Minister of Transportation and Communications Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) offered his resignation to Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) in the aftermath of Friday last week’s fatal Taroko Express No. 408 crash. Su declined, asking him to stay for the time being and deal with the response, as that was the responsible thing to do.
The complex question of responsibility for the tragedy will be answered more fully after investigations and reviews have been completed. It is right that Lin offered to take the fall, and just as right that Su asked him to stay to oversee the response.
While neither are completely off the hook, the conclusion of who bears responsibility will need to be cast far wider than the two, and also include Lee Yi-hsiang (李義祥), the site manager and driver of the crane truck that slipped onto the track and caused the crash, his construction company Yi Cheng Construction Co (義程營造), the Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA), the government, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), the political culture and Taiwan’s general attitude toward safety.
Media reports initially went straight for the low-hanging fruit, casting Lee as the main culprit. However, beyond the question of whether he had neglected to engage the brake or the brake had failed, why he had been onsite on a day the TRA had said construction was to be halted for the Tomb Sweeping Festival four-day break, or what transgressions Lee had been guilty of in the past, there remain more fundamental issues.
Following these lines of inquiry gets no closer to answering the safety concern of how a truck could be parked on an access road with no barrier separating it from the tracks, or how such a large object could obstruct the track with no sensor to warn an approaching train.
Pertinent to these questions is why the TRA had not implemented the recommendations of the report into the previous major rail disaster, the 2018 Puyuma Express derailment in Yilan County.
Where does the responsibility lie for this failure? Is it with the TRA or the government? With Lin, Su or all the way to the top to Tsai? Or is it with the political culture and resistance to the swift implementation of sweeping systemic reforms of the TRA?
Even if we are to place the responsibility at Lee’s feet, it should be with a recognition of “there but for the grace of God go I.”
This tragedy is a chance to reflect on the often casual approach to safety endemic in Taiwanese culture, manifested in the way vehicles are parked on steep slopes in bustling tourist sites or on red lines on street corners outside convenience stores; how heavy construction vehicles operate on roads without adequate barriers keeping pedestrians at bay; how boxes and old furniture are stored in stairwells that serve as emergency exits in residential buildings; or how goods block sidewalks, forcing pedestrians to walk in the road in the face of oncoming traffic.
Most egregious of all, it is in waiting for disaster to strike before asking questions about how simple accidents can be avoided.
Recommendations are already being made: Erecting barriers at construction sites above railway lines; reviews to identify safety blind spots; installing slope detectors at high-risk sections; intrusion detection and disaster warning systems; and requiring trains to slow down at curves.
However, the question remains: Why were these not implemented a long time ago?
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) between the US, India, Australia and Japan has found a new lease of life after China’s militarization of the South China Sea, acquisition and fortification of a new — and China’s first — naval facility in Djibouti, and growing naval activities in the Indian Ocean. With the Chinese navy consolidating its presence in the Indian Ocean and building a base in Djibouti, as well as foraying into the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, major European powers have been unsettled. France and Britain are already busy stepping up their naval presence in the Indo-Pacific region. In February,
Former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo delivered a very short, succinct and accurate speech in regards to the US relationship with Taiwan in November last year. This information has again angered Beijing, which has stated that the existence of a free and independent Taiwan will not be tolerated. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin (汪文斌) has said Pompeo’s language is interfering with the sovereignty of China. Pompeo was stating the facts. Taiwan has never been a part of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), therefore it is not a territory of China. The
Where is the world’s disposition today vis-a-vis the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Is it similar to that in Munich, September 1938 when Europe’s powers appeased Adolf Hitler over the “Sudetenland,” despite existing treaty commitments? In other words, analogous to the failure to recognize the PRC’s aggressive intent and to mobilize in response to serial CCP outrages, e.g., Tiananmen and South China Sea; suppression of Hong Kong in violation of a treaty agreement; the internment and genocide of the Uighurs, and its complicity in the death of nearly 3 million people globally via its Wuhan Coronavirus. Do these “passes” now amount to
The EU on Wednesday cohosted a Global Cooperation and Training Framework workshop with Taiwan and the US. They discussed the restructuring of the global supply chain and joint financing of small and medium-sized enterprises. This was the first time the EU, represented by European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan Director Filip Grzegorzewski, cohosted such an event. Launched in 2015, the framework aims to help bring Taiwan’s expertise to the global stage. Essentially, it was designed to find ways to include Taiwan in global efforts, as it remains excluded from international organizations. With Taiwan’s successful containment of COVID-19 and its vital role