In defense of foreign workers
Alex Jeo’s opinion piece “The foreign workers are the cause of joblessness” (Nov. 1, page 8) is errant nonsense, but at least stops a bit short of blatant xenophobia.
The “Three D” jobs of foreign workers in Taiwan — dirty, dangerous and disgusting — are universally eschewed by indolent, self-indulgent Taiwanese, who consider this work far, far beneath them.
Foreign contract workers are nominally paid the minimum wage, but most of them work vast amounts of enforced, unpaid overtime. They work through weekends, national holidays and often have no days off at all. Working without the protection of labor laws or effective legal recourse, they very often suffer conditions up to and including criminal abuse.
Their cheap labor means infrastructure projects beyond the means of the miserly taxpayers actually get finished. In factories and service jobs, their labor lowers the cost of living for all. As caregivers in middle-class homes, their dedicated work raises the productivity of countless professionals.
As gleeful consumers, foreign workers increase the domestic retail market beyond their numbers. Unlike voluntarily unemployed Taiwanese, they all pay income tax. And the money they send home is a drop in the bucket compared with countless trillions stashed away by rich, patriotic Taiwanese in banks and property around the world.
If Taiwanese, like Jeo, think that being a foreign worker is a parasitic gravy train, why don’t they take one of these jobs rather than sitting on their duff complaining. Fat Chance.
John Hanna
Taoyuan
Inching closer to conflict
Beijing’s “Taiwanese independence is the equivalent of war” assertion is an apt ending to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) statement: “There shall be no war during my presidency.”
Contrasting with Beijing’s matter-of-factness, Ma’s pronouncement is replete with venom, and the pith lies in what he didn’t say. He meant that the faux peace would hold as long as he occupies the presidency and would yield to war soon after he leaves office.
Washington and other governments’ hope for Ma to defuse the cross-strait ticking bomb should therefore be discounted, if not dashed. Instead, Ma is far more likely to make conflict a reality than when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was at the helm.
The seeds planted by Washington’s meddling in Taiwan’s democratic process when it sided with Beijing and hindered Taiwan’s referendums, or when it withheld Ma’s US naturalization records to ensure his election, could finally be bearing bitter fruits.
Following on the heel of the massive Oct. 25 anti-government rally, Ma unconstitutionally blocked any opportunity for Taiwanese to demonstrate in the presence of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林). Ma deemed that necessary lest protesters come out in droves and with such intensity as to prevent Chen’s visit from becoming a corner stone of Ma’s unification undertaking.
Meanwhile, Ma rejected outright Democratic Progressive Party Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) call for an open dialogue to debate the sovereignty issue.
Instead, Ma made it clear that Taiwan’s sovereignty is his to decide and that, by way of the March election, Taiwanese had already handed him that “mandate.” What’s being ignored is the fact that an unpopular government’s attempt at shoving a sea change — which could affect the lives of generations of Taiwanese to come — down the public’s throat is a perfect recipe for revolt.
Compounding that, Ma is trying to weaken opposition by unscrupulously practicing partisan justice and selective prosecution that portend coming frosts in Taiwan’s democracy, civil liberties and even human rights.
Thus, while shutting off the public’s peaceful recourse, Ma seems bent on enraging Taiwanese via dictatorial behavior hiding behind smiles, or even tears. That makes one wonder about Ma’s true motive.
This might be part of his plan at perfecting — both internationally and domestically — an environment conducive to the promulgation in Taiwan of China’s “Anti-Secession” Law. He needs turmoil to justify his introduction of the law, the enactment of which by Beijing was once termed “regretful” by the US State Department. He would then use the law and the accompanying martial laws to smooth the way for the inking of the cross-strait “peace” accord.
The chance that this dictatorial mindset could get a smooth sailing is remote.
Taiwanese independence sentiment, the very object of the “Anti-Secession” Law, appears to resurge in spite of being seemingly subdued following a string of pan-green setbacks.
After witnessing how Ma’s facade of “shelving sovereignty for the economy’s sake” could lead Taiwan astray, a growing number of Taiwanese now view Taiwan independence as the only long-term viable alternative to being under the rule of Chinese, be it the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Chinese Communist Party.
The battle could soon explode between Ma and Taiwanese. That wouldn’t bode well for cross-strait peace.
Washington’s saving grace, should it determine that it has seen enough of Ma’s antics, would be to quickly allow Taiwanese to hold an unshackled referendum on unification to decide whether or not they wish to let Ma continue his way of putting Taiwan on a course of no return.
A plebiscite might be the only thing that can restore some semblance of the merits of democracy for Taiwan.
HUANG JEI-HSUAN
Los Angeles
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with