Despite repeated promises from the government that it would do everything it could to improve the lives of ordinary people, it seems to be doing just the opposite.
Official figures released by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics show that as many as 1.68 million families in the nation have seen their incomes decrease over the past seven years, but the Ministry of Economic Affairs is nevertheless trying to halt a plan to raise minimum wage.
On the same day that the figures were released, Minister of Economic Affairs Woody Duh (杜紫軍) said that he had made a phone call to newly sworn-in Minister of Labor Chen Hsiung-wen (陳雄文), asking him to reconsider the plan to raise the minimum wage, and had received a positive response from Chen.
Apparently, Duh had made the phone call under tremendous pressure from the business sector, as business leaders who were invited to attend a meeting to discuss raising the minimum wage protested by refusing to appear. The Chinese National Federation of Industries also released a statement that strongly condemned the government for even considering to raise the minimum wage.
Duh said that he made the phone call because he had received many complaints from business and industry leaders, and agrees with them that the Ministry of Labor’s handling of the issue was inappropriate, adding that Chen agreed to show more “goodwill” to businesses.
While it is to be expected that businesses would try to lobby the government and lawmakers to maximize their profits, it is unacceptable to think that they might succeed in turning a policy decision around just by calling Duh and having him persuade Chen to change his mind, despite several promises by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to take good care of workers and the latest pledge by Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) to raise the minimum wage.
It might also remind people about how difficult it is for workers who have been laid off or are owed salaries or retirement payouts to ask for a meeting with officials or plead for help from the government.
Although labor authorities on central and local government levels have admitted that there were some administrative errors behind several labor disputes that triggered street protests in recent years, officials often insist that they were acting according to the law, and that, while they sympathize with workers, they could not make any exceptions.
Yet exceptions suddenly become possible when business and industry leaders want them.
When business leaders want to meet with officials, whether it is the president, the premier, ministers, or local government officials, meetings are quickly arranged; when business leaders ask for tax cuts, the government quickly arranges them; when business leaders express their desire for relaxed labor regulations, government officials come up with an idea that satisfies both their needs without breaking the law; and now, when business leaders are upset about the government’s plan to raise the minimum wage, they simply call the minister of economic affairs, who persuades the minister of labor to reconsider.
Businesses always argue that if the government grants them what they want, they would make more profit, in turn benefiting workers. However, history tells us that most of the promises from businesses are empty, as are those from government officials.
While the government’s favorable treatment of businesses might help them grow, businesses that rely so much on government policies are obviously not healthy and not truly competitive.
It is time for the government to honor its own words to the public, including workers, and let some businesses be eliminated through competition. Then those that survive would be truly competitive.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS