Fri, Apr 10, 2026 page8

• Employers dodge disability quotas

  • By Hsiao Hsi-huei 蕭錫惠
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  In a society that prides itself on the rule of law, the presence of avenues for legally evading responsibility is more dangerous than the act of breaking the law itself.

  Under the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act (身心障礙者權益保障法), government agencies and companies of a certain size have a responsibility to employ people with disabilities. The quota is 3 percent of the total staff for the public sector and 1 percent for the private sector.

  The legislative intent of these measures is to correct systemic biases in the job market, enable disadvantaged jobseekers to enter the workforce, and establish essential dignity and independence.

  However, in practice, the system has deviated from this intent. The law sets a minimum for proportional employment and, in doing so, essentially reduces employer responsibility to a box-ticking exercise. As employers are only required to meet the minimum, with no obligation for continued improvement, they naturally opt for the lowest-cost option available.

  The key issue lies in allowing employers who fail to meet their quota to pay a non-compliance fee instead.

  The Ministry of Labor and local government statistics show that the funds raised from this fee have reached an annual total of NT$5 billion to NT$7 billion (US$157.49 million to US$220.49 million) in the past few years, with a persistently high net total.

  This suggests that not only are a large number of employers failing to fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the act, but also that the option of paying the fee has taken root and become institutionalized as an alternative.

  As for where the money goes, the fees are placed into local government employment funds for disabled jobseekers.

  These are primarily distributed as subsidies for employers of disabled people to support job redesign, occupational training, or jobseeker services.

  A portion is also allocated for central planning purposes. On the surface, these appear to be sound mechanisms to redistribute resources and promote employment.

  However, in reality, this represents a fundamental shift: The responsibility to employ disabled staff has been abstracted to the point that it can be substituted through institutionalized processes.

  Employers find it easier to pay than to make changes and, with that option readily available, continue to opt out. This is not simply a moral failing — it is the rational product of systemic design. The consequences are threefold.

  First is the disappearance of accountability. The price for failing to meet obligations is a simple fee, with no substantive follow-up, weakening legal constraints.

  Second is the misalignment of incentives. These minimize employer costs, but do not meaningfully increase the employment of disabled people.

  Third is a distortion of values. Equal work opportunities have been reduced to a monetary sum, further deepening marginalization.

  Even the government itself can circumvent and evade the regulations. When the state writes the laws and uses public funds to cover the stipulated non-compliance fees, it effectively creates an institutional self-exemption. Rather than creating opportunities, public funds are used to compensate for unfulfilled responsibilities.

  In the long run, this erodes public trust in the rule of law. The core issue lies not with individual companies or agencies, but with systemic design. When responsibility can be passed on or substituted with something that costs less than meaningful change and accountability mechanisms are absent, the system becomes a hollow formality.

  Reform must uphold a fundamental principle: Responsibility cannot be bought out.

  The non-compliance fee must be raised to a level that creates real pressure. Clear mechanisms to hold decisionmakers accountable for long-term non-compliance must be established. Institutional hiring barriers must be reduced by improving job redesign and accessibility support.

  Transparency must be strengthened by disclosing compliance status, allowing social oversight to exert pressure.

  Hsiao Hsi-huei is a freelancer.

  Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
• Most Popular

  • 1

    China reserves offshore airspace for 40 days without explanation: WSJ

  • 2

    Danish envoys’ privileges revoked over naming controversy

  • 3

    Foreign exchange reserves fall below US$600 billion

  • 4

    Universities neglect to warn students of China danger: MOE

  • 5

    Eight million barrels of oil to set sail for Taiwan this month