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?
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations