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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS