Just when the bottom of the barrel of cheap political cynicism seemed thoroughly scoured by the opposition parties, they found a new low. Take the current controversy over the length of the workweek. To curry favor with workers, the opposition amended the Executive Yuan's original 44-hour workweek plan and made it 42 hours. But KMT chairman Lien Chan
So now the Executive Yuan is to return to its initial policy. It is doing so to please the KMT; yet it is the KMT which is responsible for what it now desires not being implemented in the first place. While Council of Labor Affairs chairperson Chen Chu
Taiwan's industrial base is changing as traditional industries die out and the high-tech sector becomes its core. Because the traditional industries have to rely on labor to expand production value, shrinking work hours will cost them their competitive edge. The high-tech industries, however, do not need to rely on labor because they can increase productivity through technological and management readjustments.
The problem is that almost all of Taiwan's industrial leaders come from the traditional sectors. And these same industrialists have also long been a driving force in the KMT. Their lobbying has turned the idea that "labor equals productivity" into a government mantra. As a result, the possibility that shorter work hours could stimulate industrial productivity, phase out uncompetitive industries, speed up the development of entertainment and recreation industries and boost consumption has been ignored.
Workers will, of course, vilify the government for retracting the shorter workweek, blame the opposition though it might. More importantly, for the Executive Yuan to propose an amendment without coordinating with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Council of Labor Affairs is hardly a role model for decision-making.
Meanwhile, the opposition parties are demanding that Chen admit that his campaign promise to implement a 40-hour workweek by 2002 was a mistake and apologize for it. Rubbish! Chen wasn't the only one floating such an election balloon -- both Lien and James Soong
Criticism of Chen's lack of a complete policy package, however, is worth noting. If Chen does not want to forgo his 40-hours-by-2002 promise, he should reiterate it and work to prepare Taiwan's society for the coming change. If he thinks the promise cannot be realized, then he should tell the industry leaders just that.
Shorter work hours are a global trend and do not have a direct correlation with productivity. The US is the world's most productive economy and has had a 40-hour week for 60 years. Politics has muddied the issue. But the government needs to come up with a whole new package of short, medium and long-term policies for both labor and industry. It can no longer shirk this responsibility.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with