Brendan Barber
General secretary, Trades Union Congress
Even on those rare occasions when shareholders get upset — only 18 pay reports out of the thousands voted upon in the past nine years have been rejected — the votes are not binding. If the government is pinning its hopes on shareholders to rein in top pay, then requiring remuneration reports to secure a 75 percent approval rating would be a good start. Putting workers on remuneration committees would also bring a much-needed dose of common sense to pay discussions.
Deborah Hargreaves
Director, High Pay Centre
It’s a shareholder spring. Shareholders have finally found their voice: It’s taken some time, but let’s hope it’s not the end of it. Companies should respond. Shareholders can do so much, but companies have to get their own house in order.
Companies have to realize they’re operating in a very different climate. Families are struggling to make ends meet. These rewards are not merited in any sense by company performance; companies need to build trust among the public.
Joanne Segars
CEO, National Association of Pension Funds
Pension funds have always tried to take this issue seriously. What I hope now is that we see action from companies. [Recent events do] show that pension funds take this seriously and that we have been putting increased focus on this since the crisis.
I don’t think pension funds are acting now [just] because the politicians are now interested in this. Quite clearly there are number of companies where performance doesn’t justify [the pay]. I don’t think this is a blip.
Simon Walker
Director-general, Institute of Directors
It is shareholder activism. It’s blossoming and spring is the right word as it’s not a summer yet. To me it’s capitalism renewing itself. Those of us who believe in free markets ought to be shouting from the rooftops. It’s happening now because times are tough. When there is a boom and money seems to be pouring in, I think people are less inclined to ask hard questions. When a company’s value is eroding, of course people, because of human nature, are going to be far more aggressive asking where the money is going.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS