The Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD,
The CEPD said that it is adopting the new policies in order to keep in step with the international trends towards liberalization and added that the competitiveness and returns on the funds must increase. The CEPD also claimed that setting assured rates of returns on the funds was "a lazy regulation."
These four funds are both public and social funds and consist of money deducted from workers' wages to provide workers and civil servants with retirement pensions, etc. The nature of the funds is not "competitive" or "profit-oriented." Rather, they should provide stable returns to protect the basic rights of workers.
The first wave of economic and financial crises has swept around the globe, and more and more people are realizing the damage that financial speculation has upon peoples' lives. Yet the CEPD is steaming ahead and allowing the funds to enter into speculative markets, something we have no choice but to question and oppose. In addition, the abolishment of the assured rate of return violates the second clause of Article 56 of the Labor Standards Act.
Some of the media has stated that the government should, "establish a healthy mechanism for managing long-term investments with the public funds."
We agree that the funds should not be viewed as the private property of the fund managers and that information about the funds should be both public and transparent. We believe the management of the funds should not be monopolized by the government.
We also advocate that labor representatives also take part in the supervision of these funds. Labor reps should make up two-thirds of the seats on the committee managing the labor pension fund, instead of the one-fifteenth at present. The present Labor Standards Law clearly states that pension funds held by businesses should be managed by a committee with at least two-thirds representation by labor.
Giving management of the funds to the workers is nothing more than returning what is rightly theirs. This should be the starting point for any reforms to the management of public funds.
Yang Wei-chung is executive secretary of the National Confederation of Trade Unions (
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS