For labor groups that have lobbied for years for substantial legislation protecting the right to strike, ostensible progress in the past weeks was little more than pretense. Two developments that had the potential to remedy glaring deficiencies in the law instead failed to address key concerns.
An amendment passed on Friday to the Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes Act (勞資爭議處理法) and a Cabinet proposal to amend the Labor Union Act (工會法) are both saddled with restrictions that render them farcical, leaving activists wondering if their concerns have been heard at all.
After eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rule marked by friction between the Cabinet and the legislature and the party’s disappointing performance on labor rights, examples of cooperation between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have been cause for hope.
If the Cabinet throws its weight behind progressive legislation, long-delayed changes could finally stand a chance. Rights groups applauded when the legislature in March ratified two UN covenants that, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, constitute the base for international human rights law. The covenants — along with Ma’s promise to make Taiwanese law compliant — will provide rights campaigners with a foothold for their demands.
But where labor law is concerned, the government has shown no indication that it will press for substantive changes.
Friday’s amendment to the labor disputes law may make it easier for unions to vote on declaring a strike, but it bars workers from using strikes to pressure employers over “rights items,” including the terms of their contracts. The change facilitates the strike process while simultaneously offering exploitative companies new weapons against their employees.
At the same time, the Cabinet’s proposed amendment to the union law is a paradox worthy of George Orwell. The proposal purports to give way to demands that teachers be allowed to form unions, but contains a surreal proviso preventing colleagues at the same school from doing so.
These developments are reminiscent of the backhanded “concessions” offered in the Cabinet’s proposed amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). Given this, the goal of strengthening practical human rights legislation may be as unrealistic now as it was under the DPP.
Like the proposed assembly law amendment, which has stalled in the legislature for weeks because of its contentiousness, rights groups are concerned that the revamped labor dispute law in fact constrains basic rights while professing to do the opposite.
The legislature and Cabinet fail to recognize that the demands of rights groups concerning the assembly law and union laws are crucial for deepening Taiwan’s democratic freedoms. After Friday’s washout revision, it seems rights advocates are in for a long fight.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with