Week after week, Taiwan’s rail workers have been criticized in the media, with reports saying they have no support from the public or political parties, and that they should all give in to government plans to change the Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) from a government agency to a corporatized entity.
Closer review, however, shows how the workers’ position — conveyed through the Taiwan Railway Labor Union (TRLU), the National Train Drivers’ Union and the Taiwan Railway Union — is perfectly reasonable. This is why they can win their struggle against some of the wealthiest and most powerful entities in Taiwan.
The most sickening step in the corporatization process is a huge land grab that would see the selloff or development of massive railway lands to clear the NT$140 billion (US$4.75 billion) debt accumulated by the TRA.
“Once you bring the word L-A-N-D into the discussion, the entire railway debate stops,” retired British architect Edward Ellis said in a phone interview from Kuala Lumpur.
Ellis worked in Taiwan from 2000 to 2005 at one of the two “checker” companies overseeing the construction of the high-speed rail (HSR).
“Every big land cartel and construction group will be out to grab the real estate, the crown jewels of the agency, and rail service will become a secondary question,” Ellis said. “The lack of transparency in this process has also failed to identify the bullies, the bankers, developers, contractors and speculators waiting for the slaughter — and their political and bureaucratic connections.
“Worse yet, these lands will bypass all regulations of the National Property Act (國有財產法) and Urban Planning Act (都市計畫法) to be like a slaughtered pig in a thieves’ kitchen,” he added.
Many properties will be “developed” in environmental or historically sensitive areas without public input. If such lands are railway property, then they belong to the state, and it should let the public and communities decide their fate.
As for safety, the bullies, with media complicity, have blamed the unions.
“There’s no perfect model for railways. Possibly the best approach was used in Britain in the 1980s before privatization when British Rail was divided into autonomous sectors,” said Bob Weir, a retired Scottish rail and station auditor who worked for four decades with the Taipei MRT, Kaohsiung MRT and the Taiwan HSR.
“The public should understand that it’s not the union’s role to oversee hazardous contractors, but that of an antiquated system,” he said. “The corporatist’s vision goes back to the Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher era, and has people believing all will be fine after the agency becomes commercialized. Yet, after privatization of British Rail began in 1994, major safety concerns arose after the Hatfield rail crash in 2000 and the Potters Bar rail crash in 2002, and British taxpayers still have to subsidize the private system.”
My inside connection at the TRA, who is on the management side, complained that workers come in late, leave early and slack off during the day.
The TRA is a public service aimed at serving the entire nation. Unlike the intercity HSR that zips between profitable cities, the massive TRA network struggles to join every whistle stop up, down and across the island. If commercialized, expect to see massive layoffs of TRA workers, many of whom are highly motivated, dedicated and skilled staff, but lack the “back door” ties to keep their jobs.
The new owners not only would sell or lease lands to their friends, but continually cut stops at non-profitable stations while abandoning the branch lines and rural areas. Morale will drop to new lows and disputes will increase to new highs, as seen in post-corporatized China Airlines.
Many people agree that the TRA needs to be recreated, but there is no need to sell the farm to modernize or to improve morale and safety.
For example, the TRA could consult with the world’s best rail experts — which includes those from Swedish, Norwegian and German rail systems — and could introduce dinner cars, Pullman sleeping cars, and luxury and sightseeing coaches. Train excursions to sites with camping, overnight stays or jump-off train stops would enhance remote communities.
It could also conduct promotions at international and national levels to get people using TRA services, especially during off peak hours, as well as mutually agreed worker-management protocols with better incentives and discipline.
The TRA should also consider restrictions on all patronage appointments, with all approaches by officials required by law to be recorded and published.
Finally, independent authorities should inspect contractors, operations and safety with prompt and strict action against offenders.
There is a lot more to be considered, but by co-operating with workers, Taiwan will keep on track.
Curtis Smith is founder of the Union of TAITRA Workers.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS