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
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS