In response to the recent discussion regarding work permit laws: One important issue for many foreigners in Taiwan that has yet to be mentioned is "the work rights of foreign spouses."
According to Article 48 of the Employment Services Act (ESA;
At the same time it must be pointed out that the Council of Labor Affairs is the central government agency in charge of work permit matters, and in overseeing the implementation of the ESA.
The original intent of this "foreign spouse" legislation, according to the comments of legislators and council officials in the original June 2000 public hearing at the Legislative Yuan, was to give foreign spouses work rights which are equivalent to those enjoyed by Taiwanese citizens. The foreign spouse advocacy groups in Taiwan had been pushing for this for several years, since, [according to their logic] "We are making money in order to support a Taiwanese spouse, so why should we be limited in the type of work we can do, or specific terms of employment, or any other restrictions?"
The Legislative Yuan mem-bers finally agreed to this reasoning. Unfortunately, at present, a large number of city and county government agencies do not respect the terms of ESA Article 48 in practice.
A good example is in the situation of private teaching academies [language institutes], kindergartens, toddler schools, or even various types of small companies or shops. Again, according to the ESA, if it is legal for a Taiwanese person to be hired and work there, then according to ESA Article 48, a foreign spouse [with a resident visa based on marriage to a Taiwanese citizen] may also be employed there, and they do not need a work permit. At the same time, the "foreign spouse" may also have multiple jobs, whether full or part-time.
I have consistently heard stories over the past few years of local city and county government agencies requiring foreign spouses to obtain work permits in order to work in education or other fields, and have also heard that labor insurance could not be applied for or other government paperwork could not be processed if a work permit was not received.
City and county government officers have also stated that certain categories of work are "off limits" to foreign spouses. Naturally, the majority of local employers are not eager to argue with city and county government agencies, and so this state of affairs continues to exist.
To my knowledge, in the last few years there have been many foreign spouses who have left Taiwan with their families precisely because of this reason, ie, they were unable to obtain "unrestricted work rights" from local city and county government agencies, and hence had a hard time making enough money to support their families.
However, as stated above, the council is the central government agency in charge of work permit matters. If the ESA says that "foreign spouses" do not need a work permit, then they don't need a work permit, and local government agencies have no authority to say otherwise.
If possible, I would hope that the Taipei Times could clarify this matter for the benefit of its readers.
I would also hope that the council would issue the appropriate instructions to all local government agencies to educate them on the content of ESA Article 48.
Name provided
Taipei
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at