The Mid-Autumn Festival holiday was a period of sorrow and mourning for Taiwan's labor movement as Tseng Mao-hsing (
Taiwan's labor movement was born in the era of street demonstrations that followed the lifting of martial law and based on the concept of legal resistance. On one hand, laborers were seeking rights for holidays and overtime pay that had long been stipulated in the Labor Standards Act (勞基法). On the other hand, the grassroots labor unions freed themselves from the party-state and began to organize class mobilization. At that time, a series of strikes raised worker awareness. The newly born labor movement was awe-inspiring as no one knew what workers really wanted and where they were going to lead Taiwan after 40 years of oppression.
In the 1990s, the labor movement gradually became part of the system and fewer radical strikes occurred. "Push" and "pull" factors both influenced this transition of the labor movement. Labor activists were pushed into taking a milder approach after the state apparatus eliminated the radical labor movement, which led to the failures of strikes launched by the Miaoli Bus Co and the Far Eastern Chemical Fiber Plant. Then a series of government attempts to amend legislation and restrict labor rights pulled the labor movement's focus to the legislative agenda.
To a certain extent the labor movement was effective within the system. Within a dozen years, it successfully pressured the government to extend the Labor Standards Act to include the service industry and limited the labor insurance burden on workers to a reasonable proportion. The movement also saw the legalization of trade union confederations, the implementation of democracy in state-run businesses and the passage of the Gender Equality in Employment Act (
However, the established labor movement was also a tamed labor movement. It mobilized fewer members at the grassroots level and their participation served more as a bargaining chip in government talks. The movement adopted strategies that brought political influence.
While its influence has grown, the movement has also become distanced from the majority of workers. With more channels in the system, union officials have gained more career opportunities. They serve as directors and representatives of various groups, members of local labor autonomous councils, members of committees and as legislators-at-large nominated by political parties. It is not hard to see how labor union officials have become distanced from the grassroots level.
More importantly, the established labor movement only lays special emphasis on the rights of state-run business employees and neglects non-government employes, the unemployed, foreign laborers and other groups that are even more disadvantaged.
One conspicuous phenomenon is that more and more of the middle-aged unemployed no longer have anyone speaking for them. They are not protected by labor unions and the labor movement doesn't care too much about their situation. As other labor movement officials began to enter the corridors of government, Tseng was the only one left guarding the radition of street demonstration and preserving traditional grassroots resistance.
Restoring the spirit of the 1980s grassroots resistance will be a challenge that labor movement leaders accustomed to operating within the system must deal with.
Ho Ming-sho is an assistant professor of sociology at Nanhua University.
Translated by Ted Yang
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase