Following the suicide of a civil servant in the Ministry of Labor’s Workforce Development Agency (WDA) in November last year, the Executive Yuan launched an online workplace bullying reporting platform last month.
The system handles any complaints in a confidential manner, and the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration must follow up on how the ongoing cases are progressing.
The measure addresses the issue in the short term, but from a legal standpoint, certain problems remain.
How is bullying defined? Looking at Taiwan’s laws — excluding sexual harassment, sexual bullying or other aspects related to sex — the legal clauses involving bullying are essentially concentrated on bullying within school environments, and between teachers and students; it does not really touch upon the workplace.
Examples of that could be found in Article 15 of the Teachers’ Act (教師法), Article 31 of the Act Governing the Appointment of Educators (教育人員任用條例), Article 12 of the Statute for Preschool Educators (教保服務人員條例), Article 23 of the Early Childhood Education and Care Act (幼兒教育及照顧法) — which talks about the use of corporal punishment or the bullying of children or students — and Article 8 of the Educational Fundamental Act (教育基本法), which has sections on safeguarding students’ rights against mental or corporal punishment and bullying, and the formulation of an anti-bullying mechanism.
Regarding the workplace environment, be it in the Civil Servant Service Act (公務員服務法), which deals with public servants in government departments, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act (職業安全衛生法), which is responsible for what happens in the private sector, there are no specific clauses that deal with the issue of bullying.
Although Ministry of Labor directives on the prevention of unlawful infringements during the execution of official duties do touch upon the issue of bullying, these are at best only administrative rules and do not really apply to civil servants.
CLARITY NEEDED
Compare that with the situation in Japan, where workplace bullying has been explicitly tackled in labor laws since 2009. Japan’s labor laws define workplace bullying as words or actions in the workplace that are excessive and disproportionate to the scope of the business, and detrimental to the environment of the workers.
There has already been a considerable amount of research done in Taiwan on Japan’s legal system that policymakers can refer to.
The government needs to be clearer about what actually constitutes workplace bullying, and the legal distinction between bullying, actions that are necessary and proportionate speech, and actions in business. It should not simply put on a show of trying to tackle workplace bullying.
Until it does, the online bullying reporting platform is doomed to be unfit for its purpose, and would end up as just another waste of time and administrative resources.
Opposition parties in the Legislative Yuan last month proposed draft legislation for the prevention of workplace bullying, which still awaits review. If the government is truly committed to dealing with workplace bullying, it should propose its own legislative amendments or laws in the next few months that would serve as a solid legal basis to fight the problem.
Lo Cheng-chung is a professor and director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS