There is no doubt that two economic measures approved last week by the Cabinet and the legislature respectively were driven by politics rather than hard numbers. It's not surprising for politicians to take such steps in an election year, but you have to wonder about the long-term effects of their decisions.
On Wednesday, the Cabinet announced it would raise the nation's minimum wage for the first time in almost 10 years effective next month, with the minimum monthly wage increasing 9.09 percent to NT$17,280 (US$524) and the minimum hourly wage rising 44 percent to NT$95.
To help small and mid-sized businesses cope with higher wage requirements, the Cabinet agreed to offer counterbalancing measures and provide subsidies to those in need, mainly in the service industries.
But subsidies, such as a provision of NT$10 per hour per employee for part-time workers, will not be on offer forever. Affected firms might obtain short-term relief, but they will still be subject to the market dynamic that determines their long-term competitiveness.
After all, the wage hike is an extra cost imposed on companies and workers may very well be fired if their employers struggle to stay afloat.
Yet, to argue that subsidies -- coming as they do from state coffers -- equate to using taxpayers' money to pay off businesses that might otherwise be upset by the increase misses the point entirely.
The problem with the wage hike has nothing to do with subsidies, but with whether the increase will provide an incentive for low-wage earners to improve their job skills.
With elections approaching, it is undeniable that raising minimum wages is a politically popular move, while raising taxes is not. But this measure will only be of use if it helps low-wage earners move above the poverty line. Otherwise, it might simply put people out of work.
Just as the Cabinet hailed its success on the minimum wage hike, lawmakers flexed their muscles on Friday by pushing through the consumer debt clearance regulations (
The bill represents new legislation that would extend bankruptcy protection to individuals. In particular, credit and cash cardholders deemed incapable of paying back unsecured debts of less than NT$12 million (US$364,000) would be entitled to apply for bankruptcy.
While the final draft of the bill has modified or even removed several controversial clauses to greatly mitigate any negative impact it would otherwise have had on banks and the real estate sector, two key problems remain.
The first is that although the bill includes a nine-month sunrise clause, which means many of its provisions would only go into effect nine months after its passage, this is hardly enough time for the government and the courts to prepare to handle a likely deluge of personal bankruptcy cases.
Not surprisingly, there is a lack of judges with expertise in personal bankruptcy. At the same time, our courts are already well-occupied with a large number of other cases.
Secondly, while the bill allows debtors to apply for bankruptcy only after failing to negotiate a repayment and rehabilitation plan with creditor banks and mandates certain limitations on the lifestyles of the bankrupt, it could still be seen as an all-too-tempting get-out-of-jail card for debtors.
If the government and consumer rights advocacy groups do not act to educate cardholders on how to spend wisely and responsibly, then what is to stop all and sundry from tucking into a free lunch?
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS