Minister of Health and Welfare Chiu Tai-yuan (邱泰源) on Friday said the ministry supports keeping priority seats on public transportation, but is considering expanding the eligibility criteria and renaming the seats.
Chiu’s remarks came after local news media over the past few weeks reported incidents involving priority seats, once again sparking heated discussion about whether the seats should be abolished or regulations regarding them should be revised.
On June 11, an older woman asked a young woman on a Taipei MRT train to yield her priority seat. The young woman refused, saying that she needed the seat after working a 12-hour shift. After an elderly man intervened and an argument erupted, the young woman allegedly assaulted the man. Other passengers reported the incident to MRT security.
After they were taken off the train, the elderly man told the woman he would sue unless she apologized. The woman apologized, but then apparently suddenly started banging her head on a pillar repeatedly. She was rushed to a hospital for bleeding.
MRT security told the man that priority seats are for “people in need,” which does not only mean elderly people.
On Tuesday last week, a young man on an MRT train who said that he had diarrhea was yelled at and allegedly assaulted by an elderly man for refusing to yield his priority seat.
The Taipei MRT said that 22 of the 427 dispute cases it received from January to May concerned priority seats, accounting for 5 percent.
Every now and then, the priority seats issue comes under the spotlight following an incident going viral. The government has repeatedly cited the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act (身心障礙者權益保障法) to say that it could not abolish priority seats. The act stipulates that priority seats for people with disabilities, elderly people, pregnant women and children should be designated in public transportation.
The ministry last year proposed amending the act to add “anyone with genuine need” to the eligibility criteria, but it could not pass the legislation before the end of the legislative term. With new lawmakers in office, the amendment should be proposed again.
The ministry is also considering changing the Chinese name to “priority seats” (優先席), from the current name, which literally means “courtesy seats” (博愛座).
While the proposal to change the name and eligibility criteria was inspired by methods in some other countries, it is not clear how effective they would be in reducing disputes.
In Japan, aside from the same four designated categories as in Taiwan, signs near priority seats also mention people with internal disabilities. A survey in Japan showed that passengers’ willingness to yield their seat to others might vary based on what the seats are called.
In the UK, Transport for London offers free “please offer me a seat” badges, holds a Priority Seating Week to raise public awareness, and places signs around the seats with messages such as “please offer this seat,” “not all disabilities are visible” and “someone may need this seat more.”
In France, Paris has an order of priority, listing nine categories of people starting with military veterans and ending with elderly people aged 75 or older.
These countries are not exempt from disputes over priority seats. Before rushing to adopt other countries’ methods, Taiwan should conduct analyses, surveys and interviews to better understand passengers’ needs and concerns.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS