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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS