Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Solomon203/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
THE BUSINESS PRACTICES of Taiwanese companies in Indonesia are under scrutiny after a number of cases in the last few months.
Last month, Indonesian environmental organization Aksi Ekologi & Emansipasi Rakyat visited Taiwan to call attention to environmental damages caused by Taiwanese-owned company Walsin Lihwa. Workers demonstrated alongside Taiwanese organizations such as the Taiwan Association for Human Rights and the Green Citizen Action Alliance, criticizing pollution caused by a nickel plant operated by Walsin in Indonesia, as well as a coal-powered plant owned by the company.
Due to industrial accidents at the plant, workers have reportedly died. Pollution affects local students from a nearby school 100 meters away, leading to skin conditions and breathing issues. In many cases, students do not have the money to purchase medical masks. The plant leads to not only air pollution, but also pollution of the water supply. This proves ironic when Walsin Lihwa otherwise has touted that it is engaged in a transition toward green energy. In response to such criticisms, Walsin claimed that information from environmental groups was “inaccurate.”
On a more positive note, Aksi Ekologi & Emansipasi Rakyat also met with the Control Yuan’s National Human Rights Commission, which promised to establish a point of contact to handle future environmental issues. DPP legislators Lin Yueh-chin and Chiu Chih-wei, too, spoke or issued statements in support of the organization, calling on the Chunghwa Post, a state-run enterprise, to divest from Walsin.
More generally, Taiwanese companies have been found to engage in hazardous and environmentally destructive practices in Indonesia’s nickel industry at companies such as Walsin Lihwa, as well as Yieh Phui Enterprise. Apart from pollution affecting the environment and devastating local fish from coal-fired power plants, deforestation, strain on watersheds, and changes in precipitation have been reported from the activity of these companies. Consequently, workers face long hours with low wages in hazardous conditions, and the food sustainability of local areas has been impacted.
Other cases in the past year return to worker firings conducted by Taiwanese companies. There are several cases in point. One notable example took place in a company located in Cakung, where an Indonesian worker was asked for a nude photo by her supervisor. When she refused, her employment was terminated. The company was owned by Tainan Enterprises.
The worker’s next move was to go to her labor union. Though the union requested an investigation by the company, the company never provided updates. Next, the worker in question went to a women’s aid organization.
It was found that the supervisor continued to remain in his position. The victim’s supervisor later reported her to the North Jakarta police for defamation. Though the company claimed that it was willing to provide a mediation process, it did not follow up on this.
Workers have been reported as having their contracts terminated as retribution for reporting cases of sexual harassment in Taiwanese-owned companies in Indonesia.
At the company in question, women were reportedly fired if pregnant. Otherwise, they were denied maternity leave, leave for miscarriages, and their annual leave. No chairs or other safety measures were taken for pregnant women, or even drinking water provided. Workers were instead made to purchase drinking water, even though this cost up to 7% to 8% of the salaries of lower-tier workers. Similarly, workers were provided minimal rations, consisting only of a fistful of rice, and so mostly had to purchase food outside.
Similarly, workers were denied rest periods. Furthermore, cases in which workers should receive severance pay were refused. A means of dressing down workers for mistakes during work existed as a disciplinary measure, and the movements of workers were restricted through other measures.
When workers’ contracts ended at the company, they were made to pay bribes to extend their contracts. This was a recurring practice at the company, rather than workers being paid out what they were owed at the end of a contract. This was part of a larger process of employment casualization at the company. This can be understood as a means of restricting workers’ right to unionize.
Indeed, major Taiwanese companies have been found to operate factories in violation of human rights standards in Indonesia. This includes electronics giant Pegatron. Apart from that racism in Pegatron factories led to favoritism toward ethnic Han, the company’s facilities lacked adequate workplace safety standards, particularly pertaining to hazardous chemicals. Workers were made to work night shifts without adequate compensation, and did not have transportation for night shifts. Furthermore, workers were denied access to medical records from check-ups and similarly had meager rations.
It is to be seen how to pressure the business practices of Taiwanese companies in Indonesia to improve their human rights practices, especially at a time when Taiwan seeks to expand investment and trade ties with Southeast Asian countries in order to reduce overreliance on China. If Taiwanese companies develop a reputation for poor human rights practices and worker mistreatment, it is hard to imagine that they would be able to do so in Indonesia.