Despite repeated promises from the government that it would do everything it could to improve the lives of ordinary people, it seems to be doing just the opposite.
Official figures released by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics show that as many as 1.68 million families in the nation have seen their incomes decrease over the past seven years, but the Ministry of Economic Affairs is nevertheless trying to halt a plan to raise minimum wage.
On the same day that the figures were released, Minister of Economic Affairs Woody Duh (杜紫軍) said that he had made a phone call to newly sworn-in Minister of Labor Chen Hsiung-wen (陳雄文), asking him to reconsider the plan to raise the minimum wage, and had received a positive response from Chen.
Apparently, Duh had made the phone call under tremendous pressure from the business sector, as business leaders who were invited to attend a meeting to discuss raising the minimum wage protested by refusing to appear. The Chinese National Federation of Industries also released a statement that strongly condemned the government for even considering to raise the minimum wage.
Duh said that he made the phone call because he had received many complaints from business and industry leaders, and agrees with them that the Ministry of Labor’s handling of the issue was inappropriate, adding that Chen agreed to show more “goodwill” to businesses.
While it is to be expected that businesses would try to lobby the government and lawmakers to maximize their profits, it is unacceptable to think that they might succeed in turning a policy decision around just by calling Duh and having him persuade Chen to change his mind, despite several promises by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to take good care of workers and the latest pledge by Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) to raise the minimum wage.
It might also remind people about how difficult it is for workers who have been laid off or are owed salaries or retirement payouts to ask for a meeting with officials or plead for help from the government.
Although labor authorities on central and local government levels have admitted that there were some administrative errors behind several labor disputes that triggered street protests in recent years, officials often insist that they were acting according to the law, and that, while they sympathize with workers, they could not make any exceptions.
Yet exceptions suddenly become possible when business and industry leaders want them.
When business leaders want to meet with officials, whether it is the president, the premier, ministers, or local government officials, meetings are quickly arranged; when business leaders ask for tax cuts, the government quickly arranges them; when business leaders express their desire for relaxed labor regulations, government officials come up with an idea that satisfies both their needs without breaking the law; and now, when business leaders are upset about the government’s plan to raise the minimum wage, they simply call the minister of economic affairs, who persuades the minister of labor to reconsider.
Businesses always argue that if the government grants them what they want, they would make more profit, in turn benefiting workers. However, history tells us that most of the promises from businesses are empty, as are those from government officials.
While the government’s favorable treatment of businesses might help them grow, businesses that rely so much on government policies are obviously not healthy and not truly competitive.
It is time for the government to honor its own words to the public, including workers, and let some businesses be eliminated through competition. Then those that survive would be truly competitive.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The