This question seems to be assuming that buildings are earthquake-safe in Japan. That’s a highly disputable supposition.

The Kobe earthquake of 1995 did terrible damage and killed over 6400 people. Building codes were revised and improved again following that quake.

The 3/11 quake in Japan had over 18,000 dead or missing MOSTLY due to the tsunami which was larger than almost anyone expected. But there were “127,290 buildings totally collapsed, with a further 272,788 buildings "half collapsed", and another 747,989 buildings partially damaged.”

Powerful tho the 3/11 quake was, it was not directly underneathSafe Elevators Suppliers the most populated areas of Japan. It remains to be seen what will happen when Tokyo or other large city in Japan gets it’s own “Big One.”

And what is “earthquake-safe”? Does that mean that everyone gets out of a thoroughly wrecked building alive? That’s good, but what happens to the local economy (or the national economy) when a city full of unusable buildings must be replaced? All those survivors have no place to work and/or live. The 3/11 Japan quake's “estimated economicChina Machine Room Less Passenger Elevator Company cost was US$235 billion, making it the costliest natural disaster in world history.”

In my book the only “earthquake-safe” buildings are “earthquake-proof” buildings which can be used with minor clean-up and without structural repair after the Maximum Credible Earthquake. Such buildings will only become a reality by creating strict building codes. I hope Taiwan has such codes in place. I know the US does not.