Every time there is a report about a nanny abusing a child, there is a public outcry, but when it is no longer in the news, the government and business operators continue as before, without any concrete reforms.
My family has been looking for a nanny and it has been a frustrating experience, full of hesitation.
Whether a potential applicant suggested by the friend of a friend or the result of a “nanny Web site” search for caregivers in the neighborhood, each candidate tirelessly promotes themselves.
The self-promotion consists of two parts: On the one hand, they are trained and licensed, and have a space highly suitable for childcare. On the other, they are experienced and caring.
The first can be easily verified, but the second — the more crucial component — cannot be proved.
The government’s criteria for certifying a nanny’s character are sketchy.
For example, the only requirements in Taipei are that a person must be at least 20 years old and that the person, and anyone living with them, has no record of sexual assault, harassment, mental illness, or other physical or mental irregularities, or of having breached the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act (毒品危害防制條例).
The most an employer can do before signing a contract is to request that the nanny provide a Police Criminal Record Certificate.
As for whether an employer must sign a contract with a nanny, the government merely “encourages” them to do so.
According to the city’s sample contract, “if an employer wants to visit a child during childcare time, the nanny cannot reject or delay the request without proper reason.”
However, the sample contract also states that “an employer that wants to visit the child should avoid disturbing the daily life of the child and the nanny.”
In practice, it is difficult for parents to gain a deeper understanding of how their children are being treated. In other words, after handing over their child to a nanny, parents are powerless.
We felt helpless when searching for a nanny and remain worried after signing a contract. Every child is a family treasure and a national treasure — the birthrate is so low that it is jeopardizing national security — and the nanny issue must be improved immediately.
Several measures could help: A contract between the parents and a nanny should be required. To establish the practice, it might help if at first it was rewarded. A copy of the contract should be submitted to the local social affairs bureau.
When the childcare service ends — for whatever reason — the nanny should inform the bureau, and the information should be formally published on the local government’s online nanny matching platform.
This would not only facilitate childcare management, but also allow parents to verify applicants’ experience levels through their “service completion rate.” A higher completion rate would imply greater parent satisfaction.
New nannies could try to win parents’ trust by welcoming them to visit the childcare site at any time.
When signing a contract, a nanny should have two guarantors. It could be someone who lives with the nanny, neighbors or friends, and they should all share legal liability.
To a certain extent, the guarantors could pay continuous attention to the nanny’s physical and mental condition and press them to maintain an environment suitable for childcare.
Kao Ko-pei is a medical doctor.
Translated by Eddy Chang and 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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath