This month, a worker at the Ministry of Labor who was allegedly bullied at work ended their life in their office. After the case came to light, an investigation by the Labor Standards Inspection Office of the New Taipei City Workforce Development Agency showed that its northern branch office “had yet to launch an investigation according to proper procedure” when the workplace bullying complaint was filed. This shows a lack of effective system protections.
Furthermore, it shows that Taiwan’s workplace bullying prevention systems are inadequate. The government should pick up the pace on establishing laws and regulations to protect workers’ rights.
Workplace bullying is an abuse of power and can arise from improper management, mismatches or misallocations of labor and work responsibilities, such as assigning too many duties, not directing other employees to assist, verbal abuse, exclusion, malicious accusations and other, more subtle means.
People who are affected by bullying often face enormous psychological pressure. Despite the partial guidelines established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (職業安全衛生法) and other regulations, most of them go no further than formalized preventative measures. They lack specific implementation details for handling post-incident rectification and prohibiting bullying.
When news of the suicide broke, despite the northern branch office having the Prevention Plan Against Unlawful Infringement in the Performance of Duties (執行職務遭受不法侵害預防計畫) on the books, it had yet to fully implement harm assessments and prevention training. It also did not handle complaints, which means the regulations effectively existed in name only.
In the follow-up handling of the situation, the New Taipei City Labor Inspection Office called for improvements within a specific time frame and ordered the perpetrators to pay at most NT$150,000.
However, monetary penalties are inadequate in creating impetus to curb bullying, to say nothing of protection and relief for the people who are targeted.
The laws say that workplace bullying does not include sexual harassment or criminal liabilities, and if a complaint lacks direct evidence, the majority of complaints end up going no further than an internal investigation.
Moreover, if links in the chain of command are responsible for the bullying — as seems to be the case in the suicide — then internal investigations often just become a formality and lead to “secondary abuse.”
Taiwan has yet to clearly implement legally unambiguous regulations to prohibit workplace bullying, as well as to punish bullies. The nation also has yet to provide a legislative basis for restitution. Nor has the government established an independent mechanism dedicated to handling cases. To prevent tragedies, the issue must be squarely addressed.
The law should unambiguously prohibit workplace bullying, stipulate punishments and liabilities for perpetrators and create mechanisms for people to pursue civil damages. Such laws should not only require that corporations transparently investigate bullying behavior, but also mandate that the government provide protections and penalize people who contravene the rules.
Tsai Li-hui is an assistant professor of English at St John’s University and Taiwan Higher Education Union’s St John’s division union convener.
Translated by Tim Smith
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS