Article 2 Definition; Article 5 Equality and Non-discrimination
Lack of integral anti-discrimination laws
According to Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Concluding Observations and Recommendations adopted by the International Review Committee in January 2017 during the review of the Second Reports of the Government of Taiwan on the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICCPR” and “ICESCR,” or “Two Covenants” as a whole), it is stated that the Taiwan Government have put forth various laws prohibiting discrimination based on certain types of grounds (such as the prohibition of employment discrimination stipulated in the Employment Service Law). However, the government is yet to draft an integral set of anti-discrimination and equality laws which not only further prohibits discrimination based on all types of grounds listed in the International Human Rights Law, such as gender, race, national origins, religion and disability, but also stipulates clearly the positive duties that the government and other duty-bearers should bear to achieve substantive equality.
We sincerely invite the Review Committee to support the recommendations adopted by the International Review Committee of the Two Covenants, in order to strongly encourage the Taiwan Government to implement comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions. Not only should such provisions encompass all forms of direct and indirect discrimination as well as positive duties which are legally binding to the public and the private sector alike, but they should also oblige the government to ensure formal and substantive equality for the people.
State does not provide a clear definition of reasonable accommodation
In response to Paragraph 7 of the State Report: while the Taiwan Government admitted that on their part, no clear definition of “reasonable accommodation” has ever been provided, their awareness of the issue never turned into self-evaluations with an aim to review relevant laws and proposing schedules and plans for making or amending laws. To be sure, the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act in place may reflect the idea of reasonable accommodation with certain articles: Article 16 stipulates that all public and private sector organizations should provide PWDs with “multiple appropriate assistances” when holding public examinations; Article 30 stipulates that the competent authorities in charge of education should, upon providing education and holding entrance exams for PWDs, provide resources in need to the PWDs based on the category and degree of their disability as well as on their learning and living needs, in order to create fair and reasonable opportunities and conditions for them to receive education and attend these exams; and Article 33 stipulates that persons with disabilities or their guardians may file applications to the competent authorities at all levels in charge of labor with an aim to receive individualized and professional occupational reconstruction services, such as “occupation redesign.” Yet, such individualized requests made by PWDs within educational institutions or in the workplace are often rejected. In fact, the People with Disabilities Rights Protection Act does not state clearly what the duties and who their bearers should be with regard to “reasonable accommodation,” nor does it provide objective criteria of the term “reasonable” or stipulate any penalty in case of denial of reasonable accommodation. According to the CRPD, reasonable accommodation should be practiced in every aspect of life additional to educational and professional realms. But since the idea of reasonable accommodation is not yet defined under Taiwanese law, duty-bearers who refuse to provide accommodations or enter into negotiations upon receiving requests from PWDs will almost not be deemed as behaving in a discriminatory manner. Such outcome is all the more inevitable when it comes to job-seeking PWDs, and remains unchanged despite efforts to solve the problem through litigation or administrative appeals.