The Cabinet on Thursday last week approved several measures that would ease the limits on the number of migrant workers manufacturers may hire, along with allowing the hospitality sector and ports to recruit foreign workers. Employers would be required to raise the salary of their lowest-paid domestic worker by NT$2,000 for each additional migrant worker hired, and the total number of such recruits should not exceed 10 percent of their workforce. The Cabinet is also reviewing President William Lai’s (賴清德) proposal to expand eligibility for families to hire foreign domestic helpers.
These policies, while intended to address Taiwan’s numerous demographic challenges — record low birthrates, a rapidly aging population and worsening labor shortages — are part of a problematic trend. As the government eases restrictions on hiring foreigners, it does so without meaningfully improving working conditions. Issues such as low wages, a lack of labor protections and strict limits on job mobility remain unaddressed, even as migrant workers become an ever-larger part of Taiwan’s workforce.
Tying the hiring of additional migrant workers to a small salary increase for a local employee might seem like an attempt to protect Taiwanese workers and incentivize domestic hiring. In practice, however, it is unlikely to meaningfully benefit local workers and risks widening inequality. The measure would effectively give businesses a green light to bring in cheaper labor provided they make a token gesture toward fairness. In a sector already characterized by wage stagnation, this would deepen the divide between Taiwanese and migrant workers, and allow companies to avoid addressing structural issues such as low salaries and undesirable working conditions.
In criticizing the measure, Taiwan Labor Front secretary-general Yang Shu-wei (楊書瑋) posed a critical question: Are industries truly short of workers, or simply short of workers willing to accept low pay? This approach suggests the latter.
Lai’s proposal to expand the hiring of foreign domestic helpers has even more troubling implications. Unlike manufacturing workers, caregivers are excluded from the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) and lack basic protections such as minimum wage guarantees, overtime pay and regular rest days. Many routinely work long hours for below-minimum pay and have very few avenues for seeking help when faced with abuse or mistreatment.
While a decision on the policy’s implementation is not expected until the end of this year, the government should not move forward without developing a corresponding plan to address these long-standing issues. Expanding the scope of domestic caregiving without reforming its legal framework and establishing concrete labor protections would only reinforce patterns of exploitation.
Migrant workers play a central role in Taiwan’s economy. Their numbers have increased 15 percent over the past two years, with the majority employed in domestic caregiving, manufacturing and construction — all sectors marked by low pay, physically demanding labor and difficult working conditions. That figure would certainly continue to climb under the latest policy changes, but if legal protections and oversight fail to keep pace, Taiwan risks becoming entrenched in a labor system in which a growing share of its workforce remains underpaid and undervalued. Migrant workers are being treated as a stopgap solution to demographic decline rather than as human beings who deserve fair treatment and adequate legal protections.
By continuing to ease hiring restrictions on migrant workers without addressing their exploitation, the government is signaling to employers that exploiting them through low wages and minimal protections is an acceptable — and even encouraged — practice.
If migrant workers are to play an integral role in Taiwan’s caregiving and manufacturing sectors, then their rights and welfare must be treated as a matter of national interest.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS