A decision by the New Taipei City Government to call a typhoon day on Tuesday, canceling work and classes in the city, was criticized by Keelung Mayor Lin Yu-chang (林右昌), who said it was politically motivated.
Lin said that he and Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) believed the decision was made out of fear that New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫), who was in Singapore at the time, would be criticized for not being in the city when it was hit by a typhoon. Lin criticized the city government for putting this year’s nine-in-one elections ahead of other considerations.
Typhoon days are often politicized in Taiwan and Tuesday’s controversy, along with a protest in Taipei the same day, only served to justify politicians’ concerns. Regardless of how cancelations are handled, there is always a segment of society that will be required to work, some because of the nature of their jobs and some because they commute between cities.
Citing the results of surveys it conducted, the Sales Worker Union said at the protest that during each of the four major typhoons over the past three years — Soudelor, Nepartak, Meranti and Malakas — more than 70 percent of department store sales clerks were forced to work.
Decisions regarding whether to work on typhoon days are entirely up to department stores’ upper management and sales clerks have no say in the matter, the union said, adding that employees are docked pay or fired if they do not show up.
Several unions protested the issue in June last year, with Union 95 president Catta Chou (周于萱) at the time accusing employers of profiting from typhoon days, saying that many people who have the day off would brave the weather to go to movie theaters or shopping malls.
Obviously there are occupations for which people simply must be on duty, such as emergency and police personnel, and those in the media, but those in non-essential jobs, such as customer service, should not be expected to show up for work when others have the day off. This is especially true given their lower pay and the reliance on taxis during typhoons.
Taiwan is not the only place where employers independently decide whether to cancel work, or where local politicians decide whether to close schools and offices. The US states of Florida and Louisiana, which are frequently hit by tropical storms, are employment-at-will states, where employers can legally terminate workers who fail to show up due to inclement weather. If employers there do cancel work, they are not obliged to pay hourly wages.
However, while state-level decisions on work cancelation make sense in the US, given the country’s political structure and size, in Taiwan these decisions are best made at a central level, which would take the pressure off politicians and prevent the use of such decisions to serve political aims.
It would also better ensure the safety of the public.
Lawmakers in November last year urged local governments to seek advice from the Central Weather Bureau before declaring typhoon days. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Ou-po (陳歐珀) at the time warned that leaving such decisions to local governments rather than professionals is risky.
Despite progress in predicting a storm’s intensity by including data such as sea-surface cooling and salinity levels, it is still difficult for meteorologists to make accurate predictions about tropical storms more than two days ahead of their arrival. Decisions about typhoon days must be left with the bureau, which can best judge a storm’s potential effects.
When a typhoon day is called, all non-essential workers must be permitted leave with pay.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then