Huapan Co, the labor brokerage firm responsible for last August's riot among foreign workers on the Kaohsiung rapid transit construction project, recently filed a civil lawsuit against 14 Thais who participated in the riot, asking for NT$20 million (US$613,220) in compensation.
The Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) said that in doing so, the company was confusing cause and effect. However, Huapan was able to exploit the laborers and treat them like slaves because the CLA prohibits foreign workers from switching to new employers.
Foreign workers who have entered Taiwan legally sometimes run away from their jobs because of slave-like working conditions. A few days ago, the CLA decided to severely punish employers that hire runaway foreign workers. But this reaction also confuses cause and effect, for it aims only to protect the interests of brokers and employers but does not solve problems with its foreign labor policy. It does not boost the protection of the human rights of foreign laborers. Now, workers who run away are instead likely to experience even more infringements on their human rights.
Since the implementation of the policy regulating the employment of foreign workers more than 10 years ago, more than a million foreigners have come to Taiwan to work. Although official statistics suggest that the whereabouts of about 80,000 are unknown -- making them targets for police investigations -- most have actually left the island, and the number of workers who have stayed on to work illegally is less than 20,000.
Compared with the number of foreign workers overstaying in other nations that have guest worker programs, Taiwan has managed foreign workers efficiently, stopping most of them from overstaying.
This effective management includes a high reliance on brokerages, threats to workers that they "will be caught" and sent out of the country, prohibitions on them seeking other employment and preventing them from organizing labor unions, and other policies in violation of labor rights. The policy to punish employers hiring runaway workers is simply another anachronistic policy.
If tightening controls on foreign workers had proven effective, then the number of runaway workers should have declined. But over the years, the number of runaway foreign workers has not dropped despite increasingly strict policies. Why?
The government usually stops importing workers from countries whose nationals frequently run away from their jobs. These nations typically provide domestic helpers and caretakers. In other words, workers run away most frequently from those jobs that provide the least protection of their rights -- many have to work extremely long hours or are given work loads that are too heavy. Measures such as freezing the import of these workers or issuing heavy fines do not attack the source of the problem and will never resolve structural problems.
That the number of runaway workers has increased over the years indicates that changes have taken place. Why do these workers still want to leave their contracted employers even though they run the risk of being deported?
The main catalyst is the government policy prohibiting foreign workers from changing employers. This policy deprives workers of three basic labor rights: the right to organize labor unions, the right to collective negotiations and the right to dispute resolution.
When workers find themselves in unbearable circumstances without the possibility of organizing a labor union, the radical solution is the kind of riot that occurred in Kaohsiung last August. However, the most frequent solution is to leave the employer. Once they become illegal workers in Taiwan, it is easier to seek a new employer, because they are now in a better position to bargain, and improve their working conditions.
However, if the government takes a forceful approach in clamping down on this situation, it reduces the runaway workers' room to negotiate on the black market. They have no chance of improving their situation, and in several cases foreign workers have been injured or even killed while attempting to hide from the police.
Although labor rights groups have been asking the government to allow foreign workers to switch employers for many years, the government is still reluctant to relax restrictions. The reason for this is that the interests of labor brokerage firms are closely tied to government policy. As long as the current system remains in place, brokers and employers will continue to cooperate and deport non-compliant workers, while making a profit on the next group of foreign workers. Employers stand to lose nothing and can even earn a kick-back.
The US State Department recently released its annual report on the global humans rights situation, pointing out that the living conditions of foreign workers in Taiwan are abominable. Other countries and non-governmental organizations find it unbelievable that the Taiwanese government prohibits foreign workers from seeking new employment.
If we invoke the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, the situation in Taiwan amounts to human trafficking. The government's prohibition on foreign workers seeking new employment allows employers to force them to work unwillingly and repay debts through their labor.
As a result of this situation, we can expect a repeat of the Kaohsiung riot. The strict policy adopted by the CLA will only further tarnish Taiwan's bad reputation when it comes to labor rights, and it will not improve protection of laborers' human rights in the slightest.
Wang Hong-zen is director of the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at National Chi Nan University, Tseng Yen-fen is director of the department of sociology at National Taiwan University and Lan Pei-chia is an assistant professor in the department of sociology at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry