Last month’s high-speed rail crash was a wake-up call for officials. An emphasis on prevention will be far more effective – and much cheaper.
The Wenzhou high-speed train crash last month was a seminal moment for China’s development. Indeed, while too often the doctrine that had been followed was ‘faster is better,’ we’re now likely to increasingly see such thinking set aside in favour of ‘better is faster.’
China’s health and safety body, the State Administration of Work Safety (SAWS), has rightly been given the responsibility for undertaking a complete assessment of the high-speed rail system. From an international viewpoint, this is part of a more appropriate government response than what was seen in the first few days after the crash from the Railway Ministry. Given SAWS’ experience with other high-risk industries, their investigation can be expected to be thorough. But the complexity of the new High Speed Train (HST) system is such that a medium-term risk assessment will be necessary.
The SAWS approach will begin with the analysis made by its former minister, Li Yizhong, a few years ago. He calculated that China was in the middle of its ‘accident prone’ period, similar to that passed through in turn by Britain, Germany, the United States and Japan. The period for each country was shorter than for the country before, prompting Li to ask how short China could make its accident prone period.
Certainly, China has shown the world that it can deal effectively with natural calamities such as the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, and major industrial accidents like the Wangjialing mine flooding last year. The country has extremely well-organized rescue services and a ‘save the day’ leadership mindset that goes to great lengths to recover as many as possible. Excellent as this may be, though, risk assessment and prevention strategies are still weak, especially in high-risk industries.
The State Council itself recognized this when in July last year it published a set of detailed instructions for such industries. These required all plants and mines in these industries to carry out monthly risk assessments, not just risk assessments for new projects, as well as other critical work. It’s clear now that the railways should be included.
Modern risk assessment such as that practised in the EU and Australia involves the entire workforce, something that China is now developing at the level of whole industries, including the coal industry, where 100,000 worker safety inspectors have been appointed. The question now is how best to ensure that their roles are properly defined and that they are given the training that they require.
In China’s notoriously accident prone coal industry, safety policies have already had an impact, with official fatal accident rates coming down from a very high 6,995 in 2002, to below a projected 2,400 this year. This is despite a threefold increase in coal output, meaning that the death rate has plunged by about 80 percent. There’s still a long way to go for the industry as a whole, but some modern mines are now as good as their international counterparts.
The cost of prevention of accidents is anyway much cheaper than the final cost of a disaster. For example, in Australia one mining fatality can cost a coal company between A$3 million to $10 million (US$3.3 million to 11 million), made up from a compensation claim of $750,000, a fine of $300,000 to $1,300,000, in addition to lost production. In New Zealand, the Pike River mine explosion last November, which killed 29 miners, has already cost $11 million in recovery attempts, will cost over $8 million for the public inquiry, tens of millions to support the families of the victims and will cost more than $100 million to recover the mine, if that’s even possible.
China doesn’t yet have a unified compensation and rehabilitation system, with much left to local government. Provincial governments have begun to act, as did Shanxi over coal mine fatalities in 2005 when it raised compensation for families to 200,000 yuan ($31,020).
In many developed countries, compensation is largely determined by the courts, as victims and their families sue the responsible operator. This can lead to massive pay out, as is often the case in the United States.
But a better approach is to adopt a no-fault system, as has been tried here in New Zealand since 1974. All accident victims receive loss of income payments and a lump sum goes to the families if someone is killed – at work, on the roads or on a mountain. Some might think that such a scheme would be too expensive for China, yet in New Zealand it has been shown to be both cheaper and fairer than the litigation system it replaced.
Wenzhou was a terrible tragedy, but there are many things that can also be learned that will allow China to move forward. There’s no reason why the HST system can’t achieve a high level of safety as well as efficient convenience – the country will just need to take its time.
David Feickert is a coal mine safety adviser and China Friendship Prize winner in 2009 for his work on coal mine safety.
Photo Credit: Flickr / Mechelen
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Observer
@ Passerby said “…the usual low life rants…”.
You must be talking about certain Chinese bloggers that kept calling China’s neighbors as “dogs” and how China would invade and dominate smaller nations very easily – nevermind that for the last few thousands years, China tried and tried countless times and suffered humiliation defeats after humiliation defeats.
Yes indeed, Chinese bloggers show the whole world of what kind of people that they really are.
Observer
Beside of what Jason already said, I want to suggest that you check out Xinhua and People Daily. Those two publications maybe better suit to your taste and intellectual prowess.
Passerby
@Observer a.k.a. a_Canadian_observer
By saying what you just said, you have indeed proved to me at least (and in your own words) “your taste and intellectual prowess”.
My original comments are about urging people to rise up to Mr. Feickert’s standards and I have no desire to engage with you intellectually, not until you can show some intellect.
a_canadian_observer
@Passerby: I’m not Observer. And by the way. I agree with what Observer said. I have to admit, what he’s said was a little hard for you to swallow,though.
Passerby
@a_canadian_observer aka Observer
Try a little harder because I’m not that easy to be provoked. Mr. Feickert’s attitude is the gold standard here.
a_canadian_observer
@Passerby: If your thick head can’t accept the fact that Observer is not me, then that’s not my problem. Typical symptom of people who have been brainwashed for a long time. BTW, I stand by my previous comment.
Sinodefender
@a_Canadian_observer why do you bother insulting others you should develop a nicer tone… btw Chinese are not brainwashed…
a_canadian_observer
@Sinodefender: Let’s make a deal. I will change my tone if you, Frank and John Chan change your/their tones for better and to not consider you chinese as “better” human beings than others.
Passerby
@a_canadian_observer aka Observer
“…Typical symptom of people who have been brainwashed for a long time. BTW, I stand by my previous comment…”
My responses have always been pointed but not insulting; because insulting others do more damage to the psyche of the person hurling the insults than the insulted.
As the saying goes: when you resort to attacking the ‘messenger’ instead of the ‘message’, you have lost the debate.
a_canadian_observer
@Passerby a.k.a. Sinodefender a.k.a. Frank: If your house is made of glass, don’t throw stone at others’. If you don’t want to be insulted, don’t insult others.
Observer
@ Passerby who said “Observer a.k.a. a_Canadian_observer”.
Just for that statement, you show the whole world about your intellectual prowess. You have nothing but groundless accusation. Now you know why I and Jason recommended to you other publications that are more suitable to you. Oh no, Jason and I must be the same person, LOL.
Good luck, you are going to need it, lot of it for your future endeavor.
John Chan
@Observer:
It is not worthy of you smearing Chinese bloggers with fabricated facts. Chinese bloggers support China’s non-interference policy that treating all nations large and small as equal and with respect.
Chinese bloggers only point out that some of the nations are acting disgracefully and are serving as a lackey to the world biggest and most brutal bully, it is not right and a betrayal of the integrity of the people of that nation.
Observer
@ John Chan – who said “with fabricated facts.” You must be talking about how China made up fabricated facts about the East Sea, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjang, right?
“China’s non-interference policy that treating all nations large and small as equal and with respect.” Is that the same China that captured, beat up, stole fishes from poor and unarmed fishermen from smaller neighbors and then demanded ransom money like low class pirates?
“are acting disgracefully and are serving as a lackey to the world biggest and most brutal bully, it is not right and a betrayal of the integrity of the people of that nation.” Bully you said? How about China bullied its own citizens? Google “Falun Gong” or “Tiananmen Square massacre” would you? Oh, you can’t, you are not allowed to do so.
Passerby
@Yang Zi et al
I don’t have a problem when others are critical about China or other countries.
But I do have a problem with criticisms that are rooted in a political ideology that is anti-China, that sees the Chinese regime as inherently evil, that China and Chinese must be put in their place. I am equally against it if you replace the word China or Chinese with any other country or nation.
But how do you distinguish between an honest criticism and a political slander? You detect that by examining the TONE of the writing and the substance of the analysis (if there’s any, LOL) and whether it’s offensive or defensive or fact based. In other words, is it a rant? a slander? or an honest and constructive criticism?
yang zi
As long as it doesn’t get out hand, it is harmless, just like trashing talking among sports fans. Of course we are talking about potential opinion makers, it is more serious and need to be corrected. This is why China needs to have a credible strategic force to calm the rivalry down between US and China.
Some kind of competition is inevitable between US and China. If managed well, it is good for both countries. Good teams getting good by competing. A world without competition is boring and stale. China should treasure a competitor like US, it is a partner in excellence. US should view the same.
That been said, it is the fact that China is not yet developed. Its economic, military, society and political systems still need much improvement. Individualism is stifled for thousands of years. But the good news is, China is on the verge of the sea change in society and culture. Once it happens (20 years?), China will be in a league of its own.
All the talk about China’s coming collapse is false. It might face turmoil but it will be brief and controlled. That’s the future I am looking at.
The current accidents in China are symptoms of a nation’s quick industrial rise. U.S. experienced the same thing early 1900s (including “stealing” intellectual property, poisonous food, etc.). It will all pass with time.
yang zi
Are westerners more selfish? some don’t think so, but I think it may be true. it is a complicated issue, following are some brief points:
1. selfishness is not all bad, it is the driving force for the capitalism. communist idealogy is to deny that human are selfish creatures
2. individualism is part of selfishness. western culture nutures it, Chinese culture promotes collectivism, but is warming to the idea of individualism
3. western cultures regulate negative effects of selfishness by check and balances, Sunday churches and openness. Chinese cultural is learning to ride the selfish tiger, eventually need to do something similar.
so westerners are more selfish than Chinese. it is not because they are worse human beings, it is because they nurtured it, managed it and better at it.
a_canadian_observer
@yangzi: If you want to debate whether Westerners are more selfish than chinese or not, you need to do some research first. For example, look at Bill Gates’ charity organization, which intends to help people ALL over the world, and compare that to any chinese organization (if there is indeed one!). Another one is “Doctors without Borders”. I challenge you to come up with a chinese organization that has shown a little charity work around the blobe.
a_canadian_observer
Sorry, typo in the last sentence. Should read “around the globe.”
Sinodefender
Charities are started by people who have an excessive amount of money or out of goodwill most likely the former. Just Google it there are plenty of Chinese charities around the globe…
a_canadian_observer
@Sinodefender: Give me some names of legitimate charities from china, the 2nd economy in the world, that you claimed.
yang zi
I want make one thing clear, a lot of westerners are right on the money when they criticize China. so no matter who criticized it, it is always good to think and listen to the criticism. so we need learn to not over protecting our “face”
Passerby
This is the FIRST EVER article on the Diplomat that is not hell-bent on anti-China but is fact based; and it actually offers some excellent criticisms TOGETHER with constructive suggestions for China.
I commend Mr. Feickert’s efforts in trying to make this world a better place; this is not just about what he writes about China in this article, it’s about his positive and constructive attitude towards others even as he criticizes.
I challenge those of you who have been hell-bent on anti-China for whatever reason(s) to rise up to the standards of Mr. Feickert’s as evidenced in this piece; instead of the usual low life rants from the anti-China crowds that very sadly have become all too common on the Internet.
Jason
The Diplomat is a Western publication with a mostly Western viewpoint. It is not anti-China, rather it is simply reflecting the real geopolitical tension that exists between a rising China and the West. Even so, I have always found articles here to provide critical insight that most Western publications sorely lack. Kudos to you, The Diplomat.
#Passerby: Might I suggest a publication more to your liking… the Global Times.
That being said, this is a very interesting article. As someone who has a keen interest in both mine safety and Chinese law, I too applaud Mr. Feickert for this well reasoned and informative article.
Passerby
@Jason
“…#Passerby: Might I suggest a publication more to your liking… the Global Times…”
I’ve got two things to say to you: (a) I know what you’re trying to say and I think your response is of very poor taste, and (b) I judge the Global Times article-by-article the same way I judge the Diplomat’s articles.
John Chan
I totally agree with Passerby’s comment.
yang zi
@Passerby, It is unrealistic to expect a publication such as the diplomat to be fair and balanced about China. “westerners” have their own interests and they will in most cases biased against China. Just like Global Times will be for China.
I think the reason many people protest western media is that Westerners always portray themselves as moral and just. thus we expect they are just and fair.
Westerners are ordinary people and they are selfish like most of people, may be even worse. so don’t waste your ink to protest.
western world has a oversupply of cold war strategist bigots. this is a bubble that takes time to burst. the world is going to a new direction and China need to be the leader of this new world, not fall to the victims of the worst human instincts
so look over them, see the bright future.
Reason
Ultimately you can put in any safety system you like but the fundamental flaw will always be that the further up the food chain you go the less these people are held responsible.
for sure, the CCP lops off a few heads occasionally and denounces the officials as being singularly corrupt but in reality everyone knows that it is the system that is inherently corrupt and there are plenty of officials waiting to step into a fallen officials shoes to enjoy his time at the trough.
Investigations into any disaster can only go so far until it comes knocking at the door of some one who still has the power base to shut it down. Then it stops. When a high up official falls, this isn’t indicative of how well the inquiry went but of his fallen power base. for example the crumbling of Jiang Zemin’s Shanghai Clique.
In an Imperial, dynastic style system like China’s, where people are constantly jostling for power without being checked by the general public these types of problems will just go on repeating themselves again and again… China has a so-called 5000 year heritage of doing this – why are they going to stop now?
Before you accuse me of being anti-Chinese, of course, western governments have corrupt people too, but they only have limited time at the trough and need to be much more careful because their situations aren’t secure and the general public has checks and balances that can try and stop this.
I reality, If I had solid proof that Obama was engaging in some kind of fraud I could nail his ass…. and I’m no one.
But in China, if an inquiry gets too close to the inner circle it gets shut down…. so it is always business as usual for those at the top and nothing really changes other than rolling a few person-non-grata heads to save face for the elites
John Chan
@Reason:
What a sensible thing you have said, but I think you have let the name CCP mislead your better judgement. The same systematic flaw exits in both USA/western world and China but in different presentation, the 2008 global financial meltdown is USA/westerns world’s way of system breakdown, corrections can only go so high up, you will be shut down ruthlessly if you try. Go and read the book “All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis” by Bethany McLean, then you would agree with me there is no difference between USA/western world and China in terms of system flaw.
Both Obama and Hu Jin Tao are clean in terms of individuals. In China at least some heads were rolled, but in USA/western world not only no head rolled, the culprits were rewarded with massive bailouts which are still on going, and caused the world financial and economic instability right now.
China is still developing, its future is unknown; but USA/western world forecasted China’s ugly outcome based on their cold war and imperialist prejudice, then doing their utmost best to nip China in the bud with all kind of smearing, slandering and other underhand means is really immoral and despicable.
yang zi
@Reason, I always enjoyed your comments and your familiarity with Chinese affairs are scary.
However, on the philosophical fundamentals, you and most people got it wrong. through out history, government always controlled by a small elite group, it is never by the common people, not before, not now, not in the future. not in the east, not in the U.S.
you may think you elected a president, but he often has go against your interests to be effective or risk been paralyzed. it is a nice thing to say every man has a say in the government affairs, but it is not how it works and nor should it.
The autocratic Chinese system is not all evil. the most creative political invention of current CCP is the system of generation change and age limits. I don’t want to go into details about this system. This system is now increasingly
democratic and civilized. power struggle no longer results in death or jail time (unless you are corrupt, which you deserve it), leaders are selected based on internal polls (this polling process includes wider groups).
US election process and open debate is often destructive. two examples are 2008 TARP debate and 2011 deficit ceiling debate. CCP may like to cover things up, but sometimes it is necessary.
I am not saying CCP system is better, or even good, I am just saying one need to see these things to understand why Chinese system is working and still going amid global “springs”.
Shen Liang
“Westerners are ordinary people and they are selfish like most of people, may be even worse. so don’t waste your ink to protest.”
I read comments like this on Mop all of the time. You do know what you are saying here, right? It seems many of my countrymen have the ability to look to the left and speak their words out of the right side of their mouth. We’re all the same–except maybe the Western people are a little worse.
With minds like this, for sure China will not be leader of any new world.
John Chan
@Shen Liang:
Yes, some of the Chinese bloggers are over protective of China, but under the recklessly aggressive and predatory anti-China clique’s onslaught of smearing and slander of China, I feel their over protective approach is understandable.
Besides, Chinese need to put the westerns in proper prospective, Chinese need to build up their confidence, so they can decide their own fate and walk their own path regardless right or wrong. China does not need to be told “it is good for you” like in the last two hundred years. If China ever submits to westerner’s snake oil preach China will be sold down the drain in no time and in no uncertain term.
Go and see those pro democracy guys in HK, they definitely will agree with you, westerns are their God, to them everything has to be approved by the westerners, they are even missing their British lords.
On the contrary, people follows others and always seek approval of others will never be a leader. Leaders always need outstanding views, characters, etc. that are different from others.
yang zi
@Shen Liang, I do think it is may be worse because China at least promotes collectivism culturally. China may get more selfish down the road as individualism taking hold.
that’s philosophical. The evidence is clear when western nations force China and India to limit emissions, when westerners emits far more per capita. It basically says, I can emit much more than you do. This is shameless on the highest order. If it were China, at least it will keep quiet.