NHK Puts Taiwan Media to Shame
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 16, 2011
Tsai Kuo-chiang's plan for the New Year's Eve fireworks display failed to go off as planned. A message was supposed to appear in the night sky, reading: "Knock it off!" But so blunt a message might have provoked unnecessary political controversy. Therefore the message was never displayed. Three and a half months later, many people have the same feeling. An earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter Scale struck Japan. The quake revealed the extent of public dissatisfaction with media coverage of the disaster.
The day after the Japan earthquake, the Internet circulated an article written by a netizen going by the name of "rice crackers." The article was entitled, "What an 8.9 magnitude earthquake taught us." The article commented on coverage of the quake by NHK, Japan's public television network. It wrote: "NHK immediately broadcast images of the disaster. It provided calm, informative, accurate information about the tsunami. Some of the anchorpersons' voices were a little shaky. But they knew that disaster victims and Japanese people the world over would be watching. They had to remain calm. They were their most important source of information. That is why they did not show scenes of disaster victims wringing their hands and tearing their hair. No reporters visited the disaster areas to crack jokes. Instead, they solemnly broadcasted disaster information. They broadcasted government policy announcements. Every few minutes they reminded the audience to pay attention to safety. NHK performed admirably. They were apparently well-prepared. In the face of disaster, they showed how coverage should be broadcast. They conveyed valuable information. They refrained from provoking public anxiety by behaving like vultures."
To compare NHK to the TV media on Taiwan is not entirely fair. After all, NHK is a public television network that receives billions in grants from the Japanese national government every year, When disasters strike, NHK automatically mobilizes alongside the government. Also, Japan resolutely refuses to conduct television viewer ratings. Television production and broadcasting programning are not dictated by viewer ratings. The quality of television series and variety shows is exceptionally high. They are also quite popular.
By contrast, public television on Taiwan has been the victim of political interference and disputes over personnel appointments since its inception. So far, ruling party changes have made no difference. At one time, public television established a good reputation for itself, Its TV series, including shows such as "Rhapsody" and "Oranges," were highly rated. But disputes over personnel appointments make it difficult to return to those glory days. Those achievements are mere memories. Many other broadcasts have been forgotten. PTV news did an excellent job covering Typhoon Morakot. It helped produce a number of documentaries. But when Typhoon Morakot struck, PTV was seldom the public's source of information, or the beneficiary of viewer ratings.
Our viewing is now confined to cable channels. But viewer rating surveys for cable channels are subject to restrictions. Viewers denounce the broadcasts even as they watch them. But in the end, who is to blame? Cable TV channels have no desire to produce quality programs. They have no desire to calmly and professionally report on disasters. The "experts" one news station consulted, were fortunetellers and astrologers. Political commentators suddenly became "experts" predicting where the next great earthquake would occur. Meanwhile, another news station invited professionals to comment. University geology professors provided the public with accurate information on earthquakes and tsunamis. But the news director had to answer for the fact that his station received only half as many viewers as its rivals.
"Wherever you find a disaster, there you will find a reporter." That is a key tenet of the media profession. War correspondents may sacrifice their lives reporting on their nation's wars. Is it worth it? It makes no difference. After all, it is what reporters do. Take Typhoon Morakot. The media became an important source of information, providing people with reports about disaster relief. A minority of anchors or field reporters asked inappropriate questions in shrill tones. Some waded into the water and began shouting hysterically. Viewers found such posturing difficult to stomach. This is one way in which media standards have declined. Such scenes would never have appeared on the three major television broadcasting networks in the past.
Is the media on Taiwan capable of orderly and professional reporting? The lighting was dim at a Japanese earthquake relief center. But professional photographers knew that shining lights in the faces of disaster victims would be disrespectful. At Haneda Airport, the Taiwan media followed rescue teams from Taiwan. Airport staff arranged a "U" shaped press area. The media complained that the resulting images were not very effective. But in the end they had no alternative but to comply.
A powerful earthquake struck Japan. But "order" remained the watchword. The insistence on order enabled the Japanese to close off a large area around the disaster site. Journalists on Taiwan have very different attitudes about such restrictions. Students from Taiwan were evacuated from the disaster areas. The Tokyo airport prohibited interviews with the students. They allowed Japanese police to maintain order. Lastly, the Japanese government contacted the ROC representatives in Japan. They urged foreign journalists to withdraw from the disaster areas, in order not to interfere with rescue efforts. In the end, the Taiwan media had no choice but to comply.
The Taiwan media can be orderly, but not on Taiwan, The media has the duty to report. But no one on Taiwan is willing to remind the media that it must also respect other parties. These are basic requirements. They should be observed by all television media, public and private. Everyone should comply. The effects of the Japan Earthquake are still being felt. Taiwan's media still has many lessons to learn. NHK has learned these lessons, Taiwan's media has no excuse not to.
看ＮＨＫ表現 台灣媒體該慚愧
2011-03-16 中國時報
還記得跨年煙火策畫人蔡國強沒實現的創意嗎？在夜空中打出大大的三個字：別吵了！當時為避免這麼直白的表達方式激起不必要的政治爭議，讓台灣的夜空少了這三個字；事隔三個半月，許多民眾竟又有了相同感覺，只因日本芮氏規模九的強震，震出民眾對台灣媒體播報災難新聞的不滿。
日本震災發生後隔天，網路上即廣泛流傳一篇作家米果的網文〈日本八．九震災教我們的事〉，文中對比日本公共電視ＮＨＫ的報導：「ＮＨＫ即時呈現的空拍畫面，冷靜而詳實提醒海嘯的正確訊息，即使某些主播跟記者的聲音有些顫抖，但是他們知道包括災區民眾跟全球日本人都很注意這些消息，他們必須鎮定，因為這是最重要的訊息來源。所以沒有災民呼天喊地的畫面，沒有記者跑去災區大呼小叫的搞笑，但是對於訊息傳遞、政府政策發布，甚至每隔幾分鐘就提醒觀眾注意安全，ＮＨＫ真是個讓人欽佩的媒體。我猜，他們一定做過很多準備，面對災難，他們要呈現怎樣的報導方式，要確實傳遞訊息，卻不能讓閱聽大眾陷入焦慮，也就是加深所謂的『創傷症候群』。」
拿ＮＨＫ與台灣電視台相比未盡公允，畢竟ＮＨＫ是每年拿國家千億預算補助的公共電視台，災難發生，ＮＨＫ自動加入政府動員體系；此外，日本還是堅拒收視率調查的國家，電視台製播節目不必受到收視率左右，不論連續劇或綜藝節目，質感都格外優良，也受到觀眾歡迎。
相反的，台灣的公廣集團從催生開始就受到政治力干擾，人事爭議經年，歷政黨輪替迄今未歇，公共電視台曾很用心地製作過口碑佳、收視也佳的連續劇，如《人間四月天》、《橘子紅了》，然而，因為人事爭議，這些成績也成了難以挽回的輝煌歲月，只能留下記憶。還有很多，連記憶都沒有，以莫拉克風災為例，公視新聞做得極佳，甚至後來被援以為許多紀錄片素材，但是，莫拉克風災發生時，公視卻幾乎不是觀眾的收視來源。
當我們的收視習慣已經被有線頻道制約，有線頻道又被收視率調查制約時，觀眾邊看邊罵，到底該怪誰？有線電視台不想做出有質感的節目、專業而冷靜地播報災難新聞嗎？有新聞台找的「專家」竟是命理師、星相家，甚至政治評論名嘴們都成了預測下一次巨震發生在何處的「專家」，同一時段，有新聞台專業地聘請大學地質系教授給民眾正確的地震海嘯知識，新聞主管就得面對收視率只有友台一半的壓力。
「災難在哪裡，記者就在哪裡」，是媒體專業信條之一，戰地記者甚至可為他國的戰爭犧牲性命。值得嗎？這就是記者的工作和人生價值！再以莫拉克風災為例，媒體成為協助民眾通報救災的重要管道之一。少數主播或現場記者不得體的問話方式，高亢而近乎興奮的音調，或者讓記者泡在水中大呼小叫，讓觀眾不忍卒睹，這和媒體生態的惡化有關，類似情境絕對不可能出現在老三台時代。
台灣媒體做不到秩序與專業的採訪嗎？在日本震災的避難所現場，一律昏暗不見光，專業攝影都知道，那是對避難者的尊重：不可打燈。在羽田機場媒體緊跟著台灣救難隊，機場工作人員拉出一個「ㄇ」字型採訪區，媒體一度抱怨「拍出來畫面不好看」，但最終還是得配合機場的要求。
日本歷經強震後，始終不放棄的堅持，就是「秩序」，因為這樣的堅持，讓日本在災難現場拉出極大的封鎖線，輕易不能越雷池一步，這與台灣記者的採訪習慣大大不同，為了在禁止攝影的東京機場採訪撤離的台灣留學生，還讓日本警方出面維持秩序。最後，日本政府透過我駐日代表處，懇請外籍記者撤出災區，以免影響救災，台灣媒體還是配合了。
台灣媒體不是做不到秩序，只是在台灣，沒人告訴他們：媒體有採訪天職，但是，媒體的工作還是必須尊重當事人的尊嚴。這一點點基本要求，應該不分公共電視或民營電視都可遵守，也該遵守。日本巨震創痛猶在持續，台灣媒體要學習功課還很多，ＮＨＫ做得到，台灣媒體沒有道理做不到。
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Compound Disasters Require Compound Disaster Prevention
Compound Disasters Require Compound Disaster Prevention
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 15, 2011
What is a "compound disaster?" In November, an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter Scale struck, just off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture in Japan. A few people escaped through gaps between the ruins. But who knew that 125 km offshore, at the epicenter, the quake would cause a tsunami. The tsunami would race toward land at 800 kph. Flood waters and debri would take the lives of many of those amid the ruins who survived the quake itself. The nightmare did not end there. Even more alarmingly, the 10 m high waves destroyed the Fukushima nuclear power plant reactor's core cooling system. This triggered a hydrogen gas explosion and a partial reactor core meltdown. Human lives were exposed to the threat of nuclear disaster.
Yesterday President Ma presided over a national security level disaster response conference. He characterized the earthquake and tsunami as a "compound disaster," or "complex emergency." One catastrophe was followed by another. The harmful effects were not merely additive, but geometric. They were the result of a multiplier effect. In the face of such "compound disasters," one needs "compound disaster awareness." The individual, the society, and the government, must think anew, by establishing new disaster prevention programs.
First, let us address emergency disaster response. The Fukushima nuclear disaster had a domino effect. One reactor after another contributed to the disaster. As many as 130,000 people became part of the "Great Fukushima Evacuation." The area of the evacuation zone was enlarged repeatedly. The number of people evacuated was increased repeatedly as well.
Contrast this with floods caused by Typhoon Morakot in 2009. The rainstorms caused landslides that destroyed Hsiaolin Village. This too was a "compound disaster." The county government failed to order an evacuation. In retrospect, this caused the deaths of 443 people. According to reports, the county chief at the time said any attempt to evacuate tens of thousands of people in such a short time would have been "absurd." It would however, be more accurate to say that absent foolproof disaster prevention measures, sitting and watching as the rain continued to fall was far more "absurd." The county government had no evacuation plans. That is why it characterized any attempt to evacuate people as "absurd." What were county officials doing, but inverting cause and effect?
Post disaster efforts must also be planned in advance. Water scarcity, starvation, food shortages, and a lack of electricity are to be expected. At this time of year, nightime temperatures in northeastern Japan drop below zero degrees Celsius. A lack of food and heat can be fatal. The impact of the disaster continues to spread. The disaster area is a base for the semiconductor and automobile industries. The quake disrupted production. Parts shortages worsened the impact of the disaster. Increased unemployment will be difficult to avoid. Such "compound disasters" involve simultaneous disasters. They extend the duration of the initial disaster. One disaster follows on the heels of another. The current disaster will severely test the Japanese government and people.
President Ma presided over a national security level disaster prevention and response conference. The imaginary topic was "What if this had happened on Taiwan?" Could we can handle it? This earthquake was 400 times as powerful as the 9/21 earthquake. Reconstruction following the 9/21 earthquake took over ten years. Suppose a magnitude 9.0 earthquake happened on Taiwan? Would we be able to cope?
The first response to "compound disasters," should be to adopt the proper attitude, and establish a fundamental response mechanism. Obtaining the equipment necessary to cope with disasters is important. But by comparison, it is secondary. For example, one might experience a record 1000 year flood due to heavy rains. One cannot build storm drains large enough to drain all water from our city streets. One cannot build levees high enough to prevent all rivers from flooding the adjacent land. Doing so would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more than we have. Besides, even if we spend huge sums of money, it may not help. Therefore the proper attitude should be disaster prevention rather than disaster response. One must go with the flow, and not swim against the tide.
Take landslides for example, It is far better to avoid building in high risk areas such as the mouths of valleys and at the foot of cliffs, rather than to build high walls or to drill deep footings. The key is land planning and the drafting of national land safety maps. One must thoroughly understand the nature of each plot of land in the event a disaster occurs. Only land which can be used, ought to be used. Short-sighted land use must be avoided. Taiwan is situated in the lower latitudes, close to the equator. Its climate poses increased risks. People on Taiwan must be aware.
Taiwan has experienced many natural disasters. Typhoon Herb, the 9/21 earthquake, Typhoon Nari, Typhoon Morakot. Response strategies have always been ad hoc. One year at a time. No further consideration has been given to learning from past mistakes, to minimize damage from the next disaster. Each time a disaster occurs, officials are overwhelmed. They merely react. They never anticipate. Their goal is merely to minimize the damage. They never think about preventing disasters from happening in the first place. Concepts such as "compound disasters" and "extreme weather" should inspire "compound disaster prevention." Officials must think comprehensively, and long-term. From formulating policy to holding drills, they must rethink disaster prevention.
The images which have appeared in the media over the past few days, provide considerable food for thought. In Japan, toddlers wear helmets in public places. For years Japanese kindergartens have had desks fitted with basic equipment. They have a place for protective headgear. When an earthquake strikes, toddlers don their helmets. Their ability to protect themselves keeps injuries to a minimum. Such tiny indicators provide considerable food for thought.
複合式災難要複合式防災
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.15
什麼叫做「複合式災難」？十一日在日本本州宮城縣外海芮氏規模九的強震中，也許有人在廢墟的空隙中逃過一劫；不料，在外海一二五公里震央引爆的海嘯，以八百公里的時速撲向陸地，洪水及泥石又奪走許多在廢墟中倖存的生命；但噩夢未醒，更驚悚的是十公尺高的浪頭打壞福島幾座核電廠的爐心冷卻系統，進而引發氫爆及爐心部分熔解，人命又暴露在核災的威脅下。
馬總統日昨在國安層級的災害應變會上，以「複合式災難」界定此一新的災害形態；巨災一波未平一波又起，其造成的禍害不只是加法關係，而是幾何級數的乘數效果。面對這種「複合式災難」，當有「複合式防災」的意識，應從個人、社區、社會到政府，建立一套全新的防災思維與方案。
先從災變猝然爆發後的應變談起。福島核災猶如骨牌效應，一個反應爐接著一個反應爐相繼釀災，這正是高達十三萬人「福島大撤退」的不得不然。撤離半徑一次又一次加大，撤離人數一次又一次加多。
相對而言，二○○九年莫拉克八八水災，暴雨觸動走山以致小林村滅村，也是一次「複合式災難」。事後檢討起來，認為縣政府未下令撤離是造成四百四十三人死難的原因；詎料，當時有位縣長卻說，要在短時間撤離幾萬人，簡直是「很荒謬」。然而，正確的思考應當是，如果沒有防災的萬全把握，坐視豪雨而不撤離，反而才是「很荒謬」。縣政府只因平日根本沒有大撤離的備案，竟將應有的撤離動作指為荒謬，這豈不是倒果為因？
後續的救災工作也須有預先的對策。可以預見將發生的是缺水、缺油、缺糧、缺電……，日本東北地區此刻入夜攝氏零下的低溫，沒糧沒暖氣，皆可能是致命威脅。這波災難還在擴散，災區所在是半導體、汽車產業重鎮，遭到重創後，生產失序、物料零組件斷貨勢必擴大衝擊，失業潮的爆發幾難避免。這場「複合式災難」，在同一時點上災難重疊發生，在延續的時間上災難又相繼發生；這真是對日本朝野的重大考驗。
馬總統舉行國安層級的防災應變研討會，假想目標「萬一是台灣」，我們能應付嗎？這次強震的威力是九二一集集大震的四百倍，九二一的傷痛及重建就讓台灣社會花上不止十年，倘若規模九的強震「萬一在台灣」，我們有無應對的能力？
「複合式防災」首應建立一種應對的態度，以及一套基礎的應變機制，強化硬體以對抗災難當然重要，卻相較其實是次要的。例如，可能碰上一千年洪水頻率的暴雨，我們當然不可能把都市排水、河川防洪都升高到相應的規格，因為這恐怕得花上不止以千億計的經費，何況是即使砸下鉅資也未必能奏效。因而，態度上應該是避災，而不是抗災，順天而不逆天。
以土石流成災為例，離開谷口、崖麓線的高危險地區，遠比築高牆、深打地錨管用得多。關鍵的工作是國土規劃、國土安全地圖的繪製，徹底瞭解每一塊國土的災害屬性，可以利用的才利用，應該避的絕不貪圖短利去用；這對處在低緯、環赤道圈、高氣候風險的台灣，必須有此覺醒。
台灣面對天災，賀伯、九二一、納莉、莫拉克……，因應對策一直都是且戰且走，挨過一年算一年，沒有深刻思考過累積些防災經驗讓下次災難傷害減低，每次災難來臨都手忙腳亂，只能被動因應，目標僅是消極減少傷害程度，而未思考從源頭減災。「複合式災難」與「極端氣候」等概念，應該激發「複合式防災」的思考，從全面及長期，從政策到演練，去重建一套防災的思維與方案。
這幾天頻繁出現在媒體上的一個畫面，可供參考：日本小娃兒到公共場所頭上都戴了保護頭罩，多年來日本幼兒園教室課桌的基本配備，就有放置保護頭罩的設計；地震一發生，小娃兒都熟練地戴上頭罩，自保動作可讓傷害降到最低。見微知著，足可深思。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 15, 2011
What is a "compound disaster?" In November, an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter Scale struck, just off the coast of Miyagi Prefecture in Japan. A few people escaped through gaps between the ruins. But who knew that 125 km offshore, at the epicenter, the quake would cause a tsunami. The tsunami would race toward land at 800 kph. Flood waters and debri would take the lives of many of those amid the ruins who survived the quake itself. The nightmare did not end there. Even more alarmingly, the 10 m high waves destroyed the Fukushima nuclear power plant reactor's core cooling system. This triggered a hydrogen gas explosion and a partial reactor core meltdown. Human lives were exposed to the threat of nuclear disaster.
Yesterday President Ma presided over a national security level disaster response conference. He characterized the earthquake and tsunami as a "compound disaster," or "complex emergency." One catastrophe was followed by another. The harmful effects were not merely additive, but geometric. They were the result of a multiplier effect. In the face of such "compound disasters," one needs "compound disaster awareness." The individual, the society, and the government, must think anew, by establishing new disaster prevention programs.
First, let us address emergency disaster response. The Fukushima nuclear disaster had a domino effect. One reactor after another contributed to the disaster. As many as 130,000 people became part of the "Great Fukushima Evacuation." The area of the evacuation zone was enlarged repeatedly. The number of people evacuated was increased repeatedly as well.
Contrast this with floods caused by Typhoon Morakot in 2009. The rainstorms caused landslides that destroyed Hsiaolin Village. This too was a "compound disaster." The county government failed to order an evacuation. In retrospect, this caused the deaths of 443 people. According to reports, the county chief at the time said any attempt to evacuate tens of thousands of people in such a short time would have been "absurd." It would however, be more accurate to say that absent foolproof disaster prevention measures, sitting and watching as the rain continued to fall was far more "absurd." The county government had no evacuation plans. That is why it characterized any attempt to evacuate people as "absurd." What were county officials doing, but inverting cause and effect?
Post disaster efforts must also be planned in advance. Water scarcity, starvation, food shortages, and a lack of electricity are to be expected. At this time of year, nightime temperatures in northeastern Japan drop below zero degrees Celsius. A lack of food and heat can be fatal. The impact of the disaster continues to spread. The disaster area is a base for the semiconductor and automobile industries. The quake disrupted production. Parts shortages worsened the impact of the disaster. Increased unemployment will be difficult to avoid. Such "compound disasters" involve simultaneous disasters. They extend the duration of the initial disaster. One disaster follows on the heels of another. The current disaster will severely test the Japanese government and people.
President Ma presided over a national security level disaster prevention and response conference. The imaginary topic was "What if this had happened on Taiwan?" Could we can handle it? This earthquake was 400 times as powerful as the 9/21 earthquake. Reconstruction following the 9/21 earthquake took over ten years. Suppose a magnitude 9.0 earthquake happened on Taiwan? Would we be able to cope?
The first response to "compound disasters," should be to adopt the proper attitude, and establish a fundamental response mechanism. Obtaining the equipment necessary to cope with disasters is important. But by comparison, it is secondary. For example, one might experience a record 1000 year flood due to heavy rains. One cannot build storm drains large enough to drain all water from our city streets. One cannot build levees high enough to prevent all rivers from flooding the adjacent land. Doing so would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more than we have. Besides, even if we spend huge sums of money, it may not help. Therefore the proper attitude should be disaster prevention rather than disaster response. One must go with the flow, and not swim against the tide.
Take landslides for example, It is far better to avoid building in high risk areas such as the mouths of valleys and at the foot of cliffs, rather than to build high walls or to drill deep footings. The key is land planning and the drafting of national land safety maps. One must thoroughly understand the nature of each plot of land in the event a disaster occurs. Only land which can be used, ought to be used. Short-sighted land use must be avoided. Taiwan is situated in the lower latitudes, close to the equator. Its climate poses increased risks. People on Taiwan must be aware.
Taiwan has experienced many natural disasters. Typhoon Herb, the 9/21 earthquake, Typhoon Nari, Typhoon Morakot. Response strategies have always been ad hoc. One year at a time. No further consideration has been given to learning from past mistakes, to minimize damage from the next disaster. Each time a disaster occurs, officials are overwhelmed. They merely react. They never anticipate. Their goal is merely to minimize the damage. They never think about preventing disasters from happening in the first place. Concepts such as "compound disasters" and "extreme weather" should inspire "compound disaster prevention." Officials must think comprehensively, and long-term. From formulating policy to holding drills, they must rethink disaster prevention.
The images which have appeared in the media over the past few days, provide considerable food for thought. In Japan, toddlers wear helmets in public places. For years Japanese kindergartens have had desks fitted with basic equipment. They have a place for protective headgear. When an earthquake strikes, toddlers don their helmets. Their ability to protect themselves keeps injuries to a minimum. Such tiny indicators provide considerable food for thought.
複合式災難要複合式防災
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.15
什麼叫做「複合式災難」？十一日在日本本州宮城縣外海芮氏規模九的強震中，也許有人在廢墟的空隙中逃過一劫；不料，在外海一二五公里震央引爆的海嘯，以八百公里的時速撲向陸地，洪水及泥石又奪走許多在廢墟中倖存的生命；但噩夢未醒，更驚悚的是十公尺高的浪頭打壞福島幾座核電廠的爐心冷卻系統，進而引發氫爆及爐心部分熔解，人命又暴露在核災的威脅下。
馬總統日昨在國安層級的災害應變會上，以「複合式災難」界定此一新的災害形態；巨災一波未平一波又起，其造成的禍害不只是加法關係，而是幾何級數的乘數效果。面對這種「複合式災難」，當有「複合式防災」的意識，應從個人、社區、社會到政府，建立一套全新的防災思維與方案。
先從災變猝然爆發後的應變談起。福島核災猶如骨牌效應，一個反應爐接著一個反應爐相繼釀災，這正是高達十三萬人「福島大撤退」的不得不然。撤離半徑一次又一次加大，撤離人數一次又一次加多。
相對而言，二○○九年莫拉克八八水災，暴雨觸動走山以致小林村滅村，也是一次「複合式災難」。事後檢討起來，認為縣政府未下令撤離是造成四百四十三人死難的原因；詎料，當時有位縣長卻說，要在短時間撤離幾萬人，簡直是「很荒謬」。然而，正確的思考應當是，如果沒有防災的萬全把握，坐視豪雨而不撤離，反而才是「很荒謬」。縣政府只因平日根本沒有大撤離的備案，竟將應有的撤離動作指為荒謬，這豈不是倒果為因？
後續的救災工作也須有預先的對策。可以預見將發生的是缺水、缺油、缺糧、缺電……，日本東北地區此刻入夜攝氏零下的低溫，沒糧沒暖氣，皆可能是致命威脅。這波災難還在擴散，災區所在是半導體、汽車產業重鎮，遭到重創後，生產失序、物料零組件斷貨勢必擴大衝擊，失業潮的爆發幾難避免。這場「複合式災難」，在同一時點上災難重疊發生，在延續的時間上災難又相繼發生；這真是對日本朝野的重大考驗。
馬總統舉行國安層級的防災應變研討會，假想目標「萬一是台灣」，我們能應付嗎？這次強震的威力是九二一集集大震的四百倍，九二一的傷痛及重建就讓台灣社會花上不止十年，倘若規模九的強震「萬一在台灣」，我們有無應對的能力？
「複合式防災」首應建立一種應對的態度，以及一套基礎的應變機制，強化硬體以對抗災難當然重要，卻相較其實是次要的。例如，可能碰上一千年洪水頻率的暴雨，我們當然不可能把都市排水、河川防洪都升高到相應的規格，因為這恐怕得花上不止以千億計的經費，何況是即使砸下鉅資也未必能奏效。因而，態度上應該是避災，而不是抗災，順天而不逆天。
以土石流成災為例，離開谷口、崖麓線的高危險地區，遠比築高牆、深打地錨管用得多。關鍵的工作是國土規劃、國土安全地圖的繪製，徹底瞭解每一塊國土的災害屬性，可以利用的才利用，應該避的絕不貪圖短利去用；這對處在低緯、環赤道圈、高氣候風險的台灣，必須有此覺醒。
台灣面對天災，賀伯、九二一、納莉、莫拉克……，因應對策一直都是且戰且走，挨過一年算一年，沒有深刻思考過累積些防災經驗讓下次災難傷害減低，每次災難來臨都手忙腳亂，只能被動因應，目標僅是消極減少傷害程度，而未思考從源頭減災。「複合式災難」與「極端氣候」等概念，應該激發「複合式防災」的思考，從全面及長期，從政策到演練，去重建一套防災的思維與方案。
這幾天頻繁出現在媒體上的一個畫面，可供參考：日本小娃兒到公共場所頭上都戴了保護頭罩，多年來日本幼兒園教室課桌的基本配備，就有放置保護頭罩的設計；地震一發生，小娃兒都熟練地戴上頭罩，自保動作可讓傷害降到最低。見微知著，足可深思。
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Can Nuclear Power Plants on Taiwan Withstand Earthquakes and Tsunamis?
Can Nuclear Power Plants on Taiwan Withstand Earthquakes and Tsunamis?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 14, 2011
Japan has experienced an "earthquake of the century" measuring 9,0 on the Richter Scale. Its destructive power was terrifying, and captured the world's attention. Two nuclear power plants along the coast, in Fukushima Prefecture, suffered tsunami damage. This is the first time in history that a nuclear power plant has suffered severe damage from an earthquake and tsunami. Did its safety features work as intended? As of today, the eastern Japan earthquake has been the only real world test of nuclear safety measures against natural disasters.
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants One and Three face the most serious threat. They are in danger of level one reactor core meltdowns. Once this happens, no one can predict how far the radioactive contaminants might spread. The Japanese government has expanded the size of the evacuation zone, from ten kilometers from to twenty kilometers. It has evacuated hundreds of thousands of residents. But that number is about to increase.
This was a super earthquake. The public on Taiwan is particularly sensitive to the dangers of earthquakes. Taiwan too is in a seismic zone. Taiwan too has three nuclear power plants close to the sea. Following the east Japan earthquake, a tsunami warning was issued for Taiwan's northeastern coast. This is where Nuclear Plants One and Two are located. As a result the public is deeply concerned about the spread of radioactive contaminants. They hope radioactive contaminants will not spread to Taiwan. The prospecgt has provoked controversy, and received substantial media coverage.
At one time the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in the US, and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the former Soviet Union commanded the media's attention. But distinctions must be made. The Three Mile Island reactor core did in fact melt down. But the power plant's safety provisions contained the radioactive contaminants within the structure. No contaminants leaked or affected local residents. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant on the other hand, had a completely different design. It was unlike most Western-style nuclear power plants. The biggest difference was a highly flammable graphite reactor core, instead of a design enabling containment and defense in depth. Human negligence also contributed to the catastrophic explosion. Large amounts of radioactive contaminants were released. An estimated 30 million people were affected.
Now compare the three nuclear power plants on Taiwan with Fukushima Nuclear Plants One and Three. All three are Boiling Water Reactors. All three have the same basic design. But the power plants at Fukushima were built in the 1950s. Nuclear Plants Number One and Two on Taiwan were built during the 1970s and 1980s. Twenty to thirty years of improvements, resulted in a more secure design and better construction materials.
Their safety concepts and design features may be very different. But the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant teaches us an important lesson about nuclear power generation on Taiwan. Violent and sudden changes have occurred in the earth's climate. Earthquake intensity has steadily increased. Huge earthquakes of magnitude seven, eight, or even nine on the Richter Scale are now common. Will nuclear power plants built according to the old seismic design standards still hold up? After 20 or 30 years of operation, are these power plants still as safe as they were when originally designed?
Nuclear power plants on Taiwan must face another problem. We have detailed records for natural disasters. But we lack information tsunamis. The current nuclear power plants were designed to resist 12 meter high waves. But the south Asian tsunami waves already exceeded this height. And no one can guarantee that no more earthquakes or tsunamis will occur in the future. In fact, the probability is high. Government agencies must conduct detailed reviews, and establish detailed preventive measures, in advance.
The east Japan earthquake has once again demonstrated Japanese self-restraint and calm in the face of disaster. Ten to twenty million people were evacuated. Traffic in the disaster area was blocked the entire night. But no one lost his patience or sounded his horns. One could not characterize it as orderly. But few traffic disputes or arguments occurred. Such behavior is an indicator of national character. It is also the result of public understanding and peacetime training.
On Taiwan, by contrast, nuclear power plant disaster exercises are just that -- exercises. No one takes them seriously. No one engages in genuine disaster relief efforts. Frankly, many members of the public merely show up for free lunches and to party. Admittedly the public has never attached much importance to these exercises. But government agencies have also failed to promote them properly, They have failed to make the public aware of the importance of disaster prevention. They have failed to inculcate disaster prevention awareness.
Nuclear safety on Taiwan must take into account the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Mainland China currently has a dozen nuclear power plants in operation. Most are located on the southeast coast. Over ten are currently under construction. The two sides are close. They often share the same weather system. In the event of a radiation leak, it is likely they will affect each other. Domestic experts have long called for the establishment of a nuclear safety reporting system, as soon as possible. Such a system must be established, even if it is never used. Alas, this "technical" problem is something the two sides never discuss.
The Japanese have long maintained high standards for industrial safety. Its nuclear safety record in particular, has been exemplary. But in recent years, a string of human errors have led to nuclear safety accidents. Japan's safety record has been shattered. Today, Japan faces a nuclear disaster, caused by a natural disaster. It is testing the resilience and self-confidence of the Japanese people. A neighboring nation has suffered a misfortune, We empathize with its people. The government and public must also acquire a new understanding of nuclear safety. All aspects of nuclear safety, including psychology, design specifications, and security systems, must be bolstered. If we fail to do everything humanly possible, then we cannot place all the blame on natural disasters.
中國時報 2011.03.14
台灣核電廠頂得住巨震海嘯嗎？
本報訊
日本發生芮氏規模九．○的百年巨震，在強大而恐怖的摧毀力量之後，更令世界關注的，是災區之一福島縣沿海兩座遭海嘯破壞的核電廠。這是世界核能發電史以來，第一次有核電廠在地震、海嘯中嚴重損毀，當初各種安全設計是否能發揮作用，東日本大地震成為至今唯一的多重天災與核安的實地測驗。
目前福島核電廠一號機、三號機都面臨最嚴重的核災等級─爐心融毀。一旦發生這種情形，輻射汙染程度與如何擴大，沒人能預料。日本政府對當地居民的撤離範圍，也由十公里擴大到廿公里，疏散數十萬人，而且還會再增加。
對於這起超級震災，台灣人民特別有感。台灣也是多震帶，也有三座核電廠位於海邊；東日本大地震發生後，海嘯警報範圍一度包括台灣東北沿岸，就是核一、二廠所在地。因此民眾高度關切是否有輻射汙染物質外洩、輻射落塵會不會飄到台灣等，成為熱門話題，媒體也大幅報導。
一時間，美國三哩島核災、前蘇聯車諾比核電廠核災的字眼充斥媒體。要區分清楚的是，即使三哩島發生了真正的爐心融毀，但因電廠安全設計，所有輻射汙染物被圍阻在廠內，沒有外洩影響居民。而車諾比核電廠設計更與西方式核電廠完全不同，最大差異是，不但沒有圍阻體與層層深度防禦設計，爐心還是易燃的石墨材質，加上人為疏忽才會釀成爆炸巨災，大量輻射汙染物外洩，受災人數估計超過卅萬。
再比較我國的三座核電廠與福島一、三號機，雖然都是沸水式反應爐，基本設計原理相同，但福島核電廠興建於一九五○年代，我國的核一、二廠建於七○與八○年代，經過廿到卅年的改善，安全設計與材質要求都更高。
儘管安全理念與設計有很大不同，但福島核電廠對台灣及所有核能發電國家最大的啟示是，如今的地球處於氣候暴烈驟變期，地震強度一個比一個大，規模七、八、九的巨震屢見不鮮。現有核電廠當年的抗震設計，真頂得住嗎？在經過廿、卅年的運轉後，電廠是否仍能維持當年設計的安全係數？
台灣的核電廠必須面對的另一個問題是，我國的災難史紀錄中，一直缺乏海嘯的資料，目前的核電廠是以十二公尺大浪為安全設計。但南亞海嘯引起的浪高已經超過這個設計，而沒有人可以保證未來不會有更大的地震或海嘯─事實上，機率頗高─政府有關單位也有必要就此深入檢討，及早擬定防範措施。
此外，在這次東日本大地震中，我們再一次看到日本人面對災難時的克制與冷靜。十幾廿萬人的疏散過程中，災區交通塞整夜，但沒有人聽到因不耐等待而發出的喇叭噪音；雖不能說是井然有序，也鮮少看到爭道糾紛與爭吵。這樣的表現，是民族性，也是民眾對災難的了解與平時訓練所致。
反觀國內，每次核電廠舉行防災「演習」，都像在「演戲」，現場完全看不到嚴肅防災，確實執行救災的畫面。坦白說，很多民眾也抱著「領便當」的心情客串上場。這固然因為國人向來不重視各種演習，但相關單位平時疏於有效宣導，無法讓民眾感受到防災的重要、進而建立防災意識有關。
台灣的核安還要顧及對岸因素。目前大陸運轉中的核電廠有十幾處，多在東南沿海，興建中也超過十處。而兩岸緊鄰、常屬同一個天氣系統，一旦發生輻射外洩事件，互相影響的機率極高。國內專家早就呼籲，盡速建立核安通報系統，備而不用。但這種「技術」問題，似乎從來就不是雙方會談的重點。
日本人對工業安全的要求向來維持高標準，核安方面更是模範生。但近年因陸續發生幾次人為操作疏失的核安意外，這個紀錄已經被打破。如今又面臨自然災害造成的核災變，在在考驗日本人的應變能力與信心。面對鄰國的不幸，我們除了感同身受，政府和民眾對核安都要有重新的認知，從心理、設計規範、安檢制度各方面加強；不盡人事，就不能全怪天災了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 14, 2011
Japan has experienced an "earthquake of the century" measuring 9,0 on the Richter Scale. Its destructive power was terrifying, and captured the world's attention. Two nuclear power plants along the coast, in Fukushima Prefecture, suffered tsunami damage. This is the first time in history that a nuclear power plant has suffered severe damage from an earthquake and tsunami. Did its safety features work as intended? As of today, the eastern Japan earthquake has been the only real world test of nuclear safety measures against natural disasters.
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants One and Three face the most serious threat. They are in danger of level one reactor core meltdowns. Once this happens, no one can predict how far the radioactive contaminants might spread. The Japanese government has expanded the size of the evacuation zone, from ten kilometers from to twenty kilometers. It has evacuated hundreds of thousands of residents. But that number is about to increase.
This was a super earthquake. The public on Taiwan is particularly sensitive to the dangers of earthquakes. Taiwan too is in a seismic zone. Taiwan too has three nuclear power plants close to the sea. Following the east Japan earthquake, a tsunami warning was issued for Taiwan's northeastern coast. This is where Nuclear Plants One and Two are located. As a result the public is deeply concerned about the spread of radioactive contaminants. They hope radioactive contaminants will not spread to Taiwan. The prospecgt has provoked controversy, and received substantial media coverage.
At one time the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in the US, and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the former Soviet Union commanded the media's attention. But distinctions must be made. The Three Mile Island reactor core did in fact melt down. But the power plant's safety provisions contained the radioactive contaminants within the structure. No contaminants leaked or affected local residents. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant on the other hand, had a completely different design. It was unlike most Western-style nuclear power plants. The biggest difference was a highly flammable graphite reactor core, instead of a design enabling containment and defense in depth. Human negligence also contributed to the catastrophic explosion. Large amounts of radioactive contaminants were released. An estimated 30 million people were affected.
Now compare the three nuclear power plants on Taiwan with Fukushima Nuclear Plants One and Three. All three are Boiling Water Reactors. All three have the same basic design. But the power plants at Fukushima were built in the 1950s. Nuclear Plants Number One and Two on Taiwan were built during the 1970s and 1980s. Twenty to thirty years of improvements, resulted in a more secure design and better construction materials.
Their safety concepts and design features may be very different. But the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant teaches us an important lesson about nuclear power generation on Taiwan. Violent and sudden changes have occurred in the earth's climate. Earthquake intensity has steadily increased. Huge earthquakes of magnitude seven, eight, or even nine on the Richter Scale are now common. Will nuclear power plants built according to the old seismic design standards still hold up? After 20 or 30 years of operation, are these power plants still as safe as they were when originally designed?
Nuclear power plants on Taiwan must face another problem. We have detailed records for natural disasters. But we lack information tsunamis. The current nuclear power plants were designed to resist 12 meter high waves. But the south Asian tsunami waves already exceeded this height. And no one can guarantee that no more earthquakes or tsunamis will occur in the future. In fact, the probability is high. Government agencies must conduct detailed reviews, and establish detailed preventive measures, in advance.
The east Japan earthquake has once again demonstrated Japanese self-restraint and calm in the face of disaster. Ten to twenty million people were evacuated. Traffic in the disaster area was blocked the entire night. But no one lost his patience or sounded his horns. One could not characterize it as orderly. But few traffic disputes or arguments occurred. Such behavior is an indicator of national character. It is also the result of public understanding and peacetime training.
On Taiwan, by contrast, nuclear power plant disaster exercises are just that -- exercises. No one takes them seriously. No one engages in genuine disaster relief efforts. Frankly, many members of the public merely show up for free lunches and to party. Admittedly the public has never attached much importance to these exercises. But government agencies have also failed to promote them properly, They have failed to make the public aware of the importance of disaster prevention. They have failed to inculcate disaster prevention awareness.
Nuclear safety on Taiwan must take into account the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Mainland China currently has a dozen nuclear power plants in operation. Most are located on the southeast coast. Over ten are currently under construction. The two sides are close. They often share the same weather system. In the event of a radiation leak, it is likely they will affect each other. Domestic experts have long called for the establishment of a nuclear safety reporting system, as soon as possible. Such a system must be established, even if it is never used. Alas, this "technical" problem is something the two sides never discuss.
The Japanese have long maintained high standards for industrial safety. Its nuclear safety record in particular, has been exemplary. But in recent years, a string of human errors have led to nuclear safety accidents. Japan's safety record has been shattered. Today, Japan faces a nuclear disaster, caused by a natural disaster. It is testing the resilience and self-confidence of the Japanese people. A neighboring nation has suffered a misfortune, We empathize with its people. The government and public must also acquire a new understanding of nuclear safety. All aspects of nuclear safety, including psychology, design specifications, and security systems, must be bolstered. If we fail to do everything humanly possible, then we cannot place all the blame on natural disasters.
中國時報 2011.03.14
台灣核電廠頂得住巨震海嘯嗎？
本報訊
日本發生芮氏規模九．○的百年巨震，在強大而恐怖的摧毀力量之後，更令世界關注的，是災區之一福島縣沿海兩座遭海嘯破壞的核電廠。這是世界核能發電史以來，第一次有核電廠在地震、海嘯中嚴重損毀，當初各種安全設計是否能發揮作用，東日本大地震成為至今唯一的多重天災與核安的實地測驗。
目前福島核電廠一號機、三號機都面臨最嚴重的核災等級─爐心融毀。一旦發生這種情形，輻射汙染程度與如何擴大，沒人能預料。日本政府對當地居民的撤離範圍，也由十公里擴大到廿公里，疏散數十萬人，而且還會再增加。
對於這起超級震災，台灣人民特別有感。台灣也是多震帶，也有三座核電廠位於海邊；東日本大地震發生後，海嘯警報範圍一度包括台灣東北沿岸，就是核一、二廠所在地。因此民眾高度關切是否有輻射汙染物質外洩、輻射落塵會不會飄到台灣等，成為熱門話題，媒體也大幅報導。
一時間，美國三哩島核災、前蘇聯車諾比核電廠核災的字眼充斥媒體。要區分清楚的是，即使三哩島發生了真正的爐心融毀，但因電廠安全設計，所有輻射汙染物被圍阻在廠內，沒有外洩影響居民。而車諾比核電廠設計更與西方式核電廠完全不同，最大差異是，不但沒有圍阻體與層層深度防禦設計，爐心還是易燃的石墨材質，加上人為疏忽才會釀成爆炸巨災，大量輻射汙染物外洩，受災人數估計超過卅萬。
再比較我國的三座核電廠與福島一、三號機，雖然都是沸水式反應爐，基本設計原理相同，但福島核電廠興建於一九五○年代，我國的核一、二廠建於七○與八○年代，經過廿到卅年的改善，安全設計與材質要求都更高。
儘管安全理念與設計有很大不同，但福島核電廠對台灣及所有核能發電國家最大的啟示是，如今的地球處於氣候暴烈驟變期，地震強度一個比一個大，規模七、八、九的巨震屢見不鮮。現有核電廠當年的抗震設計，真頂得住嗎？在經過廿、卅年的運轉後，電廠是否仍能維持當年設計的安全係數？
台灣的核電廠必須面對的另一個問題是，我國的災難史紀錄中，一直缺乏海嘯的資料，目前的核電廠是以十二公尺大浪為安全設計。但南亞海嘯引起的浪高已經超過這個設計，而沒有人可以保證未來不會有更大的地震或海嘯─事實上，機率頗高─政府有關單位也有必要就此深入檢討，及早擬定防範措施。
此外，在這次東日本大地震中，我們再一次看到日本人面對災難時的克制與冷靜。十幾廿萬人的疏散過程中，災區交通塞整夜，但沒有人聽到因不耐等待而發出的喇叭噪音；雖不能說是井然有序，也鮮少看到爭道糾紛與爭吵。這樣的表現，是民族性，也是民眾對災難的了解與平時訓練所致。
反觀國內，每次核電廠舉行防災「演習」，都像在「演戲」，現場完全看不到嚴肅防災，確實執行救災的畫面。坦白說，很多民眾也抱著「領便當」的心情客串上場。這固然因為國人向來不重視各種演習，但相關單位平時疏於有效宣導，無法讓民眾感受到防災的重要、進而建立防災意識有關。
台灣的核安還要顧及對岸因素。目前大陸運轉中的核電廠有十幾處，多在東南沿海，興建中也超過十處。而兩岸緊鄰、常屬同一個天氣系統，一旦發生輻射外洩事件，互相影響的機率極高。國內專家早就呼籲，盡速建立核安通報系統，備而不用。但這種「技術」問題，似乎從來就不是雙方會談的重點。
日本人對工業安全的要求向來維持高標準，核安方面更是模範生。但近年因陸續發生幾次人為操作疏失的核安意外，這個紀錄已經被打破。如今又面臨自然災害造成的核災變，在在考驗日本人的應變能力與信心。面對鄰國的不幸，我們除了感同身受，政府和民眾對核安都要有重新的認知，從心理、設計規範、安檢制度各方面加強；不盡人事，就不能全怪天災了。
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Worked to Death: Amend the Labor Laws
Worked to Death: Amend the Labor Laws
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 11, 2011
Responding to recent incidents of death from overwork, Premier Wu Den-yih said he was "deeply ashamed." Workers have indeed been worked to death. Employers may be directly responsible. But the laws have also failed to provide adequate protection. The system is ridded with loopholes. The "competent authorities" are anything but. This all adds up to government failure. We hope the government will amend the laws, become more involved, and provide greater protection for workers.
The Labor Standards Law states that the work day shall not exceed eight hours, Workers shall not be required to work more than 84 hours over a two week period. Overtime hours plus normal working hours shall not exceed 12 hours a day. Workers shall not be required to work more than 46 hours of overtime a month. But Article 84 of the Labor Standards Law contains an enormous loophole. It makes exceptions for work classified as "monitoring" or as "intermittent." Employers may then obtain exemption from the Council of Labor Affairs reqarding working hours, holidays, vacation leave, and women's night work.
As a result, Article 84 of the Labor Standards Law is jokingly referred to as the "Overlord Clause." Of course certain industries have special requirements. They require greater flexibility in scheduling working hours. But employers exploit this flexibility and force workers to work overtime endlessly, without legal consequences. Either that, or the penalties have no teeth. As a result, some employers have no qualms about exploiting their workers.
Between capital and labor, labor has long been at a disadvantage. It has long needed the protection of the law and of unions. But some industries or companies lack trade unions. Either that, or the trade unions are not strong enough. For workers to keep their jobs, they must often endure exploitation. Citing a "system of accountability," bosses often treat workers like beasts of burden. Workers dare not protest, even when they are worked so hard their livers burst. The Labor Standards Law makes exceptions for 36 types of labor. Nothing protects workers performing these types of labor against unreasonable demands. Once their rights have been violated, once their health has been endangered, they lose the ability to work any longer, due to fatigue or even death. They are no longer even able to seek legal redress.
In the past death due to overwork usually referred to the technology industry. These industries adopted a "system of accountability." Workers were assigned to one project after another. Many workers were kept so busy they had no time even to sleep, Some slept in the office. Electronics industry recruiters would joke that "a fresh batch of livers has just come in." In fact many other industries have been exempted from the Labor Standards Law. Many of them also have a high incident of burst livers. One 29 year old security guard was forced to work 288 hours a month. He was allowed only 73 hours of leave a year. He eventually died of a stroke while on duty. Such victims of legal loopholes raise public concerns. If the law is not amended, if conditions are not improved, if penalties are not increased, such tragic deaths from overwork will recur.
Certain industries do have special requirements. But this means different rules for working hours, overtime and leave. It does not mean carte blanche. It does not mean allowing employers to do whatever they want. Certain industries may have special requirements. But this is no excuse to risk workers' health or even workers' lives.
Article 84 of the Labor Standards Law states that employers may request exemptions from the CLA regarding limits on working hours. It states that employers and employees may negotiate their working hours, then report their agreement to the local competent authority. But in reality, such "agreements" between employers and employees are unilateral decisions made by employers, which workers are forced to sign. Workers who refuse risk being blacklisted or losing their jobs. As a result, they almost always acquiesce. On the surface these are bilateral agreements. In reality they fail to reflect the views of the workers. They enable employers to exploit workers and to deny them their rights.
Better methods are available. Competent authorities should listen to both employers and employees. They should weigh industry needs, establish rules that enable the industry to remain in operation, but also protect workers by limiting their working hours and ensuring sufficient leave time. For example, security guards should be allowed to work in shifts. This would offer them relief from the pressure of long working hours. Unfortunately many local authorities have a negative attitude. They have no desire to increase the work load. They have no desire to offend important local industries. They may even be indifferent to their working conditions. Such officials have defaulted on their responsibility to protect the public.
Business owners should also realize that no one has the right to sacrifice other peoples' lives. No matter how much big the company, no matter how high stock prices might rise, no matter how much they might contribute to the GDP, nothing is as valuable as a human life. Working conditions for employees is the responsibility of employers. No matter how demanding the work, one must not violate the fundamental principles of humanity. One must not callously sacrifice the health and lives of employees. Any company that does so is immoral. It should be condemned by society, and penalized by law.
A string of deaths from overwork has occurred on Taiwan. The law is clearly riddled with loopholes. Government agencies have been lax in their duty. They have given employers carte blanche, allowing them to exploit their employees. Death from overwork is a black mark on a company. It is also proof of government malfeasance. Taiwan's economic growth must not be built on the sweat and blood of hapless workers. The government must not turn a blind eye to the lives of workers, merely for a bigger bottom line.
正視過勞死悲劇 修補法令漏洞
2011-03-11 中國時報
針對最近多起過勞死案件，行政院長吳敦義表示「很慚愧」。的確，勞工被工作壓迫到過勞死，雇主固然要負直接責任，但法令保護不周、制度疏漏、主管機關怠惰，卻是公權力的錯。我們期待政府儘快修改法規、積極介入，為勞工提供更多保障。
《勞動基準法》規定，勞工每日工作時間不得超過八小時，每兩周工時不得超過八十四小時。加班工時連同正常工時，一天不得超過十二小時，每月加班總時數不得超過四十六小時。但《勞基法》八十四條之一卻又門戶洞開，勞工工作特質若符合監視性或間歇性，雇主可向勞委會申請排除適用《勞基法》對工時、休假、例假、女性夜間工作等限制。
也因為如此，《勞基法》八十四條之一被謔稱為「太上皇條款」。當然，有些行業的確有其特性，在工時調度上需要比較多的彈性，但問題是，如果雇主的「彈性」大到可以讓勞工長期嚴重超時工作，而不必擔心違法，或者罰則不痛不癢，那麼，有些雇主恐怕就不會客氣了。
勞資之間，勞工原本就相對弱勢，需要法律與工會的保護。但有些產業或公司並沒有工會，或者工會的力量不夠強。勞工為了保住飯碗，常常不得不委屈忍耐，在「責任制」的大帽子下，替老闆做牛做馬，操到爆肝也不敢抗命。這些被《勞基法》排除適用的卅六種行業勞工，沒有可以保護自己對抗不合理要求的武器，一旦權益遭侵犯、健康受危害，甚至因為過勞而失去工作能力甚至猝死時，根本無法討回公道。
過去提到過勞死，大家多想到科技業，因為這些行業採取所謂的「責任制」，專案一個接一個交辦下來，許多員工忙得不眠不休，甚至直接睡在辦公室裡。電子業便戲稱，招募新人是「又有一批新鮮的肝進來了」。其實，被排除在《勞基法》之外的其他行業勞工，許多一樣經常處於爆肝狀態。一位廿九歲的年輕保全員，每月工時達二百八十八小時，一年只休假七十三天，最後在執勤時中風不治，這個例子引發了各界的關切，因為他其實是法令疏漏下的犧牲品，如果不修法改善規範並提高罰則，過勞死的悲劇恐怕不會就此結束。
的確，若干產業有其特殊性，但這應該意味著需要另一套對工時、加班與休假的規範，而不是完全放任不管，讓雇主可以為所欲為。儘管這些產業的工作型態較為獨特，但這不是拿勞工的健康甚至生命去冒險的藉口。
《勞基法》八十四條之一規定，雇主可向勞委會申請排除適用工時限制，由勞雇雙方另行約定工作時間，並報請當地主管機關核備。但現實狀況裡，所謂勞雇雙方的約定，經常是雇主單方面決定並交給勞工簽字同意。面對著可能被列入黑名單甚至丟飯碗的風險，勞工幾乎只能乖乖同意，這種表面兩願實則一面倒的約定，並不能充分反映勞工的意見，勞工的權益很容易被剝奪。
比較理想的處理，應該是由主管機構公平採納勞資雙方的意見，衡量該產業的需求，研擬出可以維持運作又能保護勞工的工時與休假規定，例如保全應該可以用輪休來紓緩長時間工作的壓力。但許多地方主管機構態度並不積極，不想增加工作負擔，或者不想得罪當地重要業者，甚至對勞工的工作條件與環境不聞不問。這種怠惰，嚴重有虧政府保護人民之職責。
此外，企業主也應該體認到，沒有人有權要別人賣命，不管事業有多大、股價漲多高、對ＧＤＰ有多大貢獻，都遠遠比不上一條人命的價值。員工的勞動條件與環境，是雇主的責任，工作要求再嚴格，也不能違反人道原則，毫不在乎地讓員工犧牲健康乃至生命的企業，是不道德的，應該受到社會唾棄以及法律的懲罰。
台灣接連發生過勞死，顯然是法令出現漏洞、政府部門怠於職守，以致放任勞工遭到雇主壓榨。過勞死不但是企業的恥辱，更是政府失職的證明。台灣的經濟成長不該由血汗築成，政府不能再坐視勞工為錢賭性命了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 11, 2011
Responding to recent incidents of death from overwork, Premier Wu Den-yih said he was "deeply ashamed." Workers have indeed been worked to death. Employers may be directly responsible. But the laws have also failed to provide adequate protection. The system is ridded with loopholes. The "competent authorities" are anything but. This all adds up to government failure. We hope the government will amend the laws, become more involved, and provide greater protection for workers.
The Labor Standards Law states that the work day shall not exceed eight hours, Workers shall not be required to work more than 84 hours over a two week period. Overtime hours plus normal working hours shall not exceed 12 hours a day. Workers shall not be required to work more than 46 hours of overtime a month. But Article 84 of the Labor Standards Law contains an enormous loophole. It makes exceptions for work classified as "monitoring" or as "intermittent." Employers may then obtain exemption from the Council of Labor Affairs reqarding working hours, holidays, vacation leave, and women's night work.
As a result, Article 84 of the Labor Standards Law is jokingly referred to as the "Overlord Clause." Of course certain industries have special requirements. They require greater flexibility in scheduling working hours. But employers exploit this flexibility and force workers to work overtime endlessly, without legal consequences. Either that, or the penalties have no teeth. As a result, some employers have no qualms about exploiting their workers.
Between capital and labor, labor has long been at a disadvantage. It has long needed the protection of the law and of unions. But some industries or companies lack trade unions. Either that, or the trade unions are not strong enough. For workers to keep their jobs, they must often endure exploitation. Citing a "system of accountability," bosses often treat workers like beasts of burden. Workers dare not protest, even when they are worked so hard their livers burst. The Labor Standards Law makes exceptions for 36 types of labor. Nothing protects workers performing these types of labor against unreasonable demands. Once their rights have been violated, once their health has been endangered, they lose the ability to work any longer, due to fatigue or even death. They are no longer even able to seek legal redress.
In the past death due to overwork usually referred to the technology industry. These industries adopted a "system of accountability." Workers were assigned to one project after another. Many workers were kept so busy they had no time even to sleep, Some slept in the office. Electronics industry recruiters would joke that "a fresh batch of livers has just come in." In fact many other industries have been exempted from the Labor Standards Law. Many of them also have a high incident of burst livers. One 29 year old security guard was forced to work 288 hours a month. He was allowed only 73 hours of leave a year. He eventually died of a stroke while on duty. Such victims of legal loopholes raise public concerns. If the law is not amended, if conditions are not improved, if penalties are not increased, such tragic deaths from overwork will recur.
Certain industries do have special requirements. But this means different rules for working hours, overtime and leave. It does not mean carte blanche. It does not mean allowing employers to do whatever they want. Certain industries may have special requirements. But this is no excuse to risk workers' health or even workers' lives.
Article 84 of the Labor Standards Law states that employers may request exemptions from the CLA regarding limits on working hours. It states that employers and employees may negotiate their working hours, then report their agreement to the local competent authority. But in reality, such "agreements" between employers and employees are unilateral decisions made by employers, which workers are forced to sign. Workers who refuse risk being blacklisted or losing their jobs. As a result, they almost always acquiesce. On the surface these are bilateral agreements. In reality they fail to reflect the views of the workers. They enable employers to exploit workers and to deny them their rights.
Better methods are available. Competent authorities should listen to both employers and employees. They should weigh industry needs, establish rules that enable the industry to remain in operation, but also protect workers by limiting their working hours and ensuring sufficient leave time. For example, security guards should be allowed to work in shifts. This would offer them relief from the pressure of long working hours. Unfortunately many local authorities have a negative attitude. They have no desire to increase the work load. They have no desire to offend important local industries. They may even be indifferent to their working conditions. Such officials have defaulted on their responsibility to protect the public.
Business owners should also realize that no one has the right to sacrifice other peoples' lives. No matter how much big the company, no matter how high stock prices might rise, no matter how much they might contribute to the GDP, nothing is as valuable as a human life. Working conditions for employees is the responsibility of employers. No matter how demanding the work, one must not violate the fundamental principles of humanity. One must not callously sacrifice the health and lives of employees. Any company that does so is immoral. It should be condemned by society, and penalized by law.
A string of deaths from overwork has occurred on Taiwan. The law is clearly riddled with loopholes. Government agencies have been lax in their duty. They have given employers carte blanche, allowing them to exploit their employees. Death from overwork is a black mark on a company. It is also proof of government malfeasance. Taiwan's economic growth must not be built on the sweat and blood of hapless workers. The government must not turn a blind eye to the lives of workers, merely for a bigger bottom line.
正視過勞死悲劇 修補法令漏洞
2011-03-11 中國時報
針對最近多起過勞死案件，行政院長吳敦義表示「很慚愧」。的確，勞工被工作壓迫到過勞死，雇主固然要負直接責任，但法令保護不周、制度疏漏、主管機關怠惰，卻是公權力的錯。我們期待政府儘快修改法規、積極介入，為勞工提供更多保障。
《勞動基準法》規定，勞工每日工作時間不得超過八小時，每兩周工時不得超過八十四小時。加班工時連同正常工時，一天不得超過十二小時，每月加班總時數不得超過四十六小時。但《勞基法》八十四條之一卻又門戶洞開，勞工工作特質若符合監視性或間歇性，雇主可向勞委會申請排除適用《勞基法》對工時、休假、例假、女性夜間工作等限制。
也因為如此，《勞基法》八十四條之一被謔稱為「太上皇條款」。當然，有些行業的確有其特性，在工時調度上需要比較多的彈性，但問題是，如果雇主的「彈性」大到可以讓勞工長期嚴重超時工作，而不必擔心違法，或者罰則不痛不癢，那麼，有些雇主恐怕就不會客氣了。
勞資之間，勞工原本就相對弱勢，需要法律與工會的保護。但有些產業或公司並沒有工會，或者工會的力量不夠強。勞工為了保住飯碗，常常不得不委屈忍耐，在「責任制」的大帽子下，替老闆做牛做馬，操到爆肝也不敢抗命。這些被《勞基法》排除適用的卅六種行業勞工，沒有可以保護自己對抗不合理要求的武器，一旦權益遭侵犯、健康受危害，甚至因為過勞而失去工作能力甚至猝死時，根本無法討回公道。
過去提到過勞死，大家多想到科技業，因為這些行業採取所謂的「責任制」，專案一個接一個交辦下來，許多員工忙得不眠不休，甚至直接睡在辦公室裡。電子業便戲稱，招募新人是「又有一批新鮮的肝進來了」。其實，被排除在《勞基法》之外的其他行業勞工，許多一樣經常處於爆肝狀態。一位廿九歲的年輕保全員，每月工時達二百八十八小時，一年只休假七十三天，最後在執勤時中風不治，這個例子引發了各界的關切，因為他其實是法令疏漏下的犧牲品，如果不修法改善規範並提高罰則，過勞死的悲劇恐怕不會就此結束。
的確，若干產業有其特殊性，但這應該意味著需要另一套對工時、加班與休假的規範，而不是完全放任不管，讓雇主可以為所欲為。儘管這些產業的工作型態較為獨特，但這不是拿勞工的健康甚至生命去冒險的藉口。
《勞基法》八十四條之一規定，雇主可向勞委會申請排除適用工時限制，由勞雇雙方另行約定工作時間，並報請當地主管機關核備。但現實狀況裡，所謂勞雇雙方的約定，經常是雇主單方面決定並交給勞工簽字同意。面對著可能被列入黑名單甚至丟飯碗的風險，勞工幾乎只能乖乖同意，這種表面兩願實則一面倒的約定，並不能充分反映勞工的意見，勞工的權益很容易被剝奪。
比較理想的處理，應該是由主管機構公平採納勞資雙方的意見，衡量該產業的需求，研擬出可以維持運作又能保護勞工的工時與休假規定，例如保全應該可以用輪休來紓緩長時間工作的壓力。但許多地方主管機構態度並不積極，不想增加工作負擔，或者不想得罪當地重要業者，甚至對勞工的工作條件與環境不聞不問。這種怠惰，嚴重有虧政府保護人民之職責。
此外，企業主也應該體認到，沒有人有權要別人賣命，不管事業有多大、股價漲多高、對ＧＤＰ有多大貢獻，都遠遠比不上一條人命的價值。員工的勞動條件與環境，是雇主的責任，工作要求再嚴格，也不能違反人道原則，毫不在乎地讓員工犧牲健康乃至生命的企業，是不道德的，應該受到社會唾棄以及法律的懲罰。
台灣接連發生過勞死，顯然是法令出現漏洞、政府部門怠於職守，以致放任勞工遭到雇主壓榨。過勞死不但是企業的恥辱，更是政府失職的證明。台灣的經濟成長不該由血汗築成，政府不能再坐視勞工為錢賭性命了。
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Combining Elections May Not Help Ruling Party
Combining Elections May Not Help Ruling Party
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 10, 2011
How should presidential and legislative elections be scheduled and conducted? Democracies each have their own traditions. Each should realize that their own traditions have downsides. Should presidential and legislative elections on Taiwan be combined? That remains a perplexing problem, one that presents itself every four years. No matter which party is in power, electoral advantage will always be a consideration. Changing the election timetable may be viewed as the prerogative of the ruling administration. But will the election results necessarily benefit the ruling administration? That remains open to question.
The presidential and legislative elections occur at different times. That leads to a variety of political consequences. Consider the United States. Presidential elections are invariably accompanied by congressional elections. Congressional elections are held every two years, but for half the congressional seats only. Therefore the US must also hold mid-term elections. In general, midterm elections are bad for the ruling party. Therefore the White House and Congress are often controlled by different parties. One might even consider it the norm. Obama won the presidential race in 2008. His party won a controlling majority in both the House and the Senate. But last year during the mid-term elections, his party lost its House majority.
Legislative elections held less than a year after the presidential inauguration are referred to as "honeymoon period elections." These often take place in France. On May 22 France holds its presidential elections. A month and a half later, on June 10, France holds its parliamentary elections. The left and the right have formed coalitions in the past. But France has an election timetable in which presidential elections are followed by parliamentary elections. This means that in the wake of the presidential election, voters are presented with the opportunity to choose either a majority government or a minority government. They are presented with the opportunity during the parliamentary elections to vote for a party other than the president's. Based on the recent record, French voters tend to put their faith in the ruling administration. They tend to vote for the same party in parliament. That has been true from Chirac through Sarkozy. After winning the presidential election, the president's party generally has no trouble winning a majority in parliament.
On Taiwan, by contrast, we have a legislative election followed by a presidential election. This results in "anti-honeymoon period elections." Legislative elections are held in early December. Legislators take office on February 1 of the following year. This is followed by the presidential election in March, and the presidential inauguration on May 20. On Taiwan, the executive has traditionally been the dominant branch of government. Therefore, legislative election results may not indicate which presidential candidate the public will support. But politicians are adept at political games. Newly-elected legislators provide these politicians considerable latitude for political games. The DPP has long advocated streamlining and combining elections. During the 2008 presidential election however, it hoped that the presidential election would induce Blue Camp legislators to to desert and defect.
Alas, the DPP found itself dragged down by the Chen family corruption scandals. Its strategy failed. The result was a debacle. This time however, the ruling Kuomintang lost nine out of 13 elections. It is now concerned that if the legislative elections, which are held first, result in defeat, the impact may snowball. The DPP may gain momentum. Movement can now be detected at the KMT grassroots. KMT legislators in central and southern Taiwan may vote against their own party. The KMT is considering combining the elections. This would prevent fence sitters within the KMT from using the opportunity to collude with DPP legislators.
Two major elections are held within six months of each other, year after year. This leads to extreme polarization on Taiwan. For many citizens, this is intolerable. Therefore the proposal to combine the elections has considerable justification.
But according to the "Public Officials Election and Recall Law," the next batch of legislators must be elected 10 days before current legislators' terms expire. Therefore, if the elections are combined, voting must occur no later than January 20 next year. But this would mean that the new president must assume office on May 20. For a four full months, his status would be unconstitutional. Today the world is flat. Financial turmoil, new influenza strains, extreme climate conditions, hot money flows, general inflation, and other crises, may start in one place, but may spread worldwide overnight. Over the past several years, Taiwan has largely been spared the impact of such storms. But what if a crisis occurs during a ruling party change, at the same time as a constitutional crisis? Would a caretaker government have the either the determination or ability to cope? It is hard to say.
How should the constitutional crisis be resolved? The only apparent solution is a constitutional amendment extending the mandate for legislators by two months. But the ruling and opposition parties are currently engaged in all manner of intrigue. They cannot possibly cooperate and pass a constitutional amendment. An even bigger problem presents itself. The constitution clearly states that if the legislature votes no confidence in the government, the president may dissolve the legislature. Once the legislature is dissolved, by-elections must be held. Legislative terms must begin anew. The original process of combining elections would be disrupted. Any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment would be futile.
Four years ago the DPP, for fear of losing, refused to combine the elections. This time the KMT has proposed combining the elections. It too is having trouble avoiding campaign considerations. Few democracies around the world resemble the Republic of China. Here, even the timetable for elections is part of campaign strategy. That is why they keep getting changed, time and again. Winning or losing still depends upon who is in power. As the saying goes, high office is not attained through wisdom. Sacrificing the stability of the political system may not turn defeat into victory.
合併選舉 未必有利執政黨
2011-03-10 中國時報
總統和國會議員選舉時程如何安排，民主國家各有不同的傳統，也都得接受各種不同模式所帶來的風險；相反的，台灣的總統和立委是否該合併選舉，這個頭痛問題，卻是每四年就要來一次，無論哪個黨執政，都想從選舉利害的角度考量，將調整選舉時程視為執政者的特權，但結果是否真的對選舉有利，卻很值得探究。
總統、國會選舉時程不一致，有時確會出現不同的政治後果。以美國為例，凡總統大選必伴隨國會選舉，但由於國會每兩年只改選一半席次，因此還會有一次「期中選舉」。一般而言，期中選舉對執政黨相當不利，因此，美國總統與國會由不同黨掌握，幾可說已是常態，如歐巴馬政府二○○八年當選總統時雖同時拿下參眾兩院多數，但去年的期中國會選舉就喪失了眾院多數。
另外，凡是國會選舉在總統就職一年內發生的，學界稱之為「蜜月期選舉」。法國就是經常出現此一模式，五月二十二日舉行總統第一輪投票，隨後在一個半月後的六月十日舉行國會選舉；法國雖有左右共治的憲政前例，但這樣「先總統、後國會」的時程設計，等於是讓選民在大致已確定總統人選後，有足夠的時間及空間考量，是否要採取共治，而決定在國會議員投票時支持不同政黨；不過，根據這幾年的發展，法國選民充分反映了期待行政、立法合一的傾向，從席哈克到薩科奇，在確定勝選之後都順利拿下國會多數。
相反的，台灣通常碰到的是「先國會、後總統」的「反蜜月期選舉」模式。依往例，立委選舉於十二月初完成，隔年二月一日就職，接下來總統選舉於三月投票，五月二十日就職。台灣過去有行政權獨大的傳統，因此，從國會選舉結果中，未必能讀出民意青睞的總統人選，但是對擅長操作的政治人物而言，這些剛當選的國會議員，提供了合縱連橫的空間，二○○八年大選時，民進黨改變向來主張精簡、合併選舉的立場，就是期待能夠在大選時對藍軍收招降納叛之功。
只是，民進黨當時受扁家弊案拖累，謀略未盡其功，還是大敗收場；這次則是執政的國民黨在十三次選舉九敗的壓力下，反過來擔心若國會先選先敗，會出現西瓜效應，更留給民進黨操作空間；尤其是，此刻國民黨基層蠢蠢欲動，國民黨籍的中南部立委甚至傳出分裂投票，讓國民黨考慮合併選舉，防堵騎牆派立委當選後趁勢和民進黨結合。
再則，不在少數的民意也反映在半年內連續進行兩項重大選舉，對年年選舉釀成極端對立的台灣而言，確實是難以承受的負擔。因此，合併選舉之議，並非完全沒有道理。
問題在於，根據《公職人員選舉罷免法》的規定，下屆立委必須在本屆立委任期屆滿十天前選出，因此若合併選舉，最慢要在明年一月二十日前投票，但如此一來就和新任總統就職的五月二十日，出現整整四個月的憲政空窗期，在「世界是平的」今天，無論是金融風暴、新流感、極端氣候、還是熱錢四處流竄、通貨膨漲等危機，都可在一地點燃後，一夕之間蔓延全球，觀察過去幾年，面對這些風暴，台灣幾乎無一倖免，試問，如果哪一件危機正好發生在政黨輪替的憲政空窗期，看守政府是否有心力去處理，實在令人不敢樂觀。
要解決憲政空窗期問題，似乎只有靠著修憲將立委任期延長兩個月，但別說當前朝野爾虞我詐、不可能合作修憲；更大的問題是，憲法增修條文明定，國會若通過倒閣案，總統有權解散國會，一旦立委改選，任期又重新起算，原來合併的選舉時程一樣會被打亂，修憲將是徒勞無功。
就如四年前的民進黨，為了選舉輸贏不肯合併選舉一樣，國民黨此次的合併選舉之議，也難脫選舉考量，全世界民主國家大概很少像台灣這樣，連選舉時程都成為選舉策略的一環、因此可以一變再變，只是，選舉輸贏仍要看執政者施政而定，俗話說，大位不以智取，若為了選舉而犧牲制度的穩定性，不見得就能夠反敗為勝的。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 10, 2011
How should presidential and legislative elections be scheduled and conducted? Democracies each have their own traditions. Each should realize that their own traditions have downsides. Should presidential and legislative elections on Taiwan be combined? That remains a perplexing problem, one that presents itself every four years. No matter which party is in power, electoral advantage will always be a consideration. Changing the election timetable may be viewed as the prerogative of the ruling administration. But will the election results necessarily benefit the ruling administration? That remains open to question.
The presidential and legislative elections occur at different times. That leads to a variety of political consequences. Consider the United States. Presidential elections are invariably accompanied by congressional elections. Congressional elections are held every two years, but for half the congressional seats only. Therefore the US must also hold mid-term elections. In general, midterm elections are bad for the ruling party. Therefore the White House and Congress are often controlled by different parties. One might even consider it the norm. Obama won the presidential race in 2008. His party won a controlling majority in both the House and the Senate. But last year during the mid-term elections, his party lost its House majority.
Legislative elections held less than a year after the presidential inauguration are referred to as "honeymoon period elections." These often take place in France. On May 22 France holds its presidential elections. A month and a half later, on June 10, France holds its parliamentary elections. The left and the right have formed coalitions in the past. But France has an election timetable in which presidential elections are followed by parliamentary elections. This means that in the wake of the presidential election, voters are presented with the opportunity to choose either a majority government or a minority government. They are presented with the opportunity during the parliamentary elections to vote for a party other than the president's. Based on the recent record, French voters tend to put their faith in the ruling administration. They tend to vote for the same party in parliament. That has been true from Chirac through Sarkozy. After winning the presidential election, the president's party generally has no trouble winning a majority in parliament.
On Taiwan, by contrast, we have a legislative election followed by a presidential election. This results in "anti-honeymoon period elections." Legislative elections are held in early December. Legislators take office on February 1 of the following year. This is followed by the presidential election in March, and the presidential inauguration on May 20. On Taiwan, the executive has traditionally been the dominant branch of government. Therefore, legislative election results may not indicate which presidential candidate the public will support. But politicians are adept at political games. Newly-elected legislators provide these politicians considerable latitude for political games. The DPP has long advocated streamlining and combining elections. During the 2008 presidential election however, it hoped that the presidential election would induce Blue Camp legislators to to desert and defect.
Alas, the DPP found itself dragged down by the Chen family corruption scandals. Its strategy failed. The result was a debacle. This time however, the ruling Kuomintang lost nine out of 13 elections. It is now concerned that if the legislative elections, which are held first, result in defeat, the impact may snowball. The DPP may gain momentum. Movement can now be detected at the KMT grassroots. KMT legislators in central and southern Taiwan may vote against their own party. The KMT is considering combining the elections. This would prevent fence sitters within the KMT from using the opportunity to collude with DPP legislators.
Two major elections are held within six months of each other, year after year. This leads to extreme polarization on Taiwan. For many citizens, this is intolerable. Therefore the proposal to combine the elections has considerable justification.
But according to the "Public Officials Election and Recall Law," the next batch of legislators must be elected 10 days before current legislators' terms expire. Therefore, if the elections are combined, voting must occur no later than January 20 next year. But this would mean that the new president must assume office on May 20. For a four full months, his status would be unconstitutional. Today the world is flat. Financial turmoil, new influenza strains, extreme climate conditions, hot money flows, general inflation, and other crises, may start in one place, but may spread worldwide overnight. Over the past several years, Taiwan has largely been spared the impact of such storms. But what if a crisis occurs during a ruling party change, at the same time as a constitutional crisis? Would a caretaker government have the either the determination or ability to cope? It is hard to say.
How should the constitutional crisis be resolved? The only apparent solution is a constitutional amendment extending the mandate for legislators by two months. But the ruling and opposition parties are currently engaged in all manner of intrigue. They cannot possibly cooperate and pass a constitutional amendment. An even bigger problem presents itself. The constitution clearly states that if the legislature votes no confidence in the government, the president may dissolve the legislature. Once the legislature is dissolved, by-elections must be held. Legislative terms must begin anew. The original process of combining elections would be disrupted. Any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment would be futile.
Four years ago the DPP, for fear of losing, refused to combine the elections. This time the KMT has proposed combining the elections. It too is having trouble avoiding campaign considerations. Few democracies around the world resemble the Republic of China. Here, even the timetable for elections is part of campaign strategy. That is why they keep getting changed, time and again. Winning or losing still depends upon who is in power. As the saying goes, high office is not attained through wisdom. Sacrificing the stability of the political system may not turn defeat into victory.
合併選舉 未必有利執政黨
2011-03-10 中國時報
總統和國會議員選舉時程如何安排，民主國家各有不同的傳統，也都得接受各種不同模式所帶來的風險；相反的，台灣的總統和立委是否該合併選舉，這個頭痛問題，卻是每四年就要來一次，無論哪個黨執政，都想從選舉利害的角度考量，將調整選舉時程視為執政者的特權，但結果是否真的對選舉有利，卻很值得探究。
總統、國會選舉時程不一致，有時確會出現不同的政治後果。以美國為例，凡總統大選必伴隨國會選舉，但由於國會每兩年只改選一半席次，因此還會有一次「期中選舉」。一般而言，期中選舉對執政黨相當不利，因此，美國總統與國會由不同黨掌握，幾可說已是常態，如歐巴馬政府二○○八年當選總統時雖同時拿下參眾兩院多數，但去年的期中國會選舉就喪失了眾院多數。
另外，凡是國會選舉在總統就職一年內發生的，學界稱之為「蜜月期選舉」。法國就是經常出現此一模式，五月二十二日舉行總統第一輪投票，隨後在一個半月後的六月十日舉行國會選舉；法國雖有左右共治的憲政前例，但這樣「先總統、後國會」的時程設計，等於是讓選民在大致已確定總統人選後，有足夠的時間及空間考量，是否要採取共治，而決定在國會議員投票時支持不同政黨；不過，根據這幾年的發展，法國選民充分反映了期待行政、立法合一的傾向，從席哈克到薩科奇，在確定勝選之後都順利拿下國會多數。
相反的，台灣通常碰到的是「先國會、後總統」的「反蜜月期選舉」模式。依往例，立委選舉於十二月初完成，隔年二月一日就職，接下來總統選舉於三月投票，五月二十日就職。台灣過去有行政權獨大的傳統，因此，從國會選舉結果中，未必能讀出民意青睞的總統人選，但是對擅長操作的政治人物而言，這些剛當選的國會議員，提供了合縱連橫的空間，二○○八年大選時，民進黨改變向來主張精簡、合併選舉的立場，就是期待能夠在大選時對藍軍收招降納叛之功。
只是，民進黨當時受扁家弊案拖累，謀略未盡其功，還是大敗收場；這次則是執政的國民黨在十三次選舉九敗的壓力下，反過來擔心若國會先選先敗，會出現西瓜效應，更留給民進黨操作空間；尤其是，此刻國民黨基層蠢蠢欲動，國民黨籍的中南部立委甚至傳出分裂投票，讓國民黨考慮合併選舉，防堵騎牆派立委當選後趁勢和民進黨結合。
再則，不在少數的民意也反映在半年內連續進行兩項重大選舉，對年年選舉釀成極端對立的台灣而言，確實是難以承受的負擔。因此，合併選舉之議，並非完全沒有道理。
問題在於，根據《公職人員選舉罷免法》的規定，下屆立委必須在本屆立委任期屆滿十天前選出，因此若合併選舉，最慢要在明年一月二十日前投票，但如此一來就和新任總統就職的五月二十日，出現整整四個月的憲政空窗期，在「世界是平的」今天，無論是金融風暴、新流感、極端氣候、還是熱錢四處流竄、通貨膨漲等危機，都可在一地點燃後，一夕之間蔓延全球，觀察過去幾年，面對這些風暴，台灣幾乎無一倖免，試問，如果哪一件危機正好發生在政黨輪替的憲政空窗期，看守政府是否有心力去處理，實在令人不敢樂觀。
要解決憲政空窗期問題，似乎只有靠著修憲將立委任期延長兩個月，但別說當前朝野爾虞我詐、不可能合作修憲；更大的問題是，憲法增修條文明定，國會若通過倒閣案，總統有權解散國會，一旦立委改選，任期又重新起算，原來合併的選舉時程一樣會被打亂，修憲將是徒勞無功。
就如四年前的民進黨，為了選舉輸贏不肯合併選舉一樣，國民黨此次的合併選舉之議，也難脫選舉考量，全世界民主國家大概很少像台灣這樣，連選舉時程都成為選舉策略的一環、因此可以一變再變，只是，選舉輸贏仍要看執政者施政而定，俗話說，大位不以智取，若為了選舉而犧牲制度的穩定性，不見得就能夠反敗為勝的。
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Amend the Constitution, Combine the 2016 Elections
Amend the Constitution, Combine the 2016 Elections
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 9, 2011
The dates for the presidential and legislative elections are too close together. They necessitate holding two elections merely three months apart. On the one hand, the timing fails to reflect public wishes. On the other hand, it clearly squanders public resources. Therefore the suggestion that the two elections be combined has considerable justification. The DPP has recently said it has "no particular objection."
Combining the elections however, will have constitutional repercussions. One must pay attention to these repercussions. Combining the two elections will require constitutional amendments. The legislature may not have time to pass these amendments. The Blue and Green parties should first amend the constitution. They should first assure the public that the elections will be combined no later than 2016. They can then adopt the administrative and political measures required to merge the presidential and legislative elections.
The president has a four year term. Inauguration day is May 20. Legislators also have four year terms. The legislature convenes each year between February and May and between September and December. A legislator's term of office expires on January 31. The constitution stipulates that newly elected legislators must begin their terms on February 1.
The constitutional amendments in question make no provisions for the date of the presidential election. But the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law states that elections must be announced 120 days before term expiration, and that balloting must take place 30 days before term expiration. For legislators, the constitutional amendments in question merely state that balloting must take place three months before terms expiration. The Civil Service Personnel Election and Recall Law states that balloting must take place at least ten days before term expiration.
Suppose we wish to combine the elections during the current term, by combining the above laws. Our choice of election dates will be limited. The election may need to be held after November 1, 2011, but before January 20, 2012. Only then would the date for the legislative elections be legal. The date for the presidential election is more flexible. As long as it is consistent with the constitution and the law, it can be moved up and held on the same day as the legislative elections. These are the options under the constitution and the law.
Suppose we combine the two elections, according to the above requirements. The presidential election would have be moved up from its current date in March, to sometime before January 20. Next, the date would have to be coordinated with the legislative elections. Suppose both elections are moved up to January 20. The term of office for the outgoing president would be shortened by at least two months, Add two months to that, and it could be shortened by as much as four months. Suppose current conditions prevail. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected. Or suppose conditions change, and another change in ruling parties follows. The president's term of office would be too long. It would risk violating the constitution.
Now take the legislative elections. As mentioned earlier, incoming legislators would assume office on February 1. The law states that elections must be held at least 10 days in advance. But if the legislators are sworn in less than 10 days after elections are announced, the timing would be too rushed. Therefore delaying the changing of the guard as long as the law allows may not be appropriate. If the timing is too rushed, and delays are too long, the presidential election would have to be moved up. The term of the outgoing president would have to be extended. This presents us with a dilemma.
The above applies only to the constitution and law as they currently stand. Changing the polling dates in order to combine the elections must be regarded as an expedient. If the legislature wishes to combine the presidential and legislative elections, and avoid moving up the presidential election or postponing the legislative elections, it must amend the constitution. It has no alternative. Changing the term for legislators requires too many changes to the constitution. It would be easier to change the term for the president, Next, the legislature will need to amend the law. The presidential and legislative elections must precede term expiration by the same amount of time. This will enable the legislature to combine the elections. This will enable the legislature to avoid making the president's term too long, or legislators' changing of the guard too rushed. But we have a problem. Even supposing the ruling and opposition parties were in complete agreement, it is too late to amend the constitution and the law during the current term.
The Blue and Green political parties have already agreed to combine the two elections, Each party has its own political calculations. They could change and combine the election dates without amending the constitution and the law. But that would be an administrative and political solution. The constitutional and legal problems would linger. If they fail to amend the constitution and the law, they will be forced to change the election dates repeatedly for every election. Sooner or later, this would precipitate a constitutional crisis.
There is one solution. The two parties should issue a joint declaration. They should immediately propose an amendment to the constitution and the laws. They should assure the public that the elections will be constitutionally combined no later than 2016. They should present this constitutional amendment to the public for a popular referendum. Such a move would help persuade the public of the need to change and combine the elections. That said, combining the elections during the current term could precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Can the elections be combined? Combining them could conserve precious social capital. Combining them could also precipitate a constitutional crisis. The pros must be weighed against the cons. The gains must be weighed against the losses.
先修憲確定二○一六年合併選舉
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.09
總統大選與立委選舉的日期太近，致在三個多月之內接連舉行兩次重大選舉；一方面未必能反映民情民意的時間差異，另一方面因而也顯得更加耗損社會成本。所以，合併舉行之議有其道理，如今民進黨也表示「不會特別反對」。
唯合併選舉在憲政體制和憲政運作方面，必須注意其連帶影響。問題卡在此屆若要合併選舉的修憲修法工程已趕不及，我們建議：藍綠兩黨先發動修憲修法，對社會作出至少在二○一六年可以合併選舉的保證，再來斟酌是否用行政及政治手段使此屆總統及立委合併選舉。
總統任期四年，在換屆年的五月二十日就職。立法委員任期四年，每年集會是二月至五月、九月至十二月，故換屆年的一月三十一日即上屆任滿日，而二月一日即新任立委的就任日，此為憲法所明定。
憲法增修條文對總統選舉辦理期間未加規定，但總統副總統選罷法則規定，須在任滿一百二十日前公告、任滿三十日前完成選舉投票。立法委員方面，則憲法增修條文只規定任滿前三個月內選出之；而公職人員選罷法則明定，須於立委任滿十日前完成選舉。
綜合上述的規定，若此屆要合併舉行，則可能選擇的區間，只能在民國一百年十一月一日以後，至一百零一年一月二十日以前，以使立委選舉日期合法；總統選舉日期的彈性較大，可以在合憲合法的範圍內配合立委選舉日期的訂定，提前舉行。以上是憲政體制和法律規定下可能的選擇。
由上述規定可知，若採合併案，則總統選舉勢須由現行三月間舉行提前，最少是要提前到一月二十日以前，接著再看立委選舉如何配合；若以提前到一月二十日前合併舉行，則任滿總統的看守期至少由目前的約兩個月，再加兩個月，可長達四個月之久。以目前選情看，若馬英九連任，或可另當別論；但倘出現政黨輪替，則看守期過長，即可能發生種種憲政風險。
至於立委選舉，如前所述，新立委就任是二月一日，法律固然容許最遲在十日前選出，但選出後公告至新舊交接倘若只有不到十日，恐怕過於緊迫；故延後至法律許可的最大極限是否適當，自然亦應加考慮。而若顧慮新舊兩屆立委交接過於緊迫的問題，而不想要延後太久，則總統選舉就要再提前，因而舊任總統看守期也只得再加長，這就帶來兩難的局面。
以上所言，都是在不變動憲法和法律的前提下，採取彈性調整選舉投票日的措施以達合併目的，只能算是權宜處置。至於若欲使總統及立委合併選舉法制化，且消除提前總統選舉或延後立委選舉的連帶影響，則除修憲修法，別無他途。亦即，第一步須修憲調整總統任期，使之與立委任期同步；因為，若欲調整立委任期，變動的憲法條文太多，相較之下以調整總統任期較妥。第二步須修法，使總統和立委選舉，須在任滿前多長期間完成選舉投票的規定相同。這樣一來，即可達成選舉合併，又不致使總統看守期過長或立委就任期太倉促。問題是：即使朝野政黨此刻立即形成修憲修法共識，但在此屆選舉之前完成修憲勢已來不及。
藍綠兩黨如今皆表達贊同合併選舉之傾向，其中當然各懷政治盤算；故而在不修憲不修法的情勢下，亦有可能以調整選舉日期而合併舉行。但這也只是行政及政治解決，憲法及法律上的問題仍在；因為，若不修憲修法，總不能未來次次皆調整選舉日期，則遲早會爆發憲政災禍。
有一個可能的解決之道，即兩黨合議以政治宣示，立即發動單一議題的併選修憲修法，以保證至少在二○一六年可依憲依法合併選舉，並在此屆總統立委併選中將修憲案交付公民複決；在此一法律行動下，此屆若以調整選舉日期併選，或許對社會較具說服力。然而，即使如此，此屆若合併選舉，仍不能排除憲政風險的發生。
總之，是否合併舉行，勢須以合併可能節省社會成本及合併可能引發憲政風險的利弊做比較，務期合乎比例原則。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 9, 2011
The dates for the presidential and legislative elections are too close together. They necessitate holding two elections merely three months apart. On the one hand, the timing fails to reflect public wishes. On the other hand, it clearly squanders public resources. Therefore the suggestion that the two elections be combined has considerable justification. The DPP has recently said it has "no particular objection."
Combining the elections however, will have constitutional repercussions. One must pay attention to these repercussions. Combining the two elections will require constitutional amendments. The legislature may not have time to pass these amendments. The Blue and Green parties should first amend the constitution. They should first assure the public that the elections will be combined no later than 2016. They can then adopt the administrative and political measures required to merge the presidential and legislative elections.
The president has a four year term. Inauguration day is May 20. Legislators also have four year terms. The legislature convenes each year between February and May and between September and December. A legislator's term of office expires on January 31. The constitution stipulates that newly elected legislators must begin their terms on February 1.
The constitutional amendments in question make no provisions for the date of the presidential election. But the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law states that elections must be announced 120 days before term expiration, and that balloting must take place 30 days before term expiration. For legislators, the constitutional amendments in question merely state that balloting must take place three months before terms expiration. The Civil Service Personnel Election and Recall Law states that balloting must take place at least ten days before term expiration.
Suppose we wish to combine the elections during the current term, by combining the above laws. Our choice of election dates will be limited. The election may need to be held after November 1, 2011, but before January 20, 2012. Only then would the date for the legislative elections be legal. The date for the presidential election is more flexible. As long as it is consistent with the constitution and the law, it can be moved up and held on the same day as the legislative elections. These are the options under the constitution and the law.
Suppose we combine the two elections, according to the above requirements. The presidential election would have be moved up from its current date in March, to sometime before January 20. Next, the date would have to be coordinated with the legislative elections. Suppose both elections are moved up to January 20. The term of office for the outgoing president would be shortened by at least two months, Add two months to that, and it could be shortened by as much as four months. Suppose current conditions prevail. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected. Or suppose conditions change, and another change in ruling parties follows. The president's term of office would be too long. It would risk violating the constitution.
Now take the legislative elections. As mentioned earlier, incoming legislators would assume office on February 1. The law states that elections must be held at least 10 days in advance. But if the legislators are sworn in less than 10 days after elections are announced, the timing would be too rushed. Therefore delaying the changing of the guard as long as the law allows may not be appropriate. If the timing is too rushed, and delays are too long, the presidential election would have to be moved up. The term of the outgoing president would have to be extended. This presents us with a dilemma.
The above applies only to the constitution and law as they currently stand. Changing the polling dates in order to combine the elections must be regarded as an expedient. If the legislature wishes to combine the presidential and legislative elections, and avoid moving up the presidential election or postponing the legislative elections, it must amend the constitution. It has no alternative. Changing the term for legislators requires too many changes to the constitution. It would be easier to change the term for the president, Next, the legislature will need to amend the law. The presidential and legislative elections must precede term expiration by the same amount of time. This will enable the legislature to combine the elections. This will enable the legislature to avoid making the president's term too long, or legislators' changing of the guard too rushed. But we have a problem. Even supposing the ruling and opposition parties were in complete agreement, it is too late to amend the constitution and the law during the current term.
The Blue and Green political parties have already agreed to combine the two elections, Each party has its own political calculations. They could change and combine the election dates without amending the constitution and the law. But that would be an administrative and political solution. The constitutional and legal problems would linger. If they fail to amend the constitution and the law, they will be forced to change the election dates repeatedly for every election. Sooner or later, this would precipitate a constitutional crisis.
There is one solution. The two parties should issue a joint declaration. They should immediately propose an amendment to the constitution and the laws. They should assure the public that the elections will be constitutionally combined no later than 2016. They should present this constitutional amendment to the public for a popular referendum. Such a move would help persuade the public of the need to change and combine the elections. That said, combining the elections during the current term could precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Can the elections be combined? Combining them could conserve precious social capital. Combining them could also precipitate a constitutional crisis. The pros must be weighed against the cons. The gains must be weighed against the losses.
先修憲確定二○一六年合併選舉
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.09
總統大選與立委選舉的日期太近，致在三個多月之內接連舉行兩次重大選舉；一方面未必能反映民情民意的時間差異，另一方面因而也顯得更加耗損社會成本。所以，合併舉行之議有其道理，如今民進黨也表示「不會特別反對」。
唯合併選舉在憲政體制和憲政運作方面，必須注意其連帶影響。問題卡在此屆若要合併選舉的修憲修法工程已趕不及，我們建議：藍綠兩黨先發動修憲修法，對社會作出至少在二○一六年可以合併選舉的保證，再來斟酌是否用行政及政治手段使此屆總統及立委合併選舉。
總統任期四年，在換屆年的五月二十日就職。立法委員任期四年，每年集會是二月至五月、九月至十二月，故換屆年的一月三十一日即上屆任滿日，而二月一日即新任立委的就任日，此為憲法所明定。
憲法增修條文對總統選舉辦理期間未加規定，但總統副總統選罷法則規定，須在任滿一百二十日前公告、任滿三十日前完成選舉投票。立法委員方面，則憲法增修條文只規定任滿前三個月內選出之；而公職人員選罷法則明定，須於立委任滿十日前完成選舉。
綜合上述的規定，若此屆要合併舉行，則可能選擇的區間，只能在民國一百年十一月一日以後，至一百零一年一月二十日以前，以使立委選舉日期合法；總統選舉日期的彈性較大，可以在合憲合法的範圍內配合立委選舉日期的訂定，提前舉行。以上是憲政體制和法律規定下可能的選擇。
由上述規定可知，若採合併案，則總統選舉勢須由現行三月間舉行提前，最少是要提前到一月二十日以前，接著再看立委選舉如何配合；若以提前到一月二十日前合併舉行，則任滿總統的看守期至少由目前的約兩個月，再加兩個月，可長達四個月之久。以目前選情看，若馬英九連任，或可另當別論；但倘出現政黨輪替，則看守期過長，即可能發生種種憲政風險。
至於立委選舉，如前所述，新立委就任是二月一日，法律固然容許最遲在十日前選出，但選出後公告至新舊交接倘若只有不到十日，恐怕過於緊迫；故延後至法律許可的最大極限是否適當，自然亦應加考慮。而若顧慮新舊兩屆立委交接過於緊迫的問題，而不想要延後太久，則總統選舉就要再提前，因而舊任總統看守期也只得再加長，這就帶來兩難的局面。
以上所言，都是在不變動憲法和法律的前提下，採取彈性調整選舉投票日的措施以達合併目的，只能算是權宜處置。至於若欲使總統及立委合併選舉法制化，且消除提前總統選舉或延後立委選舉的連帶影響，則除修憲修法，別無他途。亦即，第一步須修憲調整總統任期，使之與立委任期同步；因為，若欲調整立委任期，變動的憲法條文太多，相較之下以調整總統任期較妥。第二步須修法，使總統和立委選舉，須在任滿前多長期間完成選舉投票的規定相同。這樣一來，即可達成選舉合併，又不致使總統看守期過長或立委就任期太倉促。問題是：即使朝野政黨此刻立即形成修憲修法共識，但在此屆選舉之前完成修憲勢已來不及。
藍綠兩黨如今皆表達贊同合併選舉之傾向，其中當然各懷政治盤算；故而在不修憲不修法的情勢下，亦有可能以調整選舉日期而合併舉行。但這也只是行政及政治解決，憲法及法律上的問題仍在；因為，若不修憲修法，總不能未來次次皆調整選舉日期，則遲早會爆發憲政災禍。
有一個可能的解決之道，即兩黨合議以政治宣示，立即發動單一議題的併選修憲修法，以保證至少在二○一六年可依憲依法合併選舉，並在此屆總統立委併選中將修憲案交付公民複決；在此一法律行動下，此屆若以調整選舉日期併選，或許對社會較具說服力。然而，即使如此，此屆若合併選舉，仍不能排除憲政風險的發生。
總之，是否合併舉行，勢須以合併可能節省社會成本及合併可能引發憲政風險的利弊做比較，務期合乎比例原則。
Monday, March 7, 2011
Conflagration Underscores Problem with Safety
Conflagration Underscores Problem with Safety
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 8, 2011
"It passed inspection. How how could such an accident occur?" A fire of undetermined origin took nine lives in a Taichung nightclub. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu was stunned. The entire nation was stunned. Safety inspections by governments at all levels failed to ensure public safety. They failed to prevent business owners from flouting the law for the sake of larger profits. That being the case, who if anyone can ensure public safety?
Sixteen years ago, the Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire in Taichung shocked the entire nation by taking 64 lives. Then mayor Lin Po-jung was impeached by the Control Yuan and suspended by the Executive Yuan for six months. This provided the public on Taiwan with a painful lesson in public safety. This provided the government on Taiwan with an opportunity to review existing safety measures. The fire prevention codes and regulations were completely rewritten. Non-flammable materials were made mandatory for public spaces. Restaurants and bars were required to purchase accident insurance. Police and fire fighters were separated and made independent. This allowed fire fighting to be more professional.
Sixteen years later, a fire in a Taichung City night club has claimed nine lives. According to the city government, the night club passed 21 safety inspections conductted over a period of five years. It was registered as a juice bar. But according to Deputy Mayor Hsiao Chia-chi, the city government still subjected it to the most stringent safety inspection standards. For example, the recent recent fire may have been caused by insulation foam on the ceiling which failed to pass inspection three years earlier. As a result, water and electricity were cut. The store came under new management. It was renamed "Huck" and resumed operations as a juice bar.
Based on the above account, the store was clearly registered as one thing, but operated as something else altogether. The city government failed to conduct a serious investigation. Juice bars are still public facilities. Foam insulation must still prevent fires. Did safety inspections ascertain whether it was safe? The most expedient way for business owners to maximize profits is to minimize operating costs. But competent authorities must keep public safety in mind. They must demand that business owners abide by the most stringent industry standards.
As everyone knows, Taichung has the most varied entertainment facilities on Taiwan. The more difficult an industry is to manage, the more severe government regulations must be. Otherwise, regulations will have no effect. Three years ago, the Taichung City Government explicitly forbade open flames in public facilities. This applied even to wedding receptions. The city government imposed regulations, but no penalties. Not only did it fail to impose penalties, it even failed to conduct inspections. Nightclubs conducted business as usual, behind closed doors. Only customers knew that male strippers were putting on a show, replete with fireworks.
The general public may not know that public facilities are not allowed to stage fireworks displays. But business owners are. The male strippers who staged the performance were reportedly stand ins. But the nightclub owner should have informed them that their show could not include open flames. The male strippers' employer should also have informed them that any show involving open flames were prohibited. Why did the performers juggle torches in such a tiny space? According to the performers, the club was too dark. They could not tell the the stage ceiling was too low. Clearly they failed to do their homework by checking out the venue. In any event, it was clear that shows involving open flames were prohibited. So why were business owners unafraid to defy the law? The only explanation is that this night club in Taichung was not alone in holding such shows. Night club owners never ran into any problems. Night club owners never got caught. As a result they grew ever bolder.
Performers putting on such shows never intended that their shows lead to such catastrophes. But besides being creative, novel, and popular, shows must also be responsible. They must be responsible for their own safety and for the safety of their customers. The male strippers should have been accompanied by two or three monitors to guard against the risk of fire. Had this been done, a disaster might not have ensued. Clearly fire prevention was not something the group paid much attention to, or cared much about. But who today would dare stage a similar performance?
Night clubs are about entertainment. Few people pay any attention to safety. Who bothers to check on the number of emergency exits and their locations before entering? After a few drinks, one's alertness diminishes. The juggled torches turn into a roaring conflagration. Guests assumed they were merely special effects. When they realized something was wrong, some used their own water glasses to fight the fire. They failed to realize their glasses were filled with liquor, and not water. As a result the situation soon spiraled out of control. But one can hardly blame the guests for having too good a time. When the male strippers first fled the scene, did anyone notice that no one was using the fire extinguishers next to the stage?
The Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire broke out six years ago. The Control Yuan exacted Draconian punishments. This time, the Control Yuan will find it difficult to absolve the Taichung City Government of responsibility. Twenty one safety inspections were conducted over five years. The building department, labor affairs department, and fire department conducted joint safety inspections. Three times the club passed muster. Was this due to inadequate attention to detail? Were the competent authorities negligent in their duties? No matter what the Control Yuan investigation uncovers, the Taichung City Government's first step must be to correct its errors. It must conduct a thorough inspection of all the city's public facilities. It must check their registrations against their operations, making sure they match. It must thoroughly inspect all facilities for safety, and bring them into compliance. Any business owners found in violation, must be thoroughly investigated and severely punished. Some must even be shut down. After all, human life is paramount. Negligence cannot be permitted.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.08
社論－這一把大火燒出的安檢問題
本報訊
「安檢過關怎麼還會出事？」台中夜店一把無名火，奪走九條人命，讓台中市市長胡志強錯愕，更讓全國民眾驚愕。如果各級政府機關的安檢工作竟然防堵不了公安問題，阻止不了業者為賺取更大利益違規違法，那麼民眾的人身安全誰來保障？
十六年前，台中市發生震驚全國的衛爾康西餐廳大火，奪走六十四條人命，時任市長的林柏榕因此遭到監察院彈劾，並經行政院停職半年處分，這個慘痛的教訓讓台灣公共安全有一個重新檢討的機會。當時的消防法規制度幾乎面臨全面的檢討重建，除了要求公共場所必須使用防火建材，餐飲業必須強制投保公共意外險，同時在體制上也促成警消分立，讓消防工作愈趨專業化。
十六年過去了，台中市又發生奪走九條人命的夜店大火。根據市府資料，這家夜店五年廿一次安檢過關，儘管該店登記的是飲料店，但副市長蕭家旗指稱，市府仍是以最嚴格的標準進行安檢。舉例來說，這次疑為肇禍的天花板隔音泡棉三年前就不合格，該店因而遭到斷水斷電處分，業者更換人頭，改名「哈克」後，再以飲料店申請復業迄今。
從上述情節看來，該店登記與經營項目顯然不一，市府並未嚴查；飲料店仍屬公共場合，隔音泡棉仍然應具防火效果，稽查到底查出了沒有？對業者而言，降低成本就是爭取最大經營利潤的作法；但對主管機關而言，卻應從公共安全的角度，以最嚴格的標準要求業者做好一切防護措施。
眾所周知，台中是全台娛樂場所新興花樣最多的地方，愈是難管愈是要雷厲風行，否則難收管理之實效。三年前，台中市政府即明令在任何公共場所不得進行明火秀，包括婚嫁都不能有類似活動，然而，市府明令禁止，卻無罰則，非但沒有罰則，甚至連稽查能力都無，夜店關起門來做生意，除了上門的客人，沒人知道裡頭大搞猛男焰火秀。
一般民眾或許不知道公共場所不能有明火秀，業者卻不能不知道。這次上場表演的猛男，據稱只是代班人，夜店老闆應該告知不能有明火秀，除了夜店老闆，猛男所屬表演團體的老闆也該告知不能有明火秀，為什麼該名表演者，還是在狹小的空間拋出煙火棒？據該名表演者聲稱，店裡光線太暗，他不知道天花板距離舞台這麼近，顯然他上場前甚至勘查場地最基本的功課都沒做，但不論如何，不能有明火秀是清清楚楚的，業者何敢以身試法？唯一的解釋只有一個：台中市各家夜店中，類似表演顯然不只這一件，沒出事沒被抓包，膽子就愈來愈大！
原本娛樂大眾的創意表演，卻釀成巨災，絕非表演者所願見，但是，任何表演除了創意、新鮮、熱門，還是要負責，對自己與客人的安危負責，如果猛男出場，他所屬的團體還有二、三個隨行者，注意焰火可能引致的風險，或許也不致於釀災致此。然而，相關的周邊防護顯然亦未受到表演團體的注意，遑論重視，誰還敢邀請類似的表演呢？
夜店逸樂，少有人注意安全，更遑論進門前先檢查逃生口有幾個？各在哪裡？喝了酒之後，警覺性降低，甩火變大火，客人還以為是特效，驚覺不對勁之後，甚至有人拿起杯子澆水滅火，恍若未覺自己杯中是酒不是水，導致事態一發不可收拾，但是，能怪客人玩過頭嗎？當猛男率先逃離現場時，誰還注意到舞台邊的滅火器竟無人使用呢？
十六年前的衛爾康大火，監察院痛下彈劾之重手，這一次，監察院勢必很難放過台中市政府的管理監督之責。五年廿一次安檢中，有三次是建管、工務與消防單位的聯合安檢，全部過關，這中間有人謀不臧之處？還是相關單位疏於稽查職守？不論監察院調查結果為何，台中市政府第一步要做的是拴緊螺絲，進行全市公共場所的總體檢，從登記與經營項目是否名副其實、到各種設施是否符合安全規格，徹底清查並改正不符法令規範的店家，凡不合規定者，務必要嚴查重罰，甚至勒令歇業也在所不惜，畢竟人命關天，一點都閃失不得。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 8, 2011
"It passed inspection. How how could such an accident occur?" A fire of undetermined origin took nine lives in a Taichung nightclub. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu was stunned. The entire nation was stunned. Safety inspections by governments at all levels failed to ensure public safety. They failed to prevent business owners from flouting the law for the sake of larger profits. That being the case, who if anyone can ensure public safety?
Sixteen years ago, the Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire in Taichung shocked the entire nation by taking 64 lives. Then mayor Lin Po-jung was impeached by the Control Yuan and suspended by the Executive Yuan for six months. This provided the public on Taiwan with a painful lesson in public safety. This provided the government on Taiwan with an opportunity to review existing safety measures. The fire prevention codes and regulations were completely rewritten. Non-flammable materials were made mandatory for public spaces. Restaurants and bars were required to purchase accident insurance. Police and fire fighters were separated and made independent. This allowed fire fighting to be more professional.
Sixteen years later, a fire in a Taichung City night club has claimed nine lives. According to the city government, the night club passed 21 safety inspections conductted over a period of five years. It was registered as a juice bar. But according to Deputy Mayor Hsiao Chia-chi, the city government still subjected it to the most stringent safety inspection standards. For example, the recent recent fire may have been caused by insulation foam on the ceiling which failed to pass inspection three years earlier. As a result, water and electricity were cut. The store came under new management. It was renamed "Huck" and resumed operations as a juice bar.
Based on the above account, the store was clearly registered as one thing, but operated as something else altogether. The city government failed to conduct a serious investigation. Juice bars are still public facilities. Foam insulation must still prevent fires. Did safety inspections ascertain whether it was safe? The most expedient way for business owners to maximize profits is to minimize operating costs. But competent authorities must keep public safety in mind. They must demand that business owners abide by the most stringent industry standards.
As everyone knows, Taichung has the most varied entertainment facilities on Taiwan. The more difficult an industry is to manage, the more severe government regulations must be. Otherwise, regulations will have no effect. Three years ago, the Taichung City Government explicitly forbade open flames in public facilities. This applied even to wedding receptions. The city government imposed regulations, but no penalties. Not only did it fail to impose penalties, it even failed to conduct inspections. Nightclubs conducted business as usual, behind closed doors. Only customers knew that male strippers were putting on a show, replete with fireworks.
The general public may not know that public facilities are not allowed to stage fireworks displays. But business owners are. The male strippers who staged the performance were reportedly stand ins. But the nightclub owner should have informed them that their show could not include open flames. The male strippers' employer should also have informed them that any show involving open flames were prohibited. Why did the performers juggle torches in such a tiny space? According to the performers, the club was too dark. They could not tell the the stage ceiling was too low. Clearly they failed to do their homework by checking out the venue. In any event, it was clear that shows involving open flames were prohibited. So why were business owners unafraid to defy the law? The only explanation is that this night club in Taichung was not alone in holding such shows. Night club owners never ran into any problems. Night club owners never got caught. As a result they grew ever bolder.
Performers putting on such shows never intended that their shows lead to such catastrophes. But besides being creative, novel, and popular, shows must also be responsible. They must be responsible for their own safety and for the safety of their customers. The male strippers should have been accompanied by two or three monitors to guard against the risk of fire. Had this been done, a disaster might not have ensued. Clearly fire prevention was not something the group paid much attention to, or cared much about. But who today would dare stage a similar performance?
Night clubs are about entertainment. Few people pay any attention to safety. Who bothers to check on the number of emergency exits and their locations before entering? After a few drinks, one's alertness diminishes. The juggled torches turn into a roaring conflagration. Guests assumed they were merely special effects. When they realized something was wrong, some used their own water glasses to fight the fire. They failed to realize their glasses were filled with liquor, and not water. As a result the situation soon spiraled out of control. But one can hardly blame the guests for having too good a time. When the male strippers first fled the scene, did anyone notice that no one was using the fire extinguishers next to the stage?
The Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire broke out six years ago. The Control Yuan exacted Draconian punishments. This time, the Control Yuan will find it difficult to absolve the Taichung City Government of responsibility. Twenty one safety inspections were conducted over five years. The building department, labor affairs department, and fire department conducted joint safety inspections. Three times the club passed muster. Was this due to inadequate attention to detail? Were the competent authorities negligent in their duties? No matter what the Control Yuan investigation uncovers, the Taichung City Government's first step must be to correct its errors. It must conduct a thorough inspection of all the city's public facilities. It must check their registrations against their operations, making sure they match. It must thoroughly inspect all facilities for safety, and bring them into compliance. Any business owners found in violation, must be thoroughly investigated and severely punished. Some must even be shut down. After all, human life is paramount. Negligence cannot be permitted.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.08
社論－這一把大火燒出的安檢問題
本報訊
「安檢過關怎麼還會出事？」台中夜店一把無名火，奪走九條人命，讓台中市市長胡志強錯愕，更讓全國民眾驚愕。如果各級政府機關的安檢工作竟然防堵不了公安問題，阻止不了業者為賺取更大利益違規違法，那麼民眾的人身安全誰來保障？
十六年前，台中市發生震驚全國的衛爾康西餐廳大火，奪走六十四條人命，時任市長的林柏榕因此遭到監察院彈劾，並經行政院停職半年處分，這個慘痛的教訓讓台灣公共安全有一個重新檢討的機會。當時的消防法規制度幾乎面臨全面的檢討重建，除了要求公共場所必須使用防火建材，餐飲業必須強制投保公共意外險，同時在體制上也促成警消分立，讓消防工作愈趨專業化。
十六年過去了，台中市又發生奪走九條人命的夜店大火。根據市府資料，這家夜店五年廿一次安檢過關，儘管該店登記的是飲料店，但副市長蕭家旗指稱，市府仍是以最嚴格的標準進行安檢。舉例來說，這次疑為肇禍的天花板隔音泡棉三年前就不合格，該店因而遭到斷水斷電處分，業者更換人頭，改名「哈克」後，再以飲料店申請復業迄今。
從上述情節看來，該店登記與經營項目顯然不一，市府並未嚴查；飲料店仍屬公共場合，隔音泡棉仍然應具防火效果，稽查到底查出了沒有？對業者而言，降低成本就是爭取最大經營利潤的作法；但對主管機關而言，卻應從公共安全的角度，以最嚴格的標準要求業者做好一切防護措施。
眾所周知，台中是全台娛樂場所新興花樣最多的地方，愈是難管愈是要雷厲風行，否則難收管理之實效。三年前，台中市政府即明令在任何公共場所不得進行明火秀，包括婚嫁都不能有類似活動，然而，市府明令禁止，卻無罰則，非但沒有罰則，甚至連稽查能力都無，夜店關起門來做生意，除了上門的客人，沒人知道裡頭大搞猛男焰火秀。
一般民眾或許不知道公共場所不能有明火秀，業者卻不能不知道。這次上場表演的猛男，據稱只是代班人，夜店老闆應該告知不能有明火秀，除了夜店老闆，猛男所屬表演團體的老闆也該告知不能有明火秀，為什麼該名表演者，還是在狹小的空間拋出煙火棒？據該名表演者聲稱，店裡光線太暗，他不知道天花板距離舞台這麼近，顯然他上場前甚至勘查場地最基本的功課都沒做，但不論如何，不能有明火秀是清清楚楚的，業者何敢以身試法？唯一的解釋只有一個：台中市各家夜店中，類似表演顯然不只這一件，沒出事沒被抓包，膽子就愈來愈大！
原本娛樂大眾的創意表演，卻釀成巨災，絕非表演者所願見，但是，任何表演除了創意、新鮮、熱門，還是要負責，對自己與客人的安危負責，如果猛男出場，他所屬的團體還有二、三個隨行者，注意焰火可能引致的風險，或許也不致於釀災致此。然而，相關的周邊防護顯然亦未受到表演團體的注意，遑論重視，誰還敢邀請類似的表演呢？
夜店逸樂，少有人注意安全，更遑論進門前先檢查逃生口有幾個？各在哪裡？喝了酒之後，警覺性降低，甩火變大火，客人還以為是特效，驚覺不對勁之後，甚至有人拿起杯子澆水滅火，恍若未覺自己杯中是酒不是水，導致事態一發不可收拾，但是，能怪客人玩過頭嗎？當猛男率先逃離現場時，誰還注意到舞台邊的滅火器竟無人使用呢？
十六年前的衛爾康大火，監察院痛下彈劾之重手，這一次，監察院勢必很難放過台中市政府的管理監督之責。五年廿一次安檢中，有三次是建管、工務與消防單位的聯合安檢，全部過關，這中間有人謀不臧之處？還是相關單位疏於稽查職守？不論監察院調查結果為何，台中市政府第一步要做的是拴緊螺絲，進行全市公共場所的總體檢，從登記與經營項目是否名副其實、到各種設施是否符合安全規格，徹底清查並改正不符法令規範的店家，凡不合規定者，務必要嚴查重罰，甚至勒令歇業也在所不惜，畢竟人命關天，一點都閃失不得。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)