展」應有深遠的啟示作用。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2009
The day before yesterday, at 14:45, a camouflaged United States military C-130 transport plane flew from Okinawa and landed at Tainan Air Force Base, carrying disaster relief materiel for the 8/8 Flood. This was the first time a United States military aircraft has landed on Taiwan since Taipei and Washington broke off diplomatic relations in 1979.
High-ranking ROC officials set the tone, saying that "Humanitarian assistance transcends politics." Yang Yi, spokesman for Beijing's State Council for Taiwan Affairs said, "This is humanitarian assistance made available to Taiwan by the government through private channels." And so it was with the U.S. warships carrying rescue helicopters that arrived on Taiwan yesterday.
The bottom line is, this is a humanitarian issue. The United States government's decision to send equipment may have been a political and administrative decision. But fundamentally it was humanitarian in nature. By the same token, Yang Yi, spokesman for Beijing's State Council for Taiwan Affairs, may need to take into account political factors. But in the end it is still humanitarian assistance.
Humanitarianism trumps politics. One might even say that the evolution of human civilization in the twenty-first century means that the raison d'etre of politics is humanitarian. Politics that turns its back on humanitarianism, whether cross-Straits or international, amounts to reactionary thinking on the wrong side of history.
Some self-proclaimed "military experts" in the legislature have cited this development, and implied that in the event of a man-made disaster such as war, the U.S. Cavalry would also come riding to the rescue. They merely reveal their superficiality. At moments like this, no one has the right to make political hay from solemn humanitarian issues. Whoever exploits such an occasion to sully humanitarism with politics, who uses humanitarism as a political tool, merely reveals his own ignorance and myopia.
As time passes, and history unfolds, mankind and human consciousness have demonstrated the capacity to evolve to more advanced levels. Think back ten years, to the 9/21 Earthquake. The Beijing authorities, speaking through Sun Aiming, Secretary-General of Mainland China's Red Cross, said that any nation wishing to provide Taiwan earthquake relief, would be required to obtain prior consent from Mainland China's Red Cross. On 9/22 Russia sent AN-124 transport planes to Taiwan to conduct large-scale rescue operations. Beijing forbade Russian planes from transitting through Mainland China's airspace, Rescue operations were delayed 12 hours while Moscow negotiated with Beijing. When we recall this scenario a decade later, we can't help thinking, "How cruel. how obtuse."
Therefore when Yang Yi characterized Mainland China's facilitation of the U.S. government's disaster relief effort as humanitarian aid, it was a sign of major progress. As we can see, humanitarian values are the highest political values. Political values hostile to humanitarian values don't stand a chance. Compare Sun Aiming's statement ten years ago, with Yang Yi's statement ten years later. Who was right and who was wrong? Who was being wise, and who was being obtuse? No comment is needed, and the answers are self-evident.
During last year's Sichuan Earthquake, the ruling and opposition parties launched elevated and earnest disaster relief operations. Even today, volunteer groups from Taiwan are busy at work in Sichuan disaster areas. Last year, a UDN News editorial asked KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung to convey a message to CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao: "The two sides may not be able to avoid earthquakes and other natural disasters, but they can work together to avoid war." Chairman Wu carried this message to the Mainland, and the Mainland public expressed support for this way of thinking. The Taiwan public's grass-roots response to the Sichuan Earthquake was humanitarian in nature. It had a major influence on the thinking of authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Ten years ago, the Mainland government donated three million USD to 9/21 Earthquake relief, through the Mainland China Red Cross. Ten years later, Mainland-based private citizens and quasi-governmental organizations donated funds in their own name. The amount of materiel donated greatly increased, and include modular housing units. As we can see, the attitude and conduct of the Mainland has changed significantly for the better.
As we see it, we ought to be as accepting as possible to assistance from the Mainland. We should even allow Mainland volunteers and charitable organizations to visit the disaster areas. Even if alternative resources are available, and Mainland assistance is not indispensable, we should promote cross-Strait humanitarian exchanges. We should encourage the volunteers from Taiwan engaged in earthquake relief in Sichuan. We should welcome Mainland volunteers to disaster areas on Taiwan. We should allow humanitarian exchanges to soften and improve cross-Strait political relations. If the two sides can assist each other during earthquakes and typhoons, humanitarian sentiments may reduce the likelihood that both sides will slaughter each other with missiles and artillery. After all, mutual support is surefly preferable to mutual destruction.
If we think in these terms, we may even consider allowing the shipment of Mi-26 helicopters from the Mainland. The only real obstacle would the public's inability to take such a leap at this moment in time.
As noted above, the highest political values are humanitarian values. Neither cross-Strait nor international politics may take precedence over humanitarianism. In cross-Strait relations, the micro-climate formed during earthquake and flood relief operations is humanitarian in nature. The macro-climate formed by humanism and other transcendant values is also humanitarian in nature. Humanitarian cross-Strait exchanges during earthquake and typhoon relief efforts may have far-reaching implications for the "peaceful development" of cross-Strait relations.
人道，美國與中國的援助皆是人道！
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.18 03:54 am
前天下午二時四十五分，一架「低辨識度塗裝」的美國C-130運輸機，自琉球飛抵台南空軍基地，完成運載八八水患救災物資的援助任務。這是一九七九年台美斷交以來，首度有美國軍機在台灣降落。
我國政府高層將此舉定調為：「人道援助／超越政治。」北京方面，國台辦發言人楊毅則表示：「這是有關國家通過民間渠道，對台灣實施人道主義援助。」昨天續有美艦將救災直升機運抵台灣，亦當作如是觀。
此事在本質上是一個人道事件。即使美國作出派機的決定必然是一政治及行政的決定，但此舉的根本底蘊仍是「人道」；同理，即使北京國台辦發言人楊毅必須慮及此一事件的政治因素，但最後仍將此舉定義為「人道主義援助」。
人道高於政治。甚至可說，人類文明發展至二十一世紀的今日，「政治」的最高目標就是「人道」；背離「人道」的政治，無論在兩岸或國際，皆是悖天逆人的反動思維。
因而，有些自命為「軍事專家」的立委，將此事解釋為「意謂假如有『人禍』，美軍也會來救援」，只是徒顯其淺薄而已；此時此際，實不必將一個莊嚴的「人道」事件，硬行套入「政治」的八股公式中。誰在此際想用政治來污染人道，或用人道來操弄政治，皆是不識時務、不識大體。
時勢推移，歷史遞嬗，人物及思潮皆有可能向前向上提升發展。回顧十年前的九二一大地震當年，北京當局曾經透過中國紅十字會秘書長孫愛明對外表示，任何國家要援助台灣地震，須先徵得大陸紅十字會的同意。當時，俄羅斯在九二二即決定以AN-124大型運輸機進行救援行動，北京方面竟曾一度拒絕俄機過境假道，以致救援行動在交涉折衝中遲誤了十二小時。將這些歷史鏡頭，拿到十年後的今天對照來看，那是何其殘忍，又是何其愚昧？
因而，楊毅今天能在第一時間將美機執行救災任務定義為「人道主義救援」，這不能不說是十年來的重大進步。可見，人道是政治的最高準則，背離人道即不可能有成功的政治。十年前孫愛明的發言，與十年後今日楊毅的發言兩相對照，是非智愚，不言可喻、不辨自明。
去年四川大地震，台灣朝野在第一時間即發動高規格、高熱忱的救災行動，直至今日仍有台灣的志工團體還在四川災區工作。當時，本報社論曾請即將訪陸的國民黨主席吳伯雄，帶給中共總書記胡錦濤一句話：「兩岸不能避免地震等自然災害，但可以共同避免戰爭。」吳主席後來把話帶到，大陸輿論亦頗支持此想。如今回顧，主要出自台灣民間自發的對四川大地震的「人道互動」，對於兩岸當局後來的思維及心態應皆產生了重大的啟示與影響。
十年前，大陸以中國紅十字會對九二一震災捐輸了三百萬美金；十年後，大陸民間及半官方機構也以個別身分捐款捐物，且捐助的物資在數目上增加了很多，在品項上也包括了組合屋等更具多樣性。可見，十年之間，在觀念及行為上皆有顯著進展。
我們的看法是：對於大陸的援助，應當盡可能地開放；甚至接受大陸志工或慈善團體到災區現場工作。即使已有替代資源而未必有實際需求，但亦應盡量促成兩岸的人道互動。台灣進入四川震災區的志工應被鼓勵，大陸來台的慈善志工也應受歡迎。其目的正是要用人道來軟化及改善兩岸的政治關係。我們相信：如果兩岸在地震、颱風中能從相互救援的互動，領悟那種崇高善良的人道情懷，則未來兩岸用飛彈大砲相互殘殺的可能性應可大幅降低。畢竟，相互毀滅，不如相互成全。
若持此想，我們甚至認為，接受大陸米二六直升機來台也是可以考慮的；只是當前輿情恐怕仍跳不出這個框架。
前文說：政治的最高目標就是人道；兩岸及國際的政治，皆不能背離人道。尤其，對兩岸而言，不僅地震水災等救災行動的「小氣候」是人道，且民主人本等高遠追求的「大氣候」也是人道。從兩岸地震颱風的人道互動中，對兩岸未來的「和平發展」應有深遠的啟示作用。
Monday, August 17, 2009
Collapsed Bridges: When Will They Be Restored?
Collapsed Bridges: When Will They Be Restored?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2009
Summary: Typhoon Morakot brought with it a record-breaking 3000 mm of rainfall. But even more astonishing was the number of collapsed bridges. Fourteen provincial highway bridges collapsed. Add to that county and township bridges, railway bridges and yet to be confirmed local bridges, and the total number of collapsed bridges rises to over 70. This exceeds the previous record for collapsed bridges during a single typhoon by a factor of ten. If in the face of "extreme weather" one fails to fundamentally rethink bridge design, then this embarrassing record for collapsed bridges could well reach new highs.
Full Text below:
Typhoon Morakot brought with it a record-breaking 3000 mm of rainfall. But even more astonishing was the number of collapsed bridges. Fourteen provincial highway bridges collapsed. Add to that county and township bridges, railway bridges and yet to be confirmed local bridges, and the total number of collapsed bridges rises to over 70. This exceeds the previous record for collapsed bridges during a single typhoon by a factor of ten. If in the face of "extreme weather" one fails to fundamentally rethink bridge design, then this embarrassing record for collapsed bridges could well reach new highs.
"Bridges are the interface between man-made structures and rivers." This is Bridge Building 101. Bridge design must combine knowledge from civil engineering, structural engineering, hydrology, soil engineering, geology, and other disciplines. Only then can one ensure safety while aiding transportation. Bridge Building 101 may be clear and understandable. Yet it is sorely lacking on Taiwan. That is the reason for the high incidence of collapsed bridges.
Bridge design has long neglected hydrology. The most bridge builders are willing to do is to consult hydrological data during the design phase, when bridge designers calculate pier sizes, horizontal spans, and the depth and strength of the pile foundations, They design and built bridges to last an average of 50 years. Once the bridge is completed, hydrology and water management issues are ignored. The only factor considered is the water level under the bridge. The hydrology upstream and downstream of the bridge may have long changed. The chance to fix mistakes is squandered. Only when the pile footings are exposed, and the danger is obvious, do they realize they should have considered hydrology. By then of course it is too late.
Everyone knows that rivers and flowing waters constantly change in response to natural and man-made variables. Taiwan's rivers are short and steep. They transport huge volumes of sand, and are highly erosive. Human activities such as water and soil conservation measures and sand mining continuously impact hydrology and water management. They raise riverbeds in the upper reaches. They deepen riverbeds in the lower reaches. Major rivers undergo dramatic course changes. If bridge designers assume that the hydrology will not change over 50 years, then the collapsed bridges cannot be blamed on Typhoon Morak, but on the bridge designer's naivete.
Typhoon Morakot caused the collapse of the Shuangyuan Bridge and Chiwei Bridge near the mouth of the Kaoping Creek, and the Taching Bridge across the Laonung Creek, where it crosses Maoling. None of these bridges collapsed as a result of old age. They collapsed as a result of hydrological changes in the course of the river or the height of the river bed. None of these collapsed bridges were old. The Taching Bridge was renovated only a few years ago. The problem is not the bridge themselves, but external factors such as the hydrology and geology.
Bridge builders have long ignored hydrological changes. In 2000, Typhoon Bilis caused the collapse of the Kaoping Bridge, part of a major traffic artery. The Control Yuan investigated the highway department and water resources department, wondering why the two failed to coordinate with each other. Only then was a mechanism established to "ensure coordination on river and bridge safety." When necessary, it would enable construction firms and water resources experts to communicate. But the engineering and water resources realms have long mistrusted each other. Coordination was initially pro forma, and even included buck-passing. Only recently have communications improved ever so slightly.
Following the current disaster bridge builders urge the construction of cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges costing several times the new bridge budget. This money should be spent. It is worth it. For one, it will keep up with aesthetic trends. For another, in principle at least, large span bridges reduce the number of piers subject to erosion, hence the attendant risk of bridge collapses. The collapse of bridges during Typhoon Morakot was actually caused by other factors, including hydrology. Yet bridge designers' recommendations fail to even mention them. This shows that although the interdisciplinary mechanism has been in place several years, bridge designers still do not appreciate the importance of hydrology.
Even when bridge owners have been frightened by the sight of exposed bridge piers, they still may not understand or appreciate river hydrology and water control issues. They may consult water resources experts through liaison units. But they don't trust them. They always consider the water resources experts' recommendations too restrictive. This makes it impossible to resolve the bridge building crisis. Bridge owners don't believe that consolidating the river bed and building weirs can prevent the exposure of bridge piles. They fall back on their own piecemeal reconstruction or new construction, in an effort to restore the bridges to safe status.
Water resources experts consider bridge owners short-sighted for believing that protecting bridge piers with cages and increasing the depth of the bridge's foundation piles will ensure safety. As an example, they cite the highly praised cable-stayed Liling Bridge on National Highway Route Three. A few years ago, even though the Liling Bridge had been completed not long ago, the piles were already exposed. Only after water resources experts consolidated the riverbed upstream, did the river sand gradually return. This simultaneously improved the overall safety of the Kaoping River riverbed and solved the problem of the exposed foundation piles.
The reconstruction of collapsed bridges is an important part of post-disaster reconstruction. Since it is a key issue, let's eliminate compartmentalization. Let's work together. After all, the direction we should be headed is the comprehensive management of bridges and rivers.
斷橋遺恨 何日方休
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.17 03:36 am
莫拉克颱風創下總雨量近三千毫米的驚人紀錄，但更驚人的紀錄其實是斷橋，僅僅省道公路橋梁就斷了十四座，若再加上縣鄉道橋梁、鐵路橋以及尚未確認的地方斷橋，估計在七十座以上，不僅超過以往單一颱風斷橋紀錄，甚至是十幾倍。面對「極端氣候」加劇，如果對橋梁的興建、維護思維不做根本的調整，不光彩的斷橋紀錄勢必再創新高。
「橋梁是人為構造物與河川界面的整合」。這是橋梁工程的入門第一課，意思是橋梁須結合土木、結構、水文、工程地質等多個領域的知識，才能夠確保安全及發揮輸運功能。入門第一課雖說得清楚易懂，卻是台灣橋梁工程最欠缺、也是斷橋頻仍的關鍵原因。
橋梁工程多年來一直不重視水文水理，頂多在顧問公司設計階段參考河川水文資料，就當時數據計算橋墩、跨距、基樁等的深度與強度，設計興建出平均五十年壽命的橋梁。之後不論是橋梁管理或安全維護，都不再納入水文、水理變化因素，只管橋下的水位變化，罔顧橋梁上下游的水文早就丕變，蹉跎了補救時機，直到驚覺橋墩裸露、險象環生，才想到該去借重水利，為時已晚。
任誰都知道河川、行水沒有一刻不因自然或人為因素而改變，尤其台灣河川短促、高陡降、輸砂多、沖刷強的先天特性，以及後天水土保持、採砂等人為活動，水文、水理沒有一刻不在變化，造成上游河床墊高、下游河道刷深、主河道移位等的巨大改變。如果以為設計當時的水文會五十年不變，那這次的斷橋遺恨就不該記在莫拉克帳上，而是橋梁業主太天真之故。
對照莫拉克造成高屏溪出海口雙園大橋、旗尾橋斷橋，進入茂林咽喉的跨荖濃溪大津橋斷橋等，都不是橋梁老化等自身因素，而是因河道移位或河床墊高帶來的水文、水理變化所致。尤其這些斷橋都不是老舊橋梁，大津橋甚至才改建沒幾年，這證明問題不在橋梁本身，是水文、地質等外在因素造成。
跨河構造物不注重水文變化的現象由來已久，直到民國八十九年碧利絲颱風吹斷運輸動脈高屏大橋，監院追究為什麼公路單位與水利單位互不聯繫後，才建立「維護河川保護橋梁安全聯繫會報」機制，有需要時由工程業主邀集水利等相關單位溝通。不過，在工程與水利界長期存在芥蒂下，初期這個會報基本上徒具形式，實質是各個單位劃清界線，甚至是互推責任的局面；直到最近，溝通雖略好一些，但也有限。
就拿這次災後橋梁界的建議來看，認為即使興建斜張橋、脊索橋等新式橋梁要多花幾倍預算，這個錢也應該花、值得花，不僅美觀跟得上「流行」，且大跨距的設計減少橋墩數，理論上就減少承受水流沖刷的力道，連帶減少斷橋風險。至於莫拉克造成斷橋，其實是橋面下包括水文等非橋梁因素所致，橋梁界的建議卻全未觸及，這反映形式上雖跨界聯繫會報已運作好幾年，但橋梁不重視水文的現象並未改變。
即便業主被嚴重橋墩裸露嚇到，瞭解再不重視河川水文水理會出問題，也透過聯繫會報去徵詢水利單位；但在缺乏信任下，始終認為對方的建議太侷限，不可能解決橋梁的危機，亦不認為固床工、攔河堰那套水利手法能夠改善橋梁基樁裸露，還是要靠自己那一套局部改建或新建，才是換得橋梁安全的正辦。
水利界則認為橋梁業主短視，以為只在橋墩圍些蛇籠、加強基樁深度橋就可保安全，還舉頗獲好評的國道三號里嶺斜張橋為例，前幾年里嶺橋雖才新建完工不久，很快就有基樁裸露現象，還不是靠水利專業的在上游做固床工，讓河砂慢慢回淤，整體改善高屏溪河床安全後，連帶才解決基樁裸露的問題。
斷橋是災後重建的重點工作，既然知道問題關鍵所在，就請彼此破除門戶矜持，攜手合作；畢竟，「橋河併治」才是正確的思考方向。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2009
Summary: Typhoon Morakot brought with it a record-breaking 3000 mm of rainfall. But even more astonishing was the number of collapsed bridges. Fourteen provincial highway bridges collapsed. Add to that county and township bridges, railway bridges and yet to be confirmed local bridges, and the total number of collapsed bridges rises to over 70. This exceeds the previous record for collapsed bridges during a single typhoon by a factor of ten. If in the face of "extreme weather" one fails to fundamentally rethink bridge design, then this embarrassing record for collapsed bridges could well reach new highs.
Full Text below:
Typhoon Morakot brought with it a record-breaking 3000 mm of rainfall. But even more astonishing was the number of collapsed bridges. Fourteen provincial highway bridges collapsed. Add to that county and township bridges, railway bridges and yet to be confirmed local bridges, and the total number of collapsed bridges rises to over 70. This exceeds the previous record for collapsed bridges during a single typhoon by a factor of ten. If in the face of "extreme weather" one fails to fundamentally rethink bridge design, then this embarrassing record for collapsed bridges could well reach new highs.
"Bridges are the interface between man-made structures and rivers." This is Bridge Building 101. Bridge design must combine knowledge from civil engineering, structural engineering, hydrology, soil engineering, geology, and other disciplines. Only then can one ensure safety while aiding transportation. Bridge Building 101 may be clear and understandable. Yet it is sorely lacking on Taiwan. That is the reason for the high incidence of collapsed bridges.
Bridge design has long neglected hydrology. The most bridge builders are willing to do is to consult hydrological data during the design phase, when bridge designers calculate pier sizes, horizontal spans, and the depth and strength of the pile foundations, They design and built bridges to last an average of 50 years. Once the bridge is completed, hydrology and water management issues are ignored. The only factor considered is the water level under the bridge. The hydrology upstream and downstream of the bridge may have long changed. The chance to fix mistakes is squandered. Only when the pile footings are exposed, and the danger is obvious, do they realize they should have considered hydrology. By then of course it is too late.
Everyone knows that rivers and flowing waters constantly change in response to natural and man-made variables. Taiwan's rivers are short and steep. They transport huge volumes of sand, and are highly erosive. Human activities such as water and soil conservation measures and sand mining continuously impact hydrology and water management. They raise riverbeds in the upper reaches. They deepen riverbeds in the lower reaches. Major rivers undergo dramatic course changes. If bridge designers assume that the hydrology will not change over 50 years, then the collapsed bridges cannot be blamed on Typhoon Morak, but on the bridge designer's naivete.
Typhoon Morakot caused the collapse of the Shuangyuan Bridge and Chiwei Bridge near the mouth of the Kaoping Creek, and the Taching Bridge across the Laonung Creek, where it crosses Maoling. None of these bridges collapsed as a result of old age. They collapsed as a result of hydrological changes in the course of the river or the height of the river bed. None of these collapsed bridges were old. The Taching Bridge was renovated only a few years ago. The problem is not the bridge themselves, but external factors such as the hydrology and geology.
Bridge builders have long ignored hydrological changes. In 2000, Typhoon Bilis caused the collapse of the Kaoping Bridge, part of a major traffic artery. The Control Yuan investigated the highway department and water resources department, wondering why the two failed to coordinate with each other. Only then was a mechanism established to "ensure coordination on river and bridge safety." When necessary, it would enable construction firms and water resources experts to communicate. But the engineering and water resources realms have long mistrusted each other. Coordination was initially pro forma, and even included buck-passing. Only recently have communications improved ever so slightly.
Following the current disaster bridge builders urge the construction of cable-stayed bridges and suspension bridges costing several times the new bridge budget. This money should be spent. It is worth it. For one, it will keep up with aesthetic trends. For another, in principle at least, large span bridges reduce the number of piers subject to erosion, hence the attendant risk of bridge collapses. The collapse of bridges during Typhoon Morakot was actually caused by other factors, including hydrology. Yet bridge designers' recommendations fail to even mention them. This shows that although the interdisciplinary mechanism has been in place several years, bridge designers still do not appreciate the importance of hydrology.
Even when bridge owners have been frightened by the sight of exposed bridge piers, they still may not understand or appreciate river hydrology and water control issues. They may consult water resources experts through liaison units. But they don't trust them. They always consider the water resources experts' recommendations too restrictive. This makes it impossible to resolve the bridge building crisis. Bridge owners don't believe that consolidating the river bed and building weirs can prevent the exposure of bridge piles. They fall back on their own piecemeal reconstruction or new construction, in an effort to restore the bridges to safe status.
Water resources experts consider bridge owners short-sighted for believing that protecting bridge piers with cages and increasing the depth of the bridge's foundation piles will ensure safety. As an example, they cite the highly praised cable-stayed Liling Bridge on National Highway Route Three. A few years ago, even though the Liling Bridge had been completed not long ago, the piles were already exposed. Only after water resources experts consolidated the riverbed upstream, did the river sand gradually return. This simultaneously improved the overall safety of the Kaoping River riverbed and solved the problem of the exposed foundation piles.
The reconstruction of collapsed bridges is an important part of post-disaster reconstruction. Since it is a key issue, let's eliminate compartmentalization. Let's work together. After all, the direction we should be headed is the comprehensive management of bridges and rivers.
斷橋遺恨 何日方休
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.08.17 03:36 am
莫拉克颱風創下總雨量近三千毫米的驚人紀錄，但更驚人的紀錄其實是斷橋，僅僅省道公路橋梁就斷了十四座，若再加上縣鄉道橋梁、鐵路橋以及尚未確認的地方斷橋，估計在七十座以上，不僅超過以往單一颱風斷橋紀錄，甚至是十幾倍。面對「極端氣候」加劇，如果對橋梁的興建、維護思維不做根本的調整，不光彩的斷橋紀錄勢必再創新高。
「橋梁是人為構造物與河川界面的整合」。這是橋梁工程的入門第一課，意思是橋梁須結合土木、結構、水文、工程地質等多個領域的知識，才能夠確保安全及發揮輸運功能。入門第一課雖說得清楚易懂，卻是台灣橋梁工程最欠缺、也是斷橋頻仍的關鍵原因。
橋梁工程多年來一直不重視水文水理，頂多在顧問公司設計階段參考河川水文資料，就當時數據計算橋墩、跨距、基樁等的深度與強度，設計興建出平均五十年壽命的橋梁。之後不論是橋梁管理或安全維護，都不再納入水文、水理變化因素，只管橋下的水位變化，罔顧橋梁上下游的水文早就丕變，蹉跎了補救時機，直到驚覺橋墩裸露、險象環生，才想到該去借重水利，為時已晚。
任誰都知道河川、行水沒有一刻不因自然或人為因素而改變，尤其台灣河川短促、高陡降、輸砂多、沖刷強的先天特性，以及後天水土保持、採砂等人為活動，水文、水理沒有一刻不在變化，造成上游河床墊高、下游河道刷深、主河道移位等的巨大改變。如果以為設計當時的水文會五十年不變，那這次的斷橋遺恨就不該記在莫拉克帳上，而是橋梁業主太天真之故。
對照莫拉克造成高屏溪出海口雙園大橋、旗尾橋斷橋，進入茂林咽喉的跨荖濃溪大津橋斷橋等，都不是橋梁老化等自身因素，而是因河道移位或河床墊高帶來的水文、水理變化所致。尤其這些斷橋都不是老舊橋梁，大津橋甚至才改建沒幾年，這證明問題不在橋梁本身，是水文、地質等外在因素造成。
跨河構造物不注重水文變化的現象由來已久，直到民國八十九年碧利絲颱風吹斷運輸動脈高屏大橋，監院追究為什麼公路單位與水利單位互不聯繫後，才建立「維護河川保護橋梁安全聯繫會報」機制，有需要時由工程業主邀集水利等相關單位溝通。不過，在工程與水利界長期存在芥蒂下，初期這個會報基本上徒具形式，實質是各個單位劃清界線，甚至是互推責任的局面；直到最近，溝通雖略好一些，但也有限。
就拿這次災後橋梁界的建議來看，認為即使興建斜張橋、脊索橋等新式橋梁要多花幾倍預算，這個錢也應該花、值得花，不僅美觀跟得上「流行」，且大跨距的設計減少橋墩數，理論上就減少承受水流沖刷的力道，連帶減少斷橋風險。至於莫拉克造成斷橋，其實是橋面下包括水文等非橋梁因素所致，橋梁界的建議卻全未觸及，這反映形式上雖跨界聯繫會報已運作好幾年，但橋梁不重視水文的現象並未改變。
即便業主被嚴重橋墩裸露嚇到，瞭解再不重視河川水文水理會出問題，也透過聯繫會報去徵詢水利單位；但在缺乏信任下，始終認為對方的建議太侷限，不可能解決橋梁的危機，亦不認為固床工、攔河堰那套水利手法能夠改善橋梁基樁裸露，還是要靠自己那一套局部改建或新建，才是換得橋梁安全的正辦。
水利界則認為橋梁業主短視，以為只在橋墩圍些蛇籠、加強基樁深度橋就可保安全，還舉頗獲好評的國道三號里嶺斜張橋為例，前幾年里嶺橋雖才新建完工不久，很快就有基樁裸露現象，還不是靠水利專業的在上游做固床工，讓河砂慢慢回淤，整體改善高屏溪河床安全後，連帶才解決基樁裸露的問題。
斷橋是災後重建的重點工作，既然知道問題關鍵所在，就請彼此破除門戶矜持，攜手合作；畢竟，「橋河併治」才是正確的思考方向。
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Destroyed Villages: The Earth's Warning to Taiwan
Destroyed Villages: The Earth's Warning to Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 13, 2009
Thirteen years ago Typhoon Herb severely damaged the Central Cross-Island Highway in Nantou. For the first time the public on Taiwan understood the meaning of the term "landslide." Thirteen years later, Typhoon Morakot raged through Kaohsiung and Pingtung. Landslide damage was so severe entire villages were wiped out, buried beneath mountains of mud. In Hsiaoling Village, Chiahsien Township, over 200 households vanished from the face of the earth, overnight, leaving people in shock, grief, and confusion. But why was Hsiaoling Village destroyed?
Hsiaoling Village is located on the east bank of Nanhsinghsien Creek, on Taiwan Provincial Highway Route 21. It is nestled between mountains and streams. It was originally a beautiful, lush green village on Pingpu Tribal land. The day disaster struck, it was not the Nanhsinghsien Creek that swallowed up Hsaoling Village, but an unnamed, untamed creek that flowed through the village.
The Landslide Red Alert issued by the Council of Agriculture classified two untamed creeks in Hsiaoling Village as "high disaster potential creeks." These could trigger landslides. The untamed creek that wiped out the village was designated DF006 on the map. An intense rainstorm loosened soil and boulders atop the mountain, half of which was washed through the village by the raging creek waters, instantly burying the village in its alluvial fan.
The Council of Agriculture fulfilled its obligation to warn of landslides. But its risk assessment report described the danger as "low." The region under alert included only five households. In fact over 200 residences were buried in the carnage. The landslide warning smacked of government bureaucrats covering themselves in the event something went awry. It was not a serious effort "to protect and serve." Worse still, last year Chiahsien Township requested that the creek be cleared. The Water Conservation Bureau turned down the request. The reason it gave was "The gravel is valuable. The request for creek clearing could be motivated by commercial interests." What sort of attitude is that?
Hsiaoling Village was not the only village wiped out. Two years ago, farther north along Route 21, three villages whose names were changed from Minzhu Village, Minquan Village, and Minsheng Village to Namaxia Village, were also severely damaged. Liukuei Village and Taoyuan Village, on the other side of the mountain, along the Lao-Nong River, have been cut off from outside contact. No one even knows what their situation is. Farther to the east, in Taitung, Chialan Village and Taimali Village, many houses were washed away by raging creek waters. Some were even carried out into the Pacific Ocean. The tension between man and the earth has reached the breaking point. Shouldn't we stop to ponder cause and effect?
In addition to heavy rains, what factors were responsible for intensifying the landslides? Over-development was one. Hsiaoling Village was a long-established village on Pingpu Tribal land. Landslides were unheard of. This suggests that the initial choice of location was not the problem. This was clearly different from the many settlements on the banks of creeks established by Hans who migrated from the flatlands. The problem is that in recent years, many outsiders have settled in Hsiaoling Village. The surrounding mountainsides have been continually developed. Ginger and taro crops require deep plowing. They rapidly deplete the soil. They imperceptibly undermine the adjacent soil and water.
According to the Butterfly Effect, a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the globe. Perhaps Hsiaoling village was wiped out because someone plowed a field, or dug a pit, or built a house he shouldn't have within the watershed. He may have destroyed the ecological balance. The result was the destruction of the village, and the loss of ancestral lands. But who will be held accountable in such a complex chain of causation? Some people are also sure to ask, when did it become a sin to labor in the fields?
Actually last year Typhoon Kalmaegi gave Hsiaoling Village a warning. A bridge outside the village was destroyed. Soil and boulders were washed into nine out of ten houses in the village. But because no human lives were lost, outside attention focused on casualties in Yukuanghsiang Village in neighboring Tungan Township. The warning was ignored. The only conclusion was, "It must be rebuilt as soon as possible." Hsiaoling Village once consisted of only a few dozen households. People used hand tools to scratch out a living. They were incapable of inflicting much damage to the land. But when the population surged, and excavators and bobcats became common, the scale of operations were increased in the pursuit of the bottom line. How can man maintain a balanced relationship with the earth under such circumstances? How can the ecological balance not be upset?
As one enters the new Central Cross-Island Highway, one can see excavators sitting on both sides of the Nantou Highway, and the storefronts of earth-moving machinery rental places. It is not difficult to imagine the extent to which such machinery is abused on Taiwan. It is not difficult to imagine the destructive impact of unrestrained development on the mountain regions. In recent years, the popularity of Taiwan's high mountain fruits and vegetables have proven the initiative of local farmers. But in the process, they have gone down a dangerous road. Who knows when they will fall over the precipice? The Chihpen and Hongyeh Hot Springs resorts in Taitung, the Baolai and Maolin Hot Springs resorts in Kaohsiung, and the Meishan Hot Springs resort in Chiayi, have all been been severely damaged. This reveals problems with development and management.
The public on Taiwan was unfamiliar with landslides a dozen or so years ago. Now, each landslide is worse than the last. Besides bemoaning the loss of life, what can we learn from the destruction of these villages?
防倒芖佩ぱ牡
羛厨阶
2009.08.13 06:22 am
玡禤讳玭щ穝い绢猽絬硑Θ承芖チǎ醚孔ホ瑈馋┰讳竩環蔼盢ホ瑈甡矗ど防ヒ秏ㄢκめ產狶眖ア琵綺佩磀篍碽ぃ琌ぐ或硑Θ狶璓㏑反防
狶罚标匪狥─ぼ絬笵ㄌ衬琌獵籄腞キ瓾壁辅╝螟êぱ防狶玱ぃ琌竲罚标匪τ琌瑈竒辅兵礚偿匪
笰〆穦祇ガホ瑈︹牡зい狶Τㄢ兵偿匪砆ま祇ホ瑈肩墩匪癸酚瓜旧璓防碞琌絪腹DF006偿匪非絋弧讽ぱ忌獴縀疨≧肞硁郴ホ繷ホ繦帝テ垒偿匪╣τ俐被甀≧縩俱辅
絋龟笰〆穦ホ瑈牡з荷竡叭戈癟い癸硂兵偿匪繧蝶︳玱琌牡ボ跋办度の㏄綝きめチ癸酚さぱㄢκめ產綝被甀篏 硂妓ホ瑈牡зそΤ翴饥警笵ゑ耕钩現┎诀闽玂砫ぇノ臔チネ㏑癩玻粄痷ぷΤヒ秏璶―睲瞶偿匪玂 Ы玱ホΤ基綝瓜パ┶荡硂琌ぐ或み篈
辅綝砏家反防篏粿ぃゎ祇ネ狶猽帝ぼ腹そ隔ㄢ玡эê嚎甃侣チ秏チ壁チ舦单綝承ぇ筳觵緻匪猽絬 方㎝せ纓Τㄇ辅癸羛蹈い耞硈╝薄常ぇぃ冈┕狥狥古孽㎝び陈ń砛チ砆匪盿ǐ≧びキ瑅籔闽玒パ候眎跑 Θ∕荡иぃ瞏ㄤい狦
埃花獴璶弧Τぐ或耎ホ瑈╝螟筁秨祇莱赣琌狶琌Θミキ瓾辅╱籇ホ瑈╝甡ǎΝ竚匡拒┪砛礚拜肈硂㎝禤讳篟反キ簙べ玖籈辅砞匡偿匪陪ぃ拜肈狶ぃ耞Τㄓ簿㏄娩跋ぃ耞秨祇贺从ネ沥㎝ā繷单常惠璶瞏ぃ度е硉籯ぃぃ谋瘆胊
沮焦胶瞶阶唉焦胶╃笆籋瞴狠ま祇咙狶防砛琌瑈办い街缎遏ぃ赣秨バ┪琌街ぃ赣备硑 瓷ぃ赣眖τ瘆胊俱ネ篈キ颗挡篶挡狦旧璓滦防府癳匡拒腳狡馒劣锣狦璶街發╯砫ヴ弧 ﹚Τ穦は拜对骋贺Τ竜盾
ㄆ龟膀讳癸狶祇牡讽缠羛爵辩い耞Θ┬綝ホ獻礚畘礘翴常綟秏狥猳膓端 êΩ牡碞度鲸еΜ初刚稱狶碭め產度咎蛮も㎝維繷贺传放埂硂癸硑Θぐ或端甡讽艼糤笆怀ノ诀窟ㄓ秨臥發―竒犁砏家㎝カ初柬ヘ夹ê或㎝闽玒璶蝴么ぱネ篈キ颗癦ぃ耞吊
秈穝い绢ぇ玡玭щそ隔ㄢ矪ǎ┣も诀ㄣ扳┍ぃ螟稱钩硂ㄇㄣ芖砆垒ノぐ或˙稱钩跋竩秨祇瘆胊 芖蔼江狦砍瘤陪ボよ玻穨崩甶Θ狦籔ぱ筁祘いㄤ龟琌ǐ兵玙秈隔ぃ穦津禬ノ絬硂Ω珹狥セ 腑蔼动腳ㄓ璟狶古竡宾单放瑄跋А綝承莱讽常は琈秨祇の恨瞶ア讽拜肈
芖チ粄醚ホ瑈碭–Ωウ常瞮礼华瞷и埃猒ネ㏑瑈硊眖防厩穦ぐ或
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 13, 2009
Thirteen years ago Typhoon Herb severely damaged the Central Cross-Island Highway in Nantou. For the first time the public on Taiwan understood the meaning of the term "landslide." Thirteen years later, Typhoon Morakot raged through Kaohsiung and Pingtung. Landslide damage was so severe entire villages were wiped out, buried beneath mountains of mud. In Hsiaoling Village, Chiahsien Township, over 200 households vanished from the face of the earth, overnight, leaving people in shock, grief, and confusion. But why was Hsiaoling Village destroyed?
Hsiaoling Village is located on the east bank of Nanhsinghsien Creek, on Taiwan Provincial Highway Route 21. It is nestled between mountains and streams. It was originally a beautiful, lush green village on Pingpu Tribal land. The day disaster struck, it was not the Nanhsinghsien Creek that swallowed up Hsaoling Village, but an unnamed, untamed creek that flowed through the village.
The Landslide Red Alert issued by the Council of Agriculture classified two untamed creeks in Hsiaoling Village as "high disaster potential creeks." These could trigger landslides. The untamed creek that wiped out the village was designated DF006 on the map. An intense rainstorm loosened soil and boulders atop the mountain, half of which was washed through the village by the raging creek waters, instantly burying the village in its alluvial fan.
The Council of Agriculture fulfilled its obligation to warn of landslides. But its risk assessment report described the danger as "low." The region under alert included only five households. In fact over 200 residences were buried in the carnage. The landslide warning smacked of government bureaucrats covering themselves in the event something went awry. It was not a serious effort "to protect and serve." Worse still, last year Chiahsien Township requested that the creek be cleared. The Water Conservation Bureau turned down the request. The reason it gave was "The gravel is valuable. The request for creek clearing could be motivated by commercial interests." What sort of attitude is that?
Hsiaoling Village was not the only village wiped out. Two years ago, farther north along Route 21, three villages whose names were changed from Minzhu Village, Minquan Village, and Minsheng Village to Namaxia Village, were also severely damaged. Liukuei Village and Taoyuan Village, on the other side of the mountain, along the Lao-Nong River, have been cut off from outside contact. No one even knows what their situation is. Farther to the east, in Taitung, Chialan Village and Taimali Village, many houses were washed away by raging creek waters. Some were even carried out into the Pacific Ocean. The tension between man and the earth has reached the breaking point. Shouldn't we stop to ponder cause and effect?
In addition to heavy rains, what factors were responsible for intensifying the landslides? Over-development was one. Hsiaoling Village was a long-established village on Pingpu Tribal land. Landslides were unheard of. This suggests that the initial choice of location was not the problem. This was clearly different from the many settlements on the banks of creeks established by Hans who migrated from the flatlands. The problem is that in recent years, many outsiders have settled in Hsiaoling Village. The surrounding mountainsides have been continually developed. Ginger and taro crops require deep plowing. They rapidly deplete the soil. They imperceptibly undermine the adjacent soil and water.
According to the Butterfly Effect, a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the globe. Perhaps Hsiaoling village was wiped out because someone plowed a field, or dug a pit, or built a house he shouldn't have within the watershed. He may have destroyed the ecological balance. The result was the destruction of the village, and the loss of ancestral lands. But who will be held accountable in such a complex chain of causation? Some people are also sure to ask, when did it become a sin to labor in the fields?
Actually last year Typhoon Kalmaegi gave Hsiaoling Village a warning. A bridge outside the village was destroyed. Soil and boulders were washed into nine out of ten houses in the village. But because no human lives were lost, outside attention focused on casualties in Yukuanghsiang Village in neighboring Tungan Township. The warning was ignored. The only conclusion was, "It must be rebuilt as soon as possible." Hsiaoling Village once consisted of only a few dozen households. People used hand tools to scratch out a living. They were incapable of inflicting much damage to the land. But when the population surged, and excavators and bobcats became common, the scale of operations were increased in the pursuit of the bottom line. How can man maintain a balanced relationship with the earth under such circumstances? How can the ecological balance not be upset?
As one enters the new Central Cross-Island Highway, one can see excavators sitting on both sides of the Nantou Highway, and the storefronts of earth-moving machinery rental places. It is not difficult to imagine the extent to which such machinery is abused on Taiwan. It is not difficult to imagine the destructive impact of unrestrained development on the mountain regions. In recent years, the popularity of Taiwan's high mountain fruits and vegetables have proven the initiative of local farmers. But in the process, they have gone down a dangerous road. Who knows when they will fall over the precipice? The Chihpen and Hongyeh Hot Springs resorts in Taitung, the Baolai and Maolin Hot Springs resorts in Kaohsiung, and the Meishan Hot Springs resort in Chiayi, have all been been severely damaged. This reveals problems with development and management.
The public on Taiwan was unfamiliar with landslides a dozen or so years ago. Now, each landslide is worse than the last. Besides bemoaning the loss of life, what can we learn from the destruction of these villages?
防倒芖佩ぱ牡
羛厨阶
2009.08.13 06:22 am
玡禤讳玭щ穝い绢猽絬硑Θ承芖チǎ醚孔ホ瑈馋┰讳竩環蔼盢ホ瑈甡矗ど防ヒ秏ㄢκめ產狶眖ア琵綺佩磀篍碽ぃ琌ぐ或硑Θ狶璓㏑反防
狶罚标匪狥─ぼ絬笵ㄌ衬琌獵籄腞キ瓾壁辅╝螟êぱ防狶玱ぃ琌竲罚标匪τ琌瑈竒辅兵礚偿匪
笰〆穦祇ガホ瑈︹牡зい狶Τㄢ兵偿匪砆ま祇ホ瑈肩墩匪癸酚瓜旧璓防碞琌絪腹DF006偿匪非絋弧讽ぱ忌獴縀疨≧肞硁郴ホ繷ホ繦帝テ垒偿匪╣τ俐被甀≧縩俱辅
絋龟笰〆穦ホ瑈牡з荷竡叭戈癟い癸硂兵偿匪繧蝶︳玱琌牡ボ跋办度の㏄綝きめチ癸酚さぱㄢκめ產綝被甀篏 硂妓ホ瑈牡зそΤ翴饥警笵ゑ耕钩現┎诀闽玂砫ぇノ臔チネ㏑癩玻粄痷ぷΤヒ秏璶―睲瞶偿匪玂 Ы玱ホΤ基綝瓜パ┶荡硂琌ぐ或み篈
辅綝砏家反防篏粿ぃゎ祇ネ狶猽帝ぼ腹そ隔ㄢ玡эê嚎甃侣チ秏チ壁チ舦单綝承ぇ筳觵緻匪猽絬 方㎝せ纓Τㄇ辅癸羛蹈い耞硈╝薄常ぇぃ冈┕狥狥古孽㎝び陈ń砛チ砆匪盿ǐ≧びキ瑅籔闽玒パ候眎跑 Θ∕荡иぃ瞏ㄤい狦
埃花獴璶弧Τぐ或耎ホ瑈╝螟筁秨祇莱赣琌狶琌Θミキ瓾辅╱籇ホ瑈╝甡ǎΝ竚匡拒┪砛礚拜肈硂㎝禤讳篟反キ簙べ玖籈辅砞匡偿匪陪ぃ拜肈狶ぃ耞Τㄓ簿㏄娩跋ぃ耞秨祇贺从ネ沥㎝ā繷单常惠璶瞏ぃ度е硉籯ぃぃ谋瘆胊
沮焦胶瞶阶唉焦胶╃笆籋瞴狠ま祇咙狶防砛琌瑈办い街缎遏ぃ赣秨バ┪琌街ぃ赣备硑 瓷ぃ赣眖τ瘆胊俱ネ篈キ颗挡篶挡狦旧璓滦防府癳匡拒腳狡馒劣锣狦璶街發╯砫ヴ弧 ﹚Τ穦は拜对骋贺Τ竜盾
ㄆ龟膀讳癸狶祇牡讽缠羛爵辩い耞Θ┬綝ホ獻礚畘礘翴常綟秏狥猳膓端 êΩ牡碞度鲸еΜ初刚稱狶碭め產度咎蛮も㎝維繷贺传放埂硂癸硑Θぐ或端甡讽艼糤笆怀ノ诀窟ㄓ秨臥發―竒犁砏家㎝カ初柬ヘ夹ê或㎝闽玒璶蝴么ぱネ篈キ颗癦ぃ耞吊
秈穝い绢ぇ玡玭щそ隔ㄢ矪ǎ┣も诀ㄣ扳┍ぃ螟稱钩硂ㄇㄣ芖砆垒ノぐ或˙稱钩跋竩秨祇瘆胊 芖蔼江狦砍瘤陪ボよ玻穨崩甶Θ狦籔ぱ筁祘いㄤ龟琌ǐ兵玙秈隔ぃ穦津禬ノ絬硂Ω珹狥セ 腑蔼动腳ㄓ璟狶古竡宾单放瑄跋А綝承莱讽常は琈秨祇の恨瞶ア讽拜肈
芖チ粄醚ホ瑈碭–Ωウ常瞮礼华瞷и埃猒ネ㏑瑈硊眖防厩穦ぐ或
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
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。
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。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)