Academics are misguided
The petition initiated by Lin Thung-hong (林宗弘) and Daniel Yang (楊友仁) and publicized on Monday’s front page left me stunned with astonishment and disbelief (“Academics call on government to curb Foxconn,” June 14, page 1).
Lin and Yang accuse Foxconn of exploiting its workers in China and, in the very same breath, condemn the government in Taipei for offering subsidies and “favorable policies” for them to relocate to Taiwan — along with all of the “associated social problems.”
First, exploitation is exactly what every single company worth its stock value ought to be doing to its workers, ie, making efficient use of their freely contracted labor to produce goods highly prized — and freely so — by millions of people right across the entire planet. Such tremendous exploits are deserving of an exalted place in human history.
Second, Chinese workers are suffering because of the government in Beijing, not because of Foxconn.
Does Foxconn fiddle the currency thus wreaking havoc on market prices?
Does Foxconn forcibly prevent Chinese people from creating alternative, trustworthy currencies with which to conduct market exchange?
Does Foxconn apply the threat of imprisonment in order to extract income from the workers in a myriad forms of taxation?
Does Foxconn threaten to imprison them or even kill them and/or their families for expressing pro-freedom views?
Does Foxconn restrict their access to the Internet on pain of imprisonment?
Does Foxconn try to steal their land and wrongfully evict them from their homes?
Third, although Lin and Yang are right to criticize the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for offering subsidies to Foxconn to relocate back to Taiwan, they do so for entirely the wrong reasons. Perhaps they could ask around and find out where Foxconn obtained its tainted Chinese subsidies in the first place — and the manner in which these funds were themselves “obtained.”
On reading such an astonishing example of moral and economic illiteracy, I reflect on the desperate need to cut the number of universities and colleges in Taiwan. In waiting for this to happen I can only hope that students will stand up and walk out of Lin and Yang’s classes if only to save their souls from any further contamination with such obdurate nonsense.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
RSS