Contract WORKERS from public sector organizations recently staged a protest to demand that they be included in the Labor Standards Act (勞基法). Newspaper headlines stated that the Council of Labor Affairs and the Ministry of Civil Service tried to pass the buck. Reports on the issue were few, but reflect a big problem. It highlights the fact that there are 26,000 workers in the country whose unclear labor status places them in an awkward position, as well as the imbalanced design of the pension system and its lack of interoperability, both within the public sector and between the public and private sectors. These are issues we cannot afford to overlook as the government places an emphasis on revitalizing the work force to increase competitiveness.
Because contract workers in the public sector have not passed the national civil servant examination, they do not meet the Civil Service Employment Act’s (公務員任用法) narrow definition of civil servant. As a result, they do not enjoy the rights outlined in the Civil Service Protection Act (公務員保障法) or retirement benefits. However, because they may have access to confidential official information, they are still considered civil servants in the broad sense of the term. If they break any regulations, they are subject to the controls on civil servants as outlined in the Act on Discipline of Civil Servants (公務員懲戒法) and the Criminal Code.
They are not eligible for Civil Servant Insurance and therefore must register for labor insurance, but because they serve in the public sector they do not enjoy basic labor rights. During the recent protest, contract workers demanded that the Labor Standards Act apply to them and that their retirement benefits be protected as stipulated by this law. The government can meet these demands, but implementing thorough reform might involve a complete overhaul of the pension system.
The current pension system consists of many similar and parallel measures. In the public sector, the Civil Servant Retirement Act (公務人員退休法) applies to civil servants, the Labor Standards Act applies to laborers and drivers, while contract workers are not covered by any legislation. There is also a clear difference between politically appointed officials and bureaucrats, although both are civil servants. Teachers from public schools and private schools also have different pension systems. Elected local government officials are covered by the Civil Service Survivor Relief Act (公務人員撫卹法) and the Act Governing the Retirement and Consolation Payment to Political Appointees (政務人員退職撫卹條例), while no such legislation applies to legislators. There are countless examples of such parallel legislation, as well as many problems with linkages between the public and private sector, and the labor force in general.
The standard answer given to these issues by the Ministry of Civil Service is that contract workers have a severance savings fund to which the government and the contract worker pay a certain amount each month to be managed by the employer. In the future, if the legislature passes a contract worker act, public contract workers transferring to the private sector will be able to transfer their seniority, the money in the severance fund and accumulated benefits to the Labor Pension Fund, and they will then be able to apply for retirement in accordance with labor pension regulations and receive a regular labor pension.
This, however, is where the problem lies. A contract worker who in the future takes a job covered by the Labor Standards Law can apply their accumulated seniority and savings funds when applying for retirement, but what happens if the same person becomes a civil servant or if a worker covered by the Labor Standards Law becomes a contract worker? Transferable benefits have long been in use overseas and are coming into use in Taiwan. Why can’t we make a comprehensive plan for this?
The Examination Yuan is reviewing the lifelong employment system and will implement a strict retirement mechanism. More civil servants will take other positions or move to the private sector. Human concerns and the increasing mobility of the nation’s labor force make transferable benefits necessary and such benefits would solve many problems.
Ideally, each citizen should have an account that enables them to transfer their retirement benefits, regardless of whether they serve in the public or private sector. These accounts should be managed by government organizations or organizations entrusted by the government. Seniority, the funds in the account and accumulated benefits should be transferable between jobs until workers can enjoy their accumulated retirement benefits. Such systems exist in welfare states, so why hasn’t Taiwan done it?
At least in public institutions, the Ministry of Civil Service, the Council of Labor Affairs, the Central Personnel Administration and the Ministry of the Interior must be responsible for integration planning. It is not just contract workers that suffer from unclear work status. Politically appointed officials transferring from public schools can continue to make payments into their savings fund, while those transferring from private schools cannot; and their severance cannot even compare to the benefits enjoyed by temporary staff. Bureaucrats who transfer to government-accredited organizations associated with China affairs have their seniority discontinued and will lose their retirement benefits if they do not return to their original posts. Public school teachers who become legislators who do not return to teaching or who exceed the retirement age will also lose their job status.
On the other hand, care providers in child care centers set up for farmers in the busy season are not civil servants and their jobs are temporary in nature. However, legal amendments now allow them to include their time at such child care centers in the calculation of seniority for retirement for public kindergarten teachers.
The fact that these absurd cases exist clearly proves the necessity for planning a well-rounded system for transferable retirement benefits in Taiwan.
Tsai Bih-hwang is a member of the Examination Yuan.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS