System breeds mistreatment
The article about the President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s huffing and puffing over the arrest of its official by the FBI and disrespect for Taiwanese sovereignty and diplomatic immunity says a lot of what is wrong with Taiwan (“Light shed on Taiwanese official’s arrest,” Nov. 13, page 3).
Though only accusations for now, it is clear that here in Taiwan people care more about saving face and the “poor” official, and much less about what the official did or how it reflects on Taiwan.
Her behavior is all too common. A domestic helper is hired and then treated as property or an object, abused, mistreated, overworked and underpaid. The same pattern can be seen almost daily here in Taiwan as well. Domestic helpers or caregivers are treated as slaves who should be grateful for the chance they are given by their employers. Not all employers are bad or abuse the system, but from personal experience I know more of them verge on the negative side than those who follow their contract.
Domestic helpers who are hardly paid anything because their employers deduct money from their pay for food and even lodging; employers refusing to pay health insurance; caregivers that get only a few hours a month off, if that. These are not isolated cases. Domestic helpers are easy targets because they live and work mostly alone in the home of their employer. I know more than a dozen Vietnamese and Indonesian women who are living this hell right now. When I bring these cases to the attention of the Council of Labor Affairs, they are in no hurry to investigate.
The main problem here is that a foreign blue-collar worker has very limited scope for recourse. In Hong Kong, an employer would think twice before underpaying a maid or not giving her her allotted days off, because there is an official place where she can air her grievances and get a fair hearing. In Taiwan, chances are that if the domestic helper complains, the system will turn against her and she’ll end up losing her job, be detained or deported with no way to pay back the money she owes the broker in her home country.
It is time Taiwan showed it is an almost-developed country and treats everyone the same no matter what their position is. The government cannot control individual behavior of its citizens, but at least it could remove the official prejudice against foreign blue-collar workers. Taiwan needs them as much as they need Taiwan to build a better life for themselves and their families in their home country.
As for Jacqueline Liu (劉姍姍): Sorry, but from my personal experiences in Taiwan and what I have read, you are guilty as charged.
Geert Anthonis
Kaohsiung
Who informed Kane?
In the days following the “sell out Taiwan” op-ed in the New York Times on Nov. 10, there has been broad criticism of the logic of Paul Kane, a former international security fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. The moral and impractical aspects of Kane’s op-ed have been well documented. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that China’s reaction to such a proposal would be “Taiwan is already ours and the US still owes us US$1.14 trillion.”
It is curious how little the US media has delved into the reasoning behind such a ludicrous piece of writing. Nat Bellocchi questioned the thought process behind this op-ed on the part of both the New York Times and Kane (“Selling out Taiwan not an option for the US,” Nov. 20, page 8). While I certainly agree with Bellocchi’s outrage at the thought of selling out a free country for a defined amount of money, I would take his line of questioning up another level.
Who on the New York Times editorial board made the decision that such a flawed piece of work should be printed? It is one thing to have thought-provoking ideas, but the Kane op-ed is somewhere between a poorly conceived pick-up line destined for instant ridicule and a devious telemarketing scam that deserves a quick hang-up.
As for Kane’s motivation, I find it difficult to believe that someone of his background could write something of such questionable quality. My guess is that he is a shill for some agenda and simply wrote his name to take the flak for this trial balloon. An unsophisticated attempt to influence by a naive pro-China interest group? A devious attempt by US President Barack Obama’s administration to gauge public support for another source of spending? Penned and approved in a vacuum? I doubt it.
Carl Chiang
Richmond, California
There is a modern roadway stretching from central Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland in the Horn of Africa, to the partially recognized state’s Egal International Airport. Emblazoned on a gold plaque marking the road’s inauguration in July last year, just below the flags of Somaliland and the Republic of China (ROC), is the road’s official name: “Taiwan Avenue.” The first phase of construction of the upgraded road, with new sidewalks and a modern drainage system to reduce flooding, was 70 percent funded by Taipei, which contributed US$1.85 million. That is a relatively modest sum for the effect on international perception, and
At the end of last year, a diplomatic development with consequences reaching well beyond the regional level emerged. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as a sovereign state, paving the way for political, economic and strategic cooperation with the African nation. The diplomatic breakthrough yields, above all, substantial and tangible benefits for the two countries, enhancing Somaliland’s international posture, with a state prepared to champion its bid for broader legitimacy. With Israel’s support, Somaliland might also benefit from the expertise of Israeli companies in fields such as mineral exploration and water management, as underscored by Israeli Minister of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
RSS