After the Taiwan Railway Workers Union Mid-Autumn Festival strike and the union's subsequent decision to have another strike on Lunar New Year's Day, employees of other state-run enterprises, including Chinese Petroleum Corp, Taiwan Power Co, Chunghwa Telecom Co and Taiwan Sugar Corp (Taisugar), also began to band together, declaring their intention to hold follow-up protests in the forms of strikes and rallies in the month of October. Chunghwa Telecom Workers' Union chairman Chang Hsu-chung (張緒中) said that more than 5,000 workers will first be mobilized on Sept. 23 to join forces with the National Teachers' Union to encircle the Legislative Yuan and that the workers' unions of other state-run enterprises will mobilize people to support them as well. Chang went on to say that the move will be merely a "warm up" for labor actions to come. If the government does not respond to the requests of the unions, there will be more large-scale strikes in November, December and right before the presidential election in March of next year, Chang said.
In response to the statements recently made by Chang as well as the chairman of the Taiwan Railway Workers' Union Chen Han-ching (陳漢卿), we must solemnly point out that all the problems derived from these labor unions' plots to strike together have gone beyond the control of these union officials.
Any mishandling of the situation may escalate the whole thing into a "class struggle" economically, politically and socially. The result will be much more than mere polarization and conflict between the government and the unions. Rather, all of Taiwan society may fall into lawlessness and chaos. How can something like this be in the interest of everyone?
This begs the question why are the labor unions of state-run enterprises repeatedly seizing opportunities to encourage their members to escalate polarization between themselves and the government in the past few weeks? A glimpse of the answer can be seen from the fact that some politicians played a role in the Taiwan Railway Workers Union strike. They in fact do not even bother to cover up traces of their involvement.
Surely, no one could in all honesty believe that these moves are not related to the upcoming presidential election. In other words, while the grievences of these labor unions probably deserve the ears of the government and serve as a legitimate starting-point for reform, if anyone is seeking to campaign for any specific candidate under the pretense of opposing "privatization" of state-run enterprises and endorsing the right to strike, then we have a problem on our hands.
Therefore, we believe the union officials of the previously-mentioned state-run enterprises who claimed that there will be more joint actions are obliged to explain to the people of this country what is to be accomplished by the strikes and protests?
Frankly, if the demands of the unions are made in a rational manner, then the government has the responsibility to negotiate with union leaders. While the unions should not threaten to go on strike or hold a protest rally any time the government does not roll over, the government should not view all the activities of the union with prejudice. What the government should do is have all the relevant ministries form a cross-ministry task force to carefully examine the demands of the unions and to pragmatically resolve the problems associated with the state-run enterprises.
The government must also unambiguously list its reason for privatizing state-run enterprises, the profits and losses of the state-run enterprises and the upsides and downsides of privatization in terms of competitiveness and market presence. As for how privatization may impact the rights of the employees, the need to release stock for public trading, the success the government has had with privatization efforts thus far, and how to allow employees to participate in company management after privatization. These are all things that must be communicated and explained.
On the one hand, we feel the need to remind the heads of labor unions of state-run enterprises not to overlook the importance of social justice and not just to see things in terms of vested interests. If privatization of state-run enterprises can improve competitiveness, promote the vitality of business enterprises and increase earnings and returns, why oppose it? Do they really think it is right for the government to turn a blind eye to the current manner of management when it brings nothing but financial loss? If so, they are clearly rejecting privatization for their own vested interests and sucking dry the state treasury with their unjustifiably high salaries.
Their opposition to the return of assets of state-run enterprises to the state treasury is even more preposterous. State-run enterprises are themselves assets of the country and every citizen of this country. Returning such assets to the state treasury is entirely reasonable. What right do the employees of state-run enterprises have to monopolize these assets?
On the other hand, the large number of employees of state-run enterprises, around 150,000, makes them a sector of the population that should not be overlooked, and they should not separate themselves from society at large and ask for preferential treatment, forming a special aristocratic social or working class as a result. The truth of the matter is that, in comparison with the remaining 9 million or so workers in Taiwan, these people enjoy significantly better working environment and pay. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Both the government and the labor unions should be honest about this fact.
Let the facts and figures speak for themselves and let the employees of state-run enterprises and their family members know the truth. Otherwise, they may be manipulated by people with ulterior motives.
Finally, we want to once again call on the pan-blue camp's party officials and lawmakers not to aggravate the protests of employees of state-run enterprises against the government. Otherwise, they would be seeking political interests through unethical tactics which may result in anti-government and anti-business hatred by the entire working class. Instead, they should face the whole situation with a solemn attitude.
Even if they are unwilling to help the government, there is no need to take pot shots and make merry. After all, the troubles with the privatization of state-run enterprises were leftovers from the KMT era. If the pan-blue alliance wins the presidential election, these problems will become the cause of many a pan-blue headache just as they are now for the pan-green camp. Government machinery is a continuous process. No one party can stay aloof from the troubles while out of office, because they may stand to inherit them sooner or later.
This is not to mention that after President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) inauguration, he was very determined to reform the state-run enterprises and a majority of these enterprises have as a result enjoyed remarkable improvement in performance. For example, the privatization of Taiwan Motor Transport Co is a success story, although, at the beginning, the protests its employees launched were no less bold than those of the Taiwan Railway Workers Union.
However, in the end, it was proven that the decision to privatize Taiwan Motor Transport Co was right. With employees participating in the management of the company, the company grossed more than NT$100 million each year. Other state-run enterprises, such as Taisugar, Chunghwa Telecom, Tang Eng Iron Works Corp and China Shipbuilding Corp and China Steel Corp, have experienced the energy of renewal after restructuring. These are examples that deserve to be publicized by the government. Both the opposition and union leaders should not overlook this.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath