The China Airlines (CAL) flight attendants’ strike has been resolved and the rights and interests of CAL flight attendants have been guaranteed, which is a good thing.
However, responsibility for the NT$300 million (US$9.22 million) in losses that accumulated as a result of the strike should not be borne by the flight attendants, nor should it be borne by the public.
Instead, in the spirit of corporate governance, these losses should be borne by the top CAL decisionmakers who actions led to the strike in the first place.
After the airline has compensated travel agencies and travelers for their losses, claims for compensation should be directed to the chairman and the former president and of the airline in accordance with Article 23 of the Company Act (公司法).
CAL chairman Ho Nuan-hsuan (何煖軒) said that the strike resulted in losses of about NT$200 million in a single day.
It has been estimated that one day of compensation for travelers would cost about NT$100 million. About half of the airline’s NT$300 million loss is likely to be paid for by the public.
An examination of the airline’s ownership structure shows that the China Aviation Development Foundation, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, owns 34 percent of the company, which means that together with the Executive Yuan’s National Development Fund and Chunghwa Telecom Co, almost 50 percent of CAL shares are publicly held, meaning that about NT$150 million of the losses caused by the strike are likely to be borne by taxpayers.
According to Article 23 of the Company Act: “The responsible person of a company shall have the loyalty and shall exercise the due care of a good administrator in conducting the business operations of the company; and if he/she has acted contrary to this provision, shall be liable for the damages to be sustained by the company there-from.”
The airline’s top decisionmakers — according to Article 8 of the act, the term “responsible persons” includes the company’s managerial officer and directors — did not consider the rights and interests of the company’s flight attendants, which is what led to the strike.
Executive Yuan officials have said that the relevant authorities worked actively to handle the strike, but that former CAL president Chang Yu-hern (張有恒) was unwilling to cooperate and that he even refused to take a telephone call from Minister of Transportation and Communications Hochen Tan (賀陳旦), which caused losses to increase further.
This is sufficient grounds for saying that the people in charge of the company did not fulfill their duties and therefore should be held liable for the resulting damages.
Tourism industry associations, travel agencies and travelers are also demanding that the airline pay for the damages incurred.
Once the scope of the losses caused by the strike has been assessed, demands should be directed toward the people running the company — who were responsible for causing the strike and the resulting losses — that they pay compensation and meet the requirements in the Company Act that the people running the company “shall have the loyalty and shall exercise the due care of a good administrator in conducting the business operations of the company.”
The top CAL officials whose actions led to the strike, not the public, should be held liable for the losses caused by the strike.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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